The big 4 VS.The big 4 of our generation

it never fails. do you realize that these points have absolutely no bearing on the proposed matchup, but inevitably when someone looks for a reason that any fighter would have a chance against the 135 duran, they look for his worst moments at 147, and 154.

the 135 duran was a totally different beast than the fighter he was at the higher weights. i am a shane mosley fan, but imo shane was not a better fighter than a prime esteban dejesus. shane had the edge in power and speed, but esteban was a much better technical boxer and definitely better defensively. shane has never been a defensive wizard. and as i said earlier, any fighter that is there to be hit will not beat duran.

 

Hearns and hagler for definate

leonard would beat mayweather

but duran was a funny fighter if you got him on a bad night at say light middle or welter then i would favour mosely but if duran was on a good night like the nights against say buchanen or davey moore or barkley then there is no doubt in my mind that duran wins

 

There is no way Bernard Hopkins would beat Marvin Hagler, Hagler was a force and if wasnt for a questionable decision vs. Sugar Ray Leonard, would most likely hold the record for the middleweight with the most title defenses.

I say Hagler KO 9 or 10.

 

Hopkins - Hagler

Have to go with Hopkins here. Too diverse, better ring intelligence, better defense, bigger, stronger, and perfect against southpaws. On top of this, Hopkins would of most likely got into Hagler's head, like SRL did, hence Hagler fighting orthodox for the first few rounds and losing against SRL.

Trinidad - Hearns

Obviously Hearns has the advantages of height and skills. However his chin was even more shaky than Trinidad's. Both had one-punch KO power and this would really depend on who landed first. It would probably turn into a fire fight and that's where Trinidad excels. 60-40 in favor of Hearns. Someone is getting knocked every time these guys fight.

SRL - Mayweather

Really not even close. SRL does everything better and has the resume to back it up. A prime Mosley, Whitaker, Tsyzu and DLH would be more competitive with SRL. A past his prime DLH was competitive with a prime Mayweather, so that says it all right there.

Duran - Mosley

This would be a brutal fight. Duran fights nothing like Forrest and Winky (two bigger guys whose styles are all wrong for Mosley or most anyone else at that weight). Mosley has the proven chin, as does Duran, though he was KO'd by Hearns. Mosley by very close, but convincing UD. Prime Mosley is one of the most underrated fighters in the last 15 years IMO. A prime Mosley was much more dominant than Mayweather and he beat a prime DLH, something I'm not positive that Mayweather would have been able to do.

 

Hagler vs Hopkins (160): Hagler UD
Trinidad vs Hearns (147): Hearns KO
Leonard vs Mayweather (147): Leonard TKO
Duran vs Mosley (135): Duran UD

The past generation goes 4-0 against the current (or somewhat past-it) generation. The closest fights out of the four are Duran-Mosley and Hagler-Hopkins. However, I'd feel confident in picking Duran and Hagler.

 

Atta boy!:good

Seems we're in the minority with our pick of Hagler>Hopkins for whatever reason. I can see that as the closest matchup easily, but I think people generally underrate Hagler's versatility in his prime to think Hopkins holds so many clear advantages.

 

:good

Hagler has become underrated on the general forum.

I think people look too much into his fights with Hearns, Mugabi, and most of all, Leonard. This has caused people to view him as a straight-forward brawler/pressure fighter who could be outboxed by a fighter like Hopkins.

What many don't realize is that a prime Hagler (from the Hamani, Hamsho 1, or Sibson fight) might actually have an advantage over Hopkins from mid-range. His jab would be a key weapon in this fight, and I think it would give Hopkins plenty of problems. And while Hopkins is usually mentioned as a far superior counterpuncher, Hagler wasn't too bad in this department either.

If Hopkins elected to fight on the inside, I would find myself favoring Hagler even more.

7 times out of 10, I think Hagler beats him.

 

I have to disagree. As effective as Hagler was, he still wasn't as good as Hopkins from the outside or inside. Hopkins has a longer reach (though boxrec has them equal, which is difficult to imagine as Hopkins is 4 inches taller and is rangy and cagey), better jab, excellent straight right, and is more of a punisher on the inside. Hagler would be at a disadvantage from the outside and would attempt to make it into a phone booth fight, which Hopkins would oblige to, while also stepping out and landing snapping counters to a convincing UD.

If anything, Hagler has become more overrated since his time. He stuggled against smaller fighters (while still in his prime) like Leonard, Mugabi, Hearns and Duran.

 

unfortunately many only know of the fights with the "top names" that marvelous fought, but truthfully those fights were when he was already on the other side of the hill. still a great fighter, but no longer at the top of his game.

as cagey as hopkins is, i cannot see him dictating the pace of this fight, and believe that it would be fought more on mmh's terms. hops would have to fight for the entire fight, not in spurts. a prime hagler more than matches hops in the skill dept.

the minter fight also is a very good example of hagler at his boxing best.

 

I don't know how you can consider a 32 yr old Hagler over the hill, when Hopkins is still defying Father time at 43. Hagler was always in impeccable shape. All of Hopkins fights are fought at his pace, even his controversial losses to Taylor were at his pace. You aren't giving enough credit to Hopkins, and most likely you haven't seen many of his fight pre-Taylor, let alone pre-Trinidad.

 

I don't think there was a single sentence where you didn't prove your lack of knowledge in that post. It just got worse as it went on, spiraling down to that ridiculous last line. I have to assume you were just trolling.

 

Because fighters age differently. Hopkins is an anomaly and cannot be used to argue against the rule. He is an exception, not the norm.

And not every fight Hopkins has fought was fought at his pace. That was something he learned over time.

 

I disagree about Hopkins having a better jab. He had a very good one, yes, but not as good as Hagler's, whose was more explosive and longer. He used it as a weapon too, as seen in several of his fights. Hopkins wasn't nearly as jab oriented, especially against southpaws where he tends to totally neglect it. Since Hagler is a southpaw, Hopkins would be more concerned with finding a hole for his straight right hand lead.

Another thing to think about it which Hopkins we're talking about. If its the mid 1990s aggressive, in-fighting version, I think it favors Hagler even more so because he's clearly stronger on the inside. And obviously we will disagree, but on film, he's more impressive from the outside. If it's the Hopkins of the 21st century, he has a better chance because his movement and counter punching can offset Hagler and possibly get him a decision victory. But Hopkins was more tentative as he aged, so it's equally possible that Hagler outworks him. This fight has 12 rounds written all over it. And in those championship rounds, I wouldn't bet against Hagler closing the show stronger. He took more risks than Hopkins.

 

How ironic!

As to the rest of your post, if you've actually seen footage of a younger Hagler, and seen enough of his fights to judge his aging process, you'd know that he was past his prime by about 1983, and at his absolute best in physical terms as well as his overall boxing game by about the start of the 80's(late 70's to early 80's).

Certain fighters age differently than others. Still, Hopkins is nowhere near his prime now either. His style allows him to continue when past his physical prime, because he's an exceptionally intelligent fighter, and one who stays in great shape. The same was true of Marvin, but he boxed in a different manner than Hopkins. He actually became more physical in his later years, unlike Hopkins. Hagler, in his prime, relied on boxing, angles, counter-punching, timing, etc. When he started to wane physically, he became more of a come forward brawler to make up for his diminishing speed and footwork.

Hopkins did the exact opposite, which is why he has continued to this stage. Also, Hagler was quite bitter about his loss against Leonard, which he considered a shameful robbery, and he really never got over it, as he was denied a rematch. Another reason he retired.