Mavin Hagler Eats Bernard Hopkins

You have mine!:good

 

respect that is lol.

 

lol ok son ill take your advice lol i never said he was one dimensional dummy learn how to read

 

i think manassa thinks im knocking hagler and im not i could write an article on hagler and how good he was so dont be mad its only my opinion

 

No, both Hopkins and Hagler were very versatile fighters.

Hopkins started off as more of an attacking right-hand puncher, but as he got older, became more tactical, and as you've seen the last few years, he picks his spots a lot and has a low workrate.

Hagler is sort of the opposite, whereas he was a boxer-puncher throughout most of his career, but became more of a brawler toward the end of his career, such as the Hearns fights and the late rounds versus Mugabi.

Hagler had heavier hands, a better jab, and was a little more proven when it came to brawling it out with big punchers. He took some big shots from Hearns and Mugabi. He changed his style to be more aggressive against the rangy, terrific boxer in Hearns and outslugged him. He jabbed the hell out of Mugabi, but eventually it was the bodyshots and in-fighting which took it out of The Beast. Hopkins's best brawling performances against big punchers weren't quite as impressive, but B-Hop is a little slicker and quicker than Hagler, IMO. He uses angles very well and is not only extremely crafty, but is also very experienced against southpaws.

I rank Hagler all-time on the MW rankings mainly due to his superior opposition level on the way to the title, but I would actually pick Hopkins to win a close decision head-to-head over Hagler.

 

Marvin Hagler UD12 Bernard Hopkins

 

Yeah it was only that for Hagler.

It had nothing to do with his brilliant jab, underrated parrying skills, lateral movement, considerable power, combinations, ability to fight from either stance, etc...



Funny thing is, I'm not much of a Hagler fan at all. But I always seem to be defending him against people who understate his skill.

The "Hagler was a brawler" myth is one of my boxing pet peeves.

 

look at the pace he set in all his fights man thats what i mean about strength and conditioning and if you want look at his tapes look at the vito antuofermo fight look at the marcus geraldo fight the duran fight and then some the guy set an amazin pace each time and the antuofermo fight was 15 rds so was the duran fight

 

Uh... In not so many words, you did:

Even though he outboxed half his opponents? Bennie Briscoe, Willie Warren, Vito Antuofermo, Mustafa Hamsho, Tony Sibson... Need I go on?

You make various other references to Hagler's limited skill set throughout your post, or how Hopkins' is much better all-round. This is simply not true, and anyone who knows a prime Hagler will almost definitely agree.

Another major flaw with your argument; you allow Hopkins some slack with regards to him being past prime against Eastman or whoever, yet you are unforgiving of Hagler - he was well past his prime against Leonard. He was on the slide against Hearns, believe it or not. Take it from me, I own every filmed fight of Hagler's and have watched each one three, perhaps four times - his peak ended in '83.

 

Anybody who has seen earlier Hagler fights than Hearns and Mugabi will realize how complete of a fighter he was. He had great boxing skills, a shotgun jab, he was a tremendous counter puncher, he was a complex fighter on the inside, good speed, and great power. Anybody who claims Hagler was just a come forward brawler doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

my intentions were not to say hagler didnt have skills i know what skills he had and i too my friend have an amazin collection of fights from hagler myself my point is simply i think hopkins wins the fight enoigh from me ok i dont have time t o debate with you all day if your from ny lets meet id be glad to talk boxing anyday with ya

 

all be it said and done read these reasons i think he is the best mw all time then and see if i dont know what im talking about . just because i think hopkins beats him dont mean i dont see him as the best

 

Here it is. The reasons I have for placing Marvelous Marvin Hagler ahead of even Ray Robinson, Carlos Monzon, and Harry Greb in the all-time rankings at middleweight.
1: Consistency. Hagler started his career with a 26-fight unbeaten streak. After dropping two of three fights (to Bobby "Boogaloo" Watts and Willie "the Worm" Monroe, both close, both in Philly), Marvin went 37 more fights without a loss. In other words, for 14 years, 67 fights, you could bet that Marvin Hagler was showing up to fight, to win, and over 90 percent of the time he was going to get it done. Check his winning percentages against the other guys. If Hagler had fought as many times as Robinson, he'd have lost about 10 fights. Sugar Ray lost 19. When Robinson was off, against Turpin, Basilio, Fullmer: he lost. When Hagler was off, he was robbed in a controversial draw against Antuofermo, or had to rally to pull out the win over a resurgent Duran. And we won't mention the poor strategy that turned what should have been a late TKO win over Leonard into a split decision loss.
2: The tools. How many other fighters have had the physical package that Hagler did? He ranks near the top of the middleweight heap in nearly every category of skill and talent. Who had a better chin? Maybe LaMotta? But even the bull was stopped by Robinson. Who was stronger? Greb has a case, but it's hard to see even the Human Windmill pushing Hagler around. There've been harder hitters, but then, beyond a certain point punching power becomes extraneous. Hagler had enough to close the show against top fighters. Speed? So Hagler was a hair behind Robinson and Leonard. So was everybody else. He maximized his speed with a deceptive reach (ask Tommy Hearns) and superb timing. What about the now-underrated boxing skills? Starting with the second Hamsho fight, Hagler built a reputation as a stalking, menacing bomber. But prior to that, Hagler was often regarded as a 'cutie', controlling pace and distance, counterpunching, and tricking opponents into setting themselves up. And when it comes to footwork, there's more to it than Leonard doing laps around the ring edge. Hagler was a master of positioning and keeping opponents where he wanted them. Too bad he forgot he was so good at it for the first half of the Leonard fight.
3: Simple. He wanted to be the best, so he was. What a concept. Actually, it goes a little deeper. He wanted to be the best, so he put in the work he had to to get it done. Hagler was never even a little out of shape, he was never unprepared for an opponent, he never half-assed it in the ring. The Duran fight, one that always draws a lot of criticism, was a result of Duran pulling a surprise style change. The first Antuofermo bout was a first matchup with a tough, awkward opponent. And Sugar Ray, well, Marvin let his head get a little in the way of that one.



I never said he wasnt great or lacked skills just think Hopkins has the style to beat him ..... just an opinion dont attack me on it :good