The big 4 VS.The big 4 of our generation

:good That's one of the points I was emphasizing hardest in my debate with Sues in the previous pages. While I considered the younger Hopkins more effective and better overall, his style likely played more into Hagler's hands than an older Hopkins.

 

That is absolutely not true.

Hagler was past his prime against all 4 of the fighters you mentioned. Especially when he fought Mugabi and Leonard.

To see a prime Hagler (or a fresher Hagler) that displayed better speed, reflexes, timing, and versatility, watch him against Mustafa Hamsho in their first fight, Loucif Hamani, Tony Sibson, or even as far back as Eugene Hart.

 

Are you slow??? If I view Hopkins as a more effective fighter than Hagler on the outside and inside, that shows a lack of knowledge? When no fighter has ever come close to beating Hopkins on the inside, I'm showing a lack of knowledge? So Hagler didn't struggle with Leonard (oh yeah he lost that fight), Duran or Mugabi (a blown up jr. middleweight who never won a world title)? Even the Hearns fight was a struggle, though Hagler won in dramatic fashion. Watch those fights again and get back to me.

On the flip side, Hopkins destroyed Trinidad (HOF), De La Hoya (HOF), Wright (HOF), Tarver (former LHV King), Johnson (another LHV King) and just as many top MW's from his era as Hagler did. His only decisive loss was to RJJ (another HOF) when he was still relatively green.

If you can't see this fight as 50/50 at worst, then your just a Douche.

 

You said that Hagler struggled with Hearns and Mugabi, although he did get the wins. But then you go and say that Hopkins destroyed Winky Wright.

Hopkins struggled with Wright more than Hagler did with the two aformentioned opponents. He won by decision in a sloppy affair. Hardly what I would call a "destruction."

Hagler knocked Hearns and Mugabi out. Mugabi was ruined by the brutal beating he took. He couldn't last a round in his next fight with Duane Thomas.

 

I have seen footage of Hagler from the late 70's and early 80's and to call him past his prime at 30-32 is ridiculous. I know why he retired as everyone does. By stating that Hagler reverted to more of a brawler as he supposedly regressed at 30 yrds old, whereas Hopkins became more intelligent in the ring only lends more credence ot my argument.

You are stating that Hopkins is a more intelligent fighter in the ring and uses his skills more effectively. As fighters get older and lose their reflexes, they win fights on intellect, angles, more effective countering, i.e. most recently Campbell and Casamayor. Obviously Hagler didn;t feel he was past his prime when he became more agrressive. It had to due with a more fan friendly style and being more embraced y the public as he was always the odd man out until he fought Hearns.

 

In that case, watch Hopkins vs Taylor. If he can't deal with Taylor's natural athleticism how can he deal with Hagler's?

What's that you say? He was past his prime? Gee, that's kinda the point we've been emphasizing about Hagler in every single fight you've mentioned of his. You'd understand that if you weren't so close-minded.

All smaller opponents. None of them on the level of Hagler's smaller conquests either, not to mention Hopkins was closer to prime against them(other than Wright) than Hagler was against say, Leonard.

The Johnson fight wasn't nearly as highly rated until years later when Johnson beat a shot Jones. Hagler's top MW wins over guys like Antuofermo, Obelmejias, Hamsho, Seales, Briscoe(though past it), and even Hearns(who proved his worth at classes even higher than MW) were better than the likes of Eastman, Joppy, Echols, Vanderpool, and Johnson.

:rofl

 

Hopkins didn't struggle with Wright, he won a convincing decision. It was uglym but convincing. Additionally, Wright is a future HOF and top 10 p4p fighter whereas Mugabi accomplished nothing in his career significant to Wright. I can bring Lipsey in and equate him to Hagler, another hard hitting undefeated fighter, whom Hopkins ruined, though he never fought again.

 

Not at all, because they were completely different styles of fighters. Hagler was more of a boxer/puncher who relied on his reflexes and physical tools to go with his boxing ability in his prime. When those started to go, his boxing ability was no longer as effective, so he had to switch it up.

Hopkins, on the other hands, was more of an in your face, attacking style in his younger days(though a very skilled boxer as well), and when his physical ability started to go, he became more of a pure boxer who relied on his craftiness.

Their careers took two different turns. They had different physical abilities obviously, as Hagler's movement significantly diminished as he aged, while Hopkins found more use for it.

That's laughable.

 

If anything the Taylor fights showed how much cutting down to 160 was affecting Hopkins, based on his performances against Tarver and Wright at LHV. Plus, most people had him winning both fights.

Hopkins was 36 against Trinidad, 39 against De La Hoya and 42 against Wright. The Leonard who beat Hagler was even more removed from his prime than Hagler and came out of retirement to beat him.

Sorry, but Holmes, Joppy, Vanderpool, Johnson, Eastman were all equal to th guys you mention. You are just looking through rose colored glasses now.

 

On the night Mugabi fought Hagler, he was far more dangerous than Winky Wright was. Mugabi fought the fight of his life and all you have to do is look on film to analyze and compare their respective abilities. It's quite clear who looked better between the two.

At 168-170, Wright isn't a top 10 P4P quality fighter. Kessler, Calzaghe, Mundine, Bute, Andrade, Pavlik, Dawson, Erdei, Johnson, Tarver, Woods, and Green all beat him. Calzaghe and Kessler do so in even more impressive fashion than Hopkins. Meanwhile, I don't see that many people beating Mugabi at 160 the night he fought Hagler.

And Lipsey didn't accomplish as much as Mugabi, who went on to win some fights against decent opposition and even won a title at 154.

 

Typically, when fighters lose their reflexes, and are as skilled boxers as you are making Hagler to be, then he would rely on his savvy and skills to win fights, much like Leonard did when he beat Hagler. He won by outsmarting Hagler, not outfighting him, nor outspeeding him.

 

Excuses excuses.

You're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt against Taylor, yet one of your biggest arguments against Hagler is that he lost one of the most controversial Decisions ever to Leonard? Wow, you're definitely not biased.

See above. Leonard also came out of retirement because of the fact that he saw that Hagler was slipping after the Mugabi fight, as everyone ksaw except a blind bat like yourself who thinks he was doing it for promotional purposes.

He took care of guys like Mugabi quite handily in his prime, as he did to all brawlers who came to him. You'd know if you actually had seen the footage of a prime Hagler that you claim to have.

Hell, I'd take the old, faded "Bad" Bennie Briscoe over any of the above.

 

\

Now you are just pulling for strings. No one in their right mind would call any version of Mugabi better than Winky Wright. Wright is better in every aspect, save power. Mugabi accomplished nothing at 154 before he fought Hagler. He fought one guy with a decent record in Earl Hargrove (who), whereas Lipsey's resume was full of nobodies as well, the difference being he was a legit MW prospect, and Hopkins stopped him in 4 and he never fought again.

 

John Mugabi, the night he fought Hagler, was absolutely better than the 170 pound version of Winky Wright, regardless of the fact that Winky was more skilled all-around.

By your criteria, a 140 pound version of Juan Manuel Marquez is better than Ricky Hatton because he would still be technically better and a more complete fighter.

You fail to recognize the physical capabilities and intangables. Hagler's Mugabi clearly surpasses Hopkins's Wright in this regard.

 

He won by using movement against a faded Hagler who's own movement had greatly declined. I love Leonard, but if you think he'd beat a prime Hagler who could keep up with him you're delusional.

Again, Hagler's movement was the main thing that faded in his later years, unlike guys like Hopkins and Leonard, which is why they were able to use it as part of their strategy and he was forced to become more of a flat-footed, come-forward banger.