People Fault Hopkin's For The Jones Loss...

Hopkins was at the same stage of his career when he lost to Taylor as Hagler was when he lost to Leonard. I personally feel that is obvious by how each man looked in the ring at and around the time of these fights compared to a few years earlier when they were in their primes.

Hopkins deserves credit for what he has done in his 40's because he had been clearly past his best since the Joppy fight, as he never again looked to be on the level he was before and through this fight, so B-Hop beat DLH, Eastman, Wright, and Tarver when he was obviously (by simply watching him in the ring) past his prime. Plus, even though he was less ring worn than Hagler was by the time he was 32, the physical advantages you lose at 40 are going to come, whether you've been boxing for 20 years or 5 years.

 

All true. Hopkins is a trooper though, I give him credit for that, and be able to have success when past his prime, whereas Hagler was pretty much done after the circumstances of the Leonard bout.

Their careers played out in different ways, I just think Hagler accomplished more in terms of fighting quality opposition, though Hopkins is making more of a run in that sense while past his prime than ever before.

 

Completely disagree, Hopkins was far far far further past his prime at 40 than Hagler was at 32. Hopkins physical prime would have been from 28-32, his physical level markedly declined each year after this, his technical prime in terms of skills may have hit around 32-35, but if you compare the physical output of a 32yo BHOPs to a 40yo BHOPs it is far more of a gap than the physical disparity between Prime Hagler and a 32yo Hagler.

Its a testiment to Hopkins that he has kept on top of boxing despite being way way past his physical prime. Hagler never attempted to keep boxing when he was past his significantly past his physical prime and I doubt he would have been as successful as Hopkins into his 40s

 

I'm as big a fan of Hopkins as anyone else, but I too feel Hagler accomplished more in terms of quality opposition. I love seeing guys argue in Hopkins' favor, but some of the posts (most of them were trying to argue with you) are simply ridiculous when trying to argue that Hopkins' list of opponents at 160lbs are on the same level of Hagler's.

I'm kind of on the fence as to whom rate higher P4P, but if Hopkins can pull of a win over Pavlik it will be enough for me to feel confident in placing him above the Marvelous One.

 

He wouldn't have, but the point is that Hagler had far more fights and had been fighting longer when he was 32 then when Hopkins was 32. By looking at each man's absolute best performances and each man against their respective conqueror, they both look quite equally past their peak., you can't simply compare age because Hopkins started later and had less fights.

Part of the reason I would favor Hopkins over Hagler when ranking them P4P is Bernard's continued success after his prime, something Hagler never had.

 

Wait 10-15 years and everybody thinks Hopkins opposition was as good as Haglers. Look at the press of every era, despite some exceptions they are always mourning that the fighters of their era aren´t as goo as the fighers of the past. and then, 10-15 years later they were good and the current fighters are shyte. That happened with Hagler´s opposition and it will happen with Hopkins´.

 

Hopkins was past his physical prime, but most of his success actually came in those years in case you missed that part of the equation. Considering he started much later than Hagler, his career bloomed much later and he was hitting his prime by the time Hagler was already finished. Hopkins's prime skill-wise and in terms of ring smarts and whatnot has been in recent years.

Only his physical prime has been gone for a while. The comparisons you're making between the two are so inept it's laughable.

 

I just don't understand how anyone can compare their resumes at MW and come to the conclusion that they're even. If you know the fighters in question, you know very clearly that Hagler fought the better MW's.

Hopkins has the edge in longevity, and he was able to move up in weight(to his natural weight) and beat two other notable fighters. But at MW, Hagler's opposition reigns superior.

 

Your oppinion, not fact.

 

Allied to the fact that this success was up another division and he beat the best 175 of that time for the title where Marvin stayed put. It puts him a little ahead for me P4P but others milage may vary.

 

I know very well that Hamsho, Sibson, Roldan, and the majority of Hagler's middleweight opposition were superior to the likes of Eastman, Joppy, David-Jackson (but their not on different levels), and I can see why this would make you rank Hagler higher.

Personally, I feel Hopkins' beat his challengers in more impressive fashion overall (I know you disagree with this), he has had multiple wins, all of them top level wins, past his prime where as Hagler really had none, I feel Bernard would win H2H and have always considered him the slightly superior fighter when taking everything in (I know you disagree with this as well), and Bernard had success above his NATURAL weight. Hopkins made 160lbs for 15 years and often came in under 160lbs, he was a middleweight just like Hagler was, but Hopkins could have success up in weight because he had superior footwork, defensive skills, and IMO was the smarter fighter, where as Hagler depended more on his punching power and physical strength more so than Hopkins did. That's why I consider them virtually even and probably would lean towards Hopkins.

 

When Hopkins was at middleweight he wouldn't go above 166lbs between fights and he had a 28 inch waist. Not sure if Hagler liked a beer or a burger between fights, but Hopkins certainly never.

And with Hopkins weighing 156lbs for his fight with De La Hoya in 2004 he could have made jr middleweight no problem five years earlier when he talked about fighting De La Hoya at 154lbs.

 

Yes, Hopkins had no problems making 160lbs for 15 years, I don't feel that he ever looked weight-drained on fight night, he could have made 160 in any era whether it was day-before weigh-ins or day-of weigh-ins.

As far as Hopkins' enjoying a beer or a burger between fights, I'm pretty sure I saw somewhere that he was a vegetarian excluding Buffalo meat, which for some reason he's fine with eating. I'm not sure where, but I remember hearing this.

 

Well I'd favor Hagler over Hopkins head to head as well. Interesting debate, but we just disagree.

 

It would be an interesting fight. IMO a stoppage is not happening. Hopkins' defense and durability would mean he'd withstand Hagler's punches, although that depends to a certain extent how he fights and how long their is fierce exchanges during rounds. However, Hagler doesn't quite have the chilling power required to floor or stop Hopkins. And Hopkins for sure isn't stopping Hagler.

I watched Hagler-Minter last night.