Mavin Hagler Eats Bernard Hopkins

Lets be realistic here.
Two great fighters. But one is superior and that is without a doubt MMH.
No debate,No questions MMH is better period.

 

Pjo479, what a confusing poster you are.

 

nothing confusing about what i wrote. you insinuated basically that i know nothing about hagler . well there are my reasons i think he is the best middleweight of all time , it certainly doesnt mean he could beat hopkins so im done here say what you will its your opinion im not here to argue

 

When some of you guys are picking Hagler, I think I know some of what you're seeing. You are picturing the older Hopkins not being able to match Hagler's pace, nor output. Hopkins is 42 years old now. Ten years older than when Hagler faced Leonard. 8 years, if you take some peoples claim that Marvin was 2 years older than is on record. Hopkins was 37 when he faced Trinidad. That's 5 years younger than Hagler was in the Leonard fight, 3 in Hagler years.

Saying a prime Bernard could not match his pace is not accurate. Bernard was able to be very physical over the course of a fight, and I don't doubt his ability to go 15 rounds. Hopkins would have a significant size advantage, good mobility, good defense, a great chin, and great stamina. Hopkins would be the best fighter, at middleweight, that Hagler ever faced. You can argue Leonard, Hearns, or Duran at their respective weights before meeting Hagler, or in a pound for pound way.

I think that Bernard's defense, movement, and one-two are too much for Hagler to overcome. Hopkins by decision.

 

I favour Hagler, but to suggest Hopkins could beat him is hardly outlandish.

 

Hagler, by close but clear decision.

I think Marv's relentless workrate down the final stretch of Championship rounds will make all the difference. :good

 

Me too. You're correct it'd be a close'un.

 

Yep, his evil, exciting twin. Hagler would open up a sizeable lead, ala Taylor, but when Hopkins comes on in the second half, Marv will just love it. Hagler UD.

 

I've always felt the same way about Hagler and Duran. I'm 44 and when I first started watching boxing it was Duran and Hagler that hooked me. Either one of them were amazing to watch and I remember thinking that nothing short of death was going to stop Hagler in that Hearns fight. It was amazing. Having said all that, I do think a prime Hagler beats a prime Hopkins based on skill and determination, but it wouldn't be a huge upset if Hop won. Unfortunately when fighters like Hagler or Duran retire they become legends, myths even, and of course when you compare a modern day fight to a legend or a myth, they're going to fall short. In this case I do think Hop falls short, but not by much..

 

I agree and said as much. Once a fighter becomes a myth he becomes almost indestructible. Any thread on Ali's faults? I didn't think so. (actually if there is I missed it) Not that I don't love Ali, but he was far from perfect.

 

Hopkins is also brilliant vs lefties. Strategy, adaption and difficulty of adapting to is where Hopkins shines in this one

:good

 

Regardless of who was better, I think we can say that Hopkins was a poor imitation of Hagler on the image side of things. Hagler had a lot more dignity:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Even mid-action, there is a difference. You'll never catch Hagler in these sort of situations:

This content is protected

This content is protected

Look at the difference in their expressions:

This content is protected

This content is protected

I've always thought Hopkins was trying too hard to get people to think he was tough. He was tough, but he wanted everyone to know it, unlike Hagler, who was a much more effortless hardnut:

This content is protected

This content is protected

Not that this matters a whole lot, but it's the reason I prefer Hagler.

 

I think Hopkins is a bit overated due to his lack of top competition,but no one devours him,he could hold his own with any top 160 pounder,imo,hagler and Monzon included,but I would pick both to beat him by dec.

 

Hagler did what he did very well, but he did not do everything. He did not have the ability to solve the greater puzzles. Everyone always says that Hagler had an 'off night' when he fought Duran. He had an off night because Duran showed up who could feint and move well but did not have the strength to pull it off.

Hagler’s boxing ability was decent, but has lately been over glorified. He out boxed a lot of 'out-boxables' if you catch my drift. When did Hagler ever dissect a technician?

Hopkins has the tools - the strength, the inside ability, and he'd use the possum tactics to frustrate Hagler to a UD.

 

pjo welcome to the forum.

You should listen to Manassa. Only he and I have seen all the Marvelous one's taped fights while you only have access to Espn big fights-Mugabi, Leonard and so on.

I'm not as old as you but even so, I really was watching Hagler in his prime after winning the championship. I remember his reputation at the time and can say he was as anonymous as any CBS sports Saturday fighter out there except that he held a title.

I see this as a one way whipping for Hagler. Bernard is fortunate he wasn't around in Hagler's day as was the case when Roy jumped from 160 to 168. He would have found the step up in class much too advanced for him.

As you can see from the above photos, Hopkins was an inferior version of Hagler. That is to say, as a physical specimen, Hagler was more refined physically and also the superior genes for warfare. Hopkins was tough but not as tough as Hagler. Hopkins was durable-more than durable when it came down to his opposition but is not in the super-elite class that Hagler is.

Only in the category of stamina did Hopkins come close to Marvin in prowess. Hopkins was workman-like in his style as described or blue collar, while Marvin was far, far more.

Marvin didn't have the burden of better than average talent (power, speed, mobility, so on) as was the case with Hopkins.

Bernard couldn't take out Roy.

He hit him enuff downstairs and upstairs. Roy was never in trouble and never so much as staggered. And it took him 600 blows or so to bring down a smaller and weaker Tito Trinidad. He should have taken him out sooner but he was taken the limit-almost to the very end. If that's the best he could, do forget it!!

Bernard was used to fighting boys but not men in the ring. I have to ask you, what if Hopkins had a real opponent on his hands? A demanding opponent who could lay you out with either hand? Say an opponent like Roldan?

I think Roldan would have knocked him out the night he went in with Hagler because the fact he was so determined, well prepared, and powerful. What would really cost X is his inability to bang. I hate to say this, but as tough as he is, he'd be no match for Roldan when he fought Hagler.

As for MMH, Hagler's footwork alone would have baffled X and X would not be able to execute with Hagler's ramrod jab spearing him, busting him up. There's no way Hopkins is getting past Hagler's jab. Remember, Hagler was able to move much more effortlessly in the ring than Hopkins.

So if Hagler wanted to he would tame X on the outside and even on the inside, Hagler wins.

X would have to get inside and work Hagler because he'd find that's his only shot--unless he wanted another Roy Jones situation on his hands where he falls behind on the scorecards.

Pjo, if you could look on all the Hagler fights you don't have, pressing a young Hagler is too dangerous (there is no way Hopkins takes more than a few minutes of that right hook). Sensing that Hopkins is fading, Hagler goes on the offensive like he did with Obel and Sibson and launches an all out assault, becoming the first man to knock out Hopkins (he does so with surprisingly little effort)

He's just on a whole other level