Some rate Hop over Hagler others rate Hagler over Hopkins

True. The Hops that beat Tito would kill JT. By the time Hops fought JT i think his stamina was affected by making 160 all that time. His stamina is better now that he's in a higher weight class.

 

Hagler is soo fun to watch. My vote goes to Hagler who as others stated "always came to fight"

 

Hagler

 

Forgot to add that Hagler would ko Hop if they could both fight in their prime. I would bet the house on Hagler

 

Yeah and Duran would have beat Hagler in a 12 rounder, Hopkins would have finished off Taylor in a 15.

I can't believe nobody takes this into perspective.

 

I'll take Monzon and Hagler. Hopkins is in the argument but last night did little for me to bolster his legacy. Winky got old overnight and was far overweight and not nearly the fighter of even two years ago.

 

Amsterdam,you cant say if such and such guys fought over 15 or 12 this or this would have happened....Fact is hopkins knew it was 12 rounds v taylor and marvin knew it was 15 v duran...If its 15 the guy can be more patient and pace himself more,if its 12 you can go slightly faster....why didnt b-hop go at a faster pace v taylor if hes such a technical old school wizard? And duran has to beat marvin over 15 rounds in a 15 rounder,not 12....Fact is there are no more 15 rounders so b-hop should maybe throw more punches over 12,no?
I favour hagler for the reasons given by the thread starter and the fact that hagler fought against three atg p4p fighters who ALL won world titles at middle,and two of them at lt heavy.....Hoppos trinidad and de la hoya were much less successful at middle than hearns,duran and leonard,in fact de la hoya achieved nothing at middle and looked rubbish...
Also hagler avenged all the defeats he could,but couldnt get the second fight with ray.....Losing to JT in consecutive fights doesnt speak much for hoppo....hoppo is an atg yes,but not at the very top level of the other atgs....His fights in the last few years have been smoke screens and hand picked affairs.... Winky is never going to achieve anything above 160 and yet b-hop gets props in a lt heavy match for beating him? I respect him for beating tarver but how good is tarver currently? How good was de la hoya when they fought? And johnson? Hearns,duran and leonard were relatively young and in the case of duran/hearns still live contendors when they met marvin...
And the best middle that hoppo faced he decisively lost to...
No way is hoppo best middle and he seems pretty boring and dirty of late as well...I can appreciate the class of one like whitaker because while he had deft moves also actually bloody punched the other guy and had some workrate.....Finally,why does hoppo get props for longevity,dirtyness and holding? On this criteria walcott,foreman,john ruiz and fritzie zivic must be the greatest fighters of all times....Too much bias,excuse and smokescreen with hoppo.....Who also talks crap about knocking out this fighter and entertainment but never delivers....

 

Ok, since your kinda new here, Ill go easy on ya and just explain where your train of thought derailed so to say.

1- I rank Hagler over Hopkins slightly....wanted to get that out there.

2- KO% has NOTHING to do with how great you are. Pernell Whitaker has a lousy KO%, but is one of the best fighters of all time. KO's are good for the crowd, and to seal the deal, but are fairly even with UD's when assessing someone's career.

3- Most people feel Hopkins won AT LEAST 1 of the two fights with Taylor. You will be hard pressed to find ANYONE with a fair outlook on it give Taylor both. Plus, Hagler lost to Bobby Watts and never rematched him....same with SRL (tho like the Taylor fight, I feel Hagler won this one), so to say he wouldnt "LET" himself lose twice to someone is kinda off base....we will never know that for sure.

4- Cory Spinks is a VERY defensive southpaw.....which means (if you have any knowledge of boxing), EVERYONE will look bad vs him....win or lose. And just to be fair, Spinks is the former undisputed WW champ...as well as the former Jr MW champ as well. Has wins over Judah, Mayorga, Karmazin, Pineda, etc. The man is no bum....just a fright to watch, thats all.

5- Again, you mention KOs. KO is a win....UD is a win. Doesnt matter how you get the W in the end, as long as you deserve it.

6- Hopkins throwing 6 punches a round, as you said is not only inaccurate (you are aware that he landed more and at a higher % than Taylor did in both fights right???), but ridiculous. Fights arent scored on how many punches you throw...they are scored on Defense, EFFECTIVE Aggression, Clean Punching & Ring Generalship. You CAN throw less than your opponent and still win a round....

Now, from your name, I can assess that your an MMA fan, so your more into the blood and gutts....throw until you drop your opponent type of fighting. And there is NOTHING wrong with that.

But, that isnt all what boxing is about. Some people enjoy defensive fighters....master technicians. Fighters who outthink their opponents. Ones who will sit and wait on openings and immediately exploit them when they open. And again, there is NOTHING wrong with that.

What is wrong, is when a person such as yourself, doesnt enjoy one aspect of the sport, so they immediately discount a fighter because they dont fight in the way they enjoy.

Do yourself a favor, learn about the sport.....figure out what makes the sweet science sweet. If you still are into the KOs, fine...just understand, just because someone doesnt KO someone, doesnt mean they lost the fight.

I hope you learned something!!!

:hi:

 

Hagler was the complete package- a hungry Hagler wins against B hop..is he still living in Italy??

 

Well, Hopkins has had to pick his spots a lot more and his workrate has gone down as he's aged. He wasn't really like that before, but since the 3rd Robert Allen fight on, his workrate has been considerably lower and he's had to pick more spots.

I don't really mind either guy being ranked above the other, I see the arguments for both sides, I don't think either guy is considerably higher than the other.

As for skills, both guys were complete fighters. They were good boxers who could brawl as well. Hopkins is a little slicker and quicker, although Hagler had some nice parrying skills. Hagler is heavier-handed, had a superior jab, and showed a little more IMO in terms of brawling, in his wins over Hearns and the latter rounds with Mugabi.

 

Hopkins is the best middleweight ever. He is technically better than Hagler, and outside of strength, he has all of the advantages over Hagler.

 

Sues2nd,Hagler rematched bobby watts twice and beat him both times,both by stoppage i think. He also beat willie monroe twice after losing,and avenged both of his draws with stoppages against antuefermo and sugar ray seales....The only losses or draws that hagler didnt avenge was the one defeat against ray leonard....
Bernard has not avenged any of his defeats,but has avenged his one draw....

 

Haglers only performance that had me confuses was against Duran- Hopkins would not beat a prime Hagler- stronger, better chin, that jab, the attitude etc

 

1. Monzon
2. Hagler
3. Hopkins

thats how i have it.

Yes B-Hop was great, but i always question that how would they go in the ring against each other.

and theres no way Hopkins would beat Hagler. i mean Hopkins lost twice to Taylor. and no matter how many people argue he won at least 1 of those fights. for me and everyone else out there it says he lost.

Hagler has more fans a better fighting style and even though he doesnt have the wins B-Hop has he will always have that one night where there was 3 crazy rounds of 2 of the greatest fighters we have ever seen.

B-Hop's best fight was against Trinadad and Trinidad was now where near Tommie Hearns.

 

In record maybe? Or in age . . . yes. But in the way in accomplishing victories it's still Hagler.

Hagler is not over rated . . . in fact he is under rated. The guy is not a big talker and not a HYPED fighter.