The big 4 VS.The big 4 of our generation

Ill just quote that, considering there was alot of the same in many of your posts...but as always with Bernard, you are FAR underrating his skills.

NO WAY Hagler had better movement than Bernard. Saying that is ridiculous. Its not even close. Hopkins in and out movement, as well as side to side movement BAFFLES even the best fighters...While Hagler was a more come forward type guy. Footwork, movement, even footspeed (if we are talking prime for prime) is FAAAAAAAAAAR in the favor of Bernard.

Also, what about defense? Hagler wasnt 1/1000th the defensive fighter Bernard is/was. This isnt even close. Or timing? Accuracy? Ring Generalship (or better yet, making the opponent fight HIS fight)? Ring Intelligence? Counter punching?

I could keep going....Hagler isnt in Bernard's league in these areas.

I would agree wholeheartedly that Hagler would have the edge in power, strength (tho close in this one), workrate and handspeed....but be serious about the other things you said.

I still cant get over you saying Hagler had better movement than Hopkins? Do you really believe that?

Sweet Pea, ya know I got love for ya bro....but if you really feel that way, your love of older fighters has crossed into a new realm.

 

deal:deal

Exactly, Great post mate. Couldn't have said anything here better:good

 

Thanks! :thumbsup

I mean.....he did say movement right??? MOVEMENT?????!!!!

Thats like saying Ricky Hatton got a better tan than James Toney.

Hopkins movement was/is among the best EVER in the sport...while it may have been Hagler's biggest weakness.

atsch

(I think I need to go back to sleep...I couldnt have really read that...)

 

Dude I hope you're either

1. Very young; or
2. just playing, LOL

atsch :roll: :rofl

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Trinidad, Mayweather, Mosley and Hopkins are not Big Four...but whatever:

Hagler vs. Hopkins...Hagler SD12
Hearns KO6 Trinidad
Leonard UD12 Mayweather
Duran UD12 Mosley


The Big Fours of our era are Pacquiao, Barrera, Morales and Marquez or De la Hoya, Trinidad, Mosley and Vargas.

 

Pick em fight for Hagler and Hopkins. It would be Hagler's grit and Hopkins tricks.

Hearns would KO Trinidad within 8

Leonard would beat Mayweather. Too much for Floyd imo.

Duran over Mosley. Too much skill. Duran is a better Cotto.

 

Ummm, no.

Vargas? Based on what now? His win over Quartey? Or his very close, very contested win over Wright? Or was it his loss to Tito, Oscar, Mosely, Mayorga? Or his 6 defenses of the IBF LMW title?

Or Marquez? Again, this must be based on something right? His wins over Peden, Juarez and old Barerra? Or his close losses/draws against John and Pacman?

The others you can make an arguement for, but I think the original point of the thread was to pit the top LW, 2 WWs (Trinidad and Mayweather) and MW of this generation...not to really take the top fighters of this generation.

My vote for top 4 would be Jones, Hopkins, Calzaghe and Mayweather if that were the case...

 

Then again, you think he'll beat Calzaghe. So I could argue that it's opposite extremes we're dealing with here.

I didn't say he had better movement than Hopkins, I said Hagler's movement was quite underrated, something that can only be seen having seen the majority of Hagler's fights, and I'm referring to a younger Hagler here, once again, not the Hagler that faced Duran, Mugabi, etc.

And again, if you read my posts, you'd see my reasoning for that, as Hopkins's movement didn't start to truly become a large part of his game until his later years. Watch a prime Hopkins who had no problems with staying in the pocket and showing off his inside skills, or throwing combos within range and fighting on the attack. Once his physical ability started to wane, he started to rely more on using movement, pot-shotting, clinching, etc.

Since this is a prime for prime matchup, we're matching up a Hopkins who moved less with a Hagler who moved more, in which case I don't see a big difference, given how underrated a young Hagler's movement was. Just out of curiosity, what have you seen of a young Hagler?

As evidenced by Hopkins getting floored twice in the same bout by Mercado? You overrate his defense pretty obviously. His defense was very good, and he probably does hold the edge here, but I never actually said Hagler had better overall defense did I? I was taking into account that a peak Hagler was underrated in certain areas, and that in terms of creating opportunities for himself based off of his movement on the defensive end, he created greater counter-punching opportunities and openings for himself than Hopkins.

Hagler had some of the best timing I've ever seen at his best. Watch his KO of Loucif Hamani, boxes perfectly, feels him out, decides to let a punch go at the right time, stuns him, and follows up with a perfect combination, not a single punch missing, and sends him through the ropes and out. His timing and punch placement especially are most certainly on Hopkins's level. You assume because Hopkins has a good straight right that he has far superior timing to Hagler?

Goes hand in hand with what I just said, no clear edge to either, but you guys are vastly underrating a young, peak Hagler here. He was a very different fighter than the mid-80's version.

An old Hopkins has these advantages yes, but which Hopkins are you using, the less physically gifted, cagier older version or the more physically skilled, offensive younger version? I chose to use them both at their peaks, and I think Hopkins was more impressive in his younger days.

Both are great, but again, this goes hand in hand with what I've been saying, both were great at timing, countering, and placing their punches.

Not at all true, again you're underrating Hagler(who I have to assume you haven't seen enough of at his peak-late 70's, early 80's) and overrating Hopkins. Hopkins has certain edges, depending on which version of Hopkins you want to throw in this matchup. You can't just have a hybrid.

Also, his southpaw jab is an edge, as is his ability to switch it up with the stance and fight from both positions, which, as I said before, would make it harder for Hopkins to figure him out and time him with that straight right, which he'd likely try to use when Hagler fought at southpaw. If we're using the young Hopkins, then Hagler also has the edge as an inside fighter, despite Hopkins having a better workrate than he shows in his older days.

Again, I didn't say that, I said Hagler's movement at his best was underrated. An older Hopkins shows more need for movement than a young Hagler(or a younger Hopkins for that matter).

Maybe I am biased, but probably because I've watched a lot more of a peak Hagler recently than I ever have before and am far more impressed with him. I have also re-assessed his skills.

My position is this, you're giving Hopkins credit for certain things in this matchup that he didn't show until different parts of his career. I'd say the Hopkins of the Johnson fights and earlier was the best Hopkins, not the one of the Tito fight and after. He had a higher workrate, was better offensively, was better physically, and put it all together better. The older Hopkins uses more movement and is craftier/dirtier on the inside, while giving up some of the other things I mentioned.

I'm strictly using a young Hagler here, the one I was most impressed with. Which version of Hopkins are you using?

 

Your right, in part.

I think there is no Big4 in this era. There haven't been 4 fighters (where everyone fought each other) that were so good. You could make a case for Oscar-Tito-Mosley-Vargas, but Vargas wasn't so good afterall and Tito didn't fight Mosley. You could also make an argument for Pacquiao-Barrera-Morales-Marquez, but Marquez' accomplishments and resume makes me forget that idea -he's an underachiever, imo.

 

First of all, that was Duran at WW, past his LW prime, and against a seemingly much lesser opponent? The guy he was facing was Pipino Cuevas, who's always considered among the very hardest hitting WW's of all time, and one of the most feared fighters at the time. Duran moved up in weight and destroyed him. That Duran was not near as quick, with as high a workrate as the LW Duran, nor even the WW version that fought Leonard in the first fight.

That was Duran post Leonard II, a clearly past it Duran who was making his way back up toward the top. But if you compare that Duran to these versions of Duran, you see obvious differences.

[yt]iN7nAQGUV1c[/yt]

[yt]86Kg2FlFlEY[/yt]

Again, as I said in my previous post to you, Mosley was better, stronger, and even faster in his early days as a WW than as a weight-drained LW, he admitted this himself, and the speed difference is clear when you compare the Mosley who fought someone like Wise at WW to the one who fought a guy like Holiday at LW.

Mosley is faster than Duran, certainly, but angles? Watch that second clip that I posted, watch the angles Duran gives. Mosley is pretty much straight forward in his blowing out of the gardener in that clip, Duran shows great poise off the ropes when spinning his way out and attacking to the body against a great LW in Dejesus(it's at around 33 seconds into the clip). That's more impressive than any skill Shane shows in the fight you posted(or any I've seen), though Shane's speed and ferocity are impressive in their own right.

I think of all recent fighters Shane has the best chance, because he represents a tough matchup for Duran, and honestly he represents one of the hardest style matchups ever for Duran due to his speed, strength, and tenacity. Duran matches him in strength and tenacity, but holds the clear edge on inside skills and versatility. That's why I favor him. I agree that it would be quite a fight, something most would not expect me to say, but I don't think Mosley's speed would overcome Duran's superior skillset in a barn-burner like this.

Duran's defense was also comically underrated, especially his head movement, which is why I think Shane's jab would have little to no effect and he'd be forced to play his game. I see a great, exciting fight, similar to the second Dejesus fight to be honest, but with Duran's relentless attack inside paying off later in the fight.

Dejesus and Buchanan are the only big names that most speak of, but his second hand comp was very underrated. Guys like Kobayashi and Ishimatsu out of Japan, two of Japan's finest ever at LW. A very underrated guy like Ernesto Marcel, who was an excellent boxer, and even holds a clear win over a green Arguello. Ray Lampkin, Hector Thompson, Edwin Viruet, Bizarro, Fernandez, etc. These are all very good second tier wins, and when you throw in how often he was fighting(22 non-title fights for God's sake) is puts his LW career in perspective. He was pretty much the most dominant fighter of the 70's in a stacked decade.

When past his prime. It would be relevant if they posed similar style matchups, otherwise I could just say Duran poses problems for Mosley because Wright beat him.

That's the thing though, Duran would be on the move, using his head movement to get on the inside, and Shane IMO would have no problem abliging, given his power, strength, and love of a good brawl.

Fair enough. I agree with that, just not with the ones we're arguing about now. Though Hopkins has a better shot at beating Hagler than Mosley against Duran IMO.

 

I think maybe your a little hung up on the fact that I am actually picking Hopkins rather than reading the reasons I have given as to WHY I am picking Hopkins.

And I realize your not a fan of Bernard's and thats cool...but very, VERY few people who have followed his career believe that a young Hopkins was a prime Hopkins. His physical prime, yes...but not his best.

And even a young Hopkins still had FANTASTIC movement. He just wasnt as defensively oriented, so most of the movement was back and forth...it was later when his physical tools waned that he perfected his lateral movement as well.

Hagler's movement was good at best.

Sweet Pea, your talking to the son of a boxer, who grew up in Boston during the 80s...and your asking me how much I saw of a young Hagler? Ummm, Id say a lil bit...yeah...a lil bit.

:hey

You really wanna hang your hat by starting with that one?
atsch

Actually, why dont you make a post about the best defensive fighters of the past 10 years or so. Guarentee the list looks like this....

Whitaker
Hopkins
Mayweather
Wright
Jones
Toney

...with maybe a few others smattered in there. Most feel its either Bernard or Floyd after Pernell as best defense of this generation.

Probably??? My god....atsch

Your right you didnt mention that Hagler's defense was better than Bernard's...in fact, you didnt mention defense at all. Just like you didnt mention MANY other things that Bernard does MUCH better than Marvin did.

Bernard not only has a FANTASTIC straight right, but is also arguably the best counterpuncher of this era, this being my reason for saying he had better timing. Hopkins is generally regarded as having some of the best timing the sport has ever seen.

I feel his timing is much better than Hagler's (Im not knocking Marvin...just stating on how highly most rate Hopkins in this area), I feel his accuracy is better as well.

Not an old Hopkins but the more veteren Hopkins. Vs Johnson, his style began to change drastically and he became a MUCH, MUCH better overall fighter. Watch his fights before that and his fights after that point. Watch how even before his physical skills were gone, he started to reinvent the way in which he fought. He became more defensive (tho still deadly offensively), more deadly accurate, more of a boxer, more of a thinker in the ring. Hell, even watch him vs Tarver (not his prime, but a perfect example of what I mean), you can see him plotting his next attack, see him systematically luring Tarver into his fight....it was a thing of beauty.

And thats the tough thing about him. Pinpointing exactly where his prime began and ended. He went from a killing machine with very good technical skills, to an almost perfect technical fighter, one who boxed and out thought his opponent and was willing to do whatever it took to win. The man's ring intelligence is unmatched...by anyone. Im not sure if that point is even arguable.

See, I feel Hagler was always at his best when he pressed the action. Whereas Hopkins was clearly his best when waiting, luring his opponent in and punishing him with crisp, clean, countershots or leads.

Im not using a hybrid Hop. Hopkins as he started to age (and grow as a fighter in mosts opinion) had a clear edge IMO in these areas. Movement, timing, counterpunching, defense, ring generalship and intelligence...these things, I can see it clearly.

I have seen pretty much all of Hagler's career. My fav fighters all time are Whitaker, Hopkins, Jones, Holyfield and Hagler...in that order. Im not underrating anything...or overrating anything as well. As I still feel its a pickem fight...what I think is the problem with what both of us are looking at is that we are considering different eras of each respective fighter as their "prime". Tho in all honesty, I do always feel you far underrate Bernard....all the time in fact.

Hopkins is DEADLY accurate vs southpaws. Hagler's penchant for switching it up would play into Bernard's hands more than it would the other way around.

Misread ya then....but movement wise...its not even...or EVER....close.

You should do the same with Bernard.

As I stated, the version of Hopkins Im using is the one pretty much in the middle of his career. His defense became otherwordly...his timing, counterpunching, movement, ring intelligence, ring generalship, dirty tactics, training techniques, etc....all progressed. As I said, that younger version your referring to may have been physically his prime, but he was nowhere NEAR the fighter he became later on.

Trust me.

(Again, your a poster I respect far more than most on here...hate arguing points with posters like that...)

 

Do the Big 4 have to have fought each other?

Jones, Toney, Hopkins, and Calzaghe are a good mix for our era along with the others mentioned.

Hell, from Europe, Eubank, Benn, Collins, and Calzaghe are a fearsome foursome.

 

The following is basically re-affirming certain points, agreeing with others made by yourself, and attempting to clear things up, otherwise this debate would continue forever.

I consider the Hopkins of the Johnson fight and the Hopkins of the Tito fight and on to be very different fighters as a matter of fact. Not just comparing the older Hopkins to the one who faced Jones, etc.

I agree with the first part. I think you're confusing what I'm saying in regards to movement. I don't see Hagler as someone who was great at using the ring, angles, etc. I see him as someone who used good body movement and footwork at times to create punching opportunities, not as someone who used the ring to throw off an opponents rhythm(though he has done that at times as well).

What does that even mean? Do you wish me to post footage of the fight? Both knockdowns were completely legit, Hopkins was legitimately hurt both times, but recovered well.

[YT]ISiU5BhieGU[/YT]

I know that was a young Hopkins, but you also are under the impression that he has one of the best chins of all time.

Of the past 10 years, Whitaker doesn't belong on that list. Mayweather has shown better defense, that is what I was referring to, because you've said before that Hopkins has better defense than Mayweather. I disagree. His defense is better than the rest of those listed other than a prime Jones, though technically his defense was better.

The things you pointed out and the things I agreed with are very different. You mention pretty much every single technical advantage going to Hopkins, and claiming they're "not even close" or something to that effect. I completely disagree. I think it's bull**** as a matter of fact.

And Hagler IMO has some of the best as well. His right jab was about as effective as Hopkins's straight right, as that was always the punch that set up the finish, and was about as accurate as any I've seen.

With single shots his accuracy with the straight right is about equal to Hagler's leaping right jab, which always seemed to land flush. With combinations, while Hopkins had very good combinations as well, once again, I think Hagler showed better punch placement in that he'd use his upper body movement to go body-head, and counter when the opponent would fire back. I'm thinking of particular examples in my head when I say these things, so it probably sounds weird.

He beat a very overrated Tarver. I don't think that can be denied unless you think Taylor was that much better than Tarver. The older version of those fights gets a beating from Hagler.

The Johnson one is mostly the one I'm talking about. His technical and physical skills were at their best, but he didn't rely on movement, pot-shotting, etc that he relied on when he got older. He was an attacker in that fight, using a great blend of offense and defense to overwhelm Johnson. A much more effective fighter than the older version, but a bit more straight forward.

I see the older, moving, cagy, pot-shotting version stylistically as harder for Hagler, but not physically. And while the version that faced Johnson was much better physically, his style plays into Hagler's hands. Though I can't say it like that because that is pretty much an even fight, but it does make for a fight that causes Hagler less stylistic problems.

It's very arguable when you go over the history of the sport, but it's hard to find one who directly surpasses him.

Anyways, I preferred the younger version, and I honestly think the former is the version that fought Glenn Johnson, just a little more reserved, but still not the version that he would become later. He adapted his skills with his physical ability. Very smart fighter no doubt. But I consider the better version of Hopkins to be one that also causes Hagler less problems stylistically. He'd cause most other fighters more problems(like Calzaghe), but not in this matchup.

I suggest you rewatch Hagler's fights with Antuofermo, Hamsho, Caveman Lee, Obelmejias, Briscoe, Minter, etc. He was brilliant against those that came forward. Those were the days that I am referring to when I talk about a prime Hagler.

[YT]CoPTqaNcsbc[/YT]

So you're using the version that beat Tito?

How do you feel it's a pickem fight when you give basically every single advantage to Hopkins?

I agree with the other bolded part though. I don't underrate Bernard in a head to head sense, he's a great blend of technical skills, heart, and determination. In other words, he's what a boxer should be. But I don't think he's the only example of that. In terms of his career, then yes I do believe he's somewhat overrated, though not to the degree that someone like Jack does.

Why? The fact that he'd switch it up often, with his upper body movement, would likely cause Hopkins to have a much harder time gauging him, and therefore timing him. Especially given the fact that he wasn't just facing any southpaw, or any southpaw jab.

In terms or ring movement you may be right, but in terms of body movement, very close. An older Hopkins showed better ring generalship probably.

Again, the version of the Johnson fight.

It goes both ways. We disagree on various things, but are capable of keeping it civil. Something I can't do with most. Guys like you, Brooklyn, KG, MSTR, Amsterdam, etc.

 

Obviously the big four from the 80's, but these match-ups are biased on their behalf. Leonard's prime weight was 147; Mayweather's prime weight was 130. Putting this two in the ring together would be similar to putting SRL in the ring against Roy Jones Jr @ 168. And, in that case, SRL wouldn't stand too much of a chance against Roy at his best weight.