The big 4 VS.The big 4 of our generation

No benefit, he lost, it was controversial, just Hagler's loss was. Difference being, Hopkins loss to a young and big MW, whereas Hagler lost to a smaller GREAT fighter coming out of retirement.

Hagler might have been slipping, but he wasn't over the hill, by any means. De La Hoya saw the sames things in Hopkins that Leonard did in Hagler, difference being Hopkins stopped De La Hoya, a GREAT fight near his prime (though not as great as Leonard).

Which is why you need to stop looking through rose colored glasses.

 

Bull****

Hagler would have torn Mugabi a new one when he was younger. Hopkins never struggled with a fighter in his championship reign before he fought De La Hoya the way Hagler did with Mugabi.

And let's be real here: a 160 pound version of Ray Leonard is superior to a 160 pound version of Oscar De La Hoya. I would have picked the well-past-it Hagler of the Leonard fight to stop De La Hoya. For Christ's sake, he shouldn't have beaten Felix Sturm. Randy "****ing" Griffin put on a better performance against Sturm than De La Hoya. That should tell you all you need to know about De La Hoya's ability as a middleweight.

 

Sorry, but that holds no validity. Winky had just come off beating Taylor at MW (though he didn't get the decision) and Mugabi doesn't surpass Winky in any way. Mugabi was an UNPROVEN prospect when Hagler fought him. Wright was (and still is) a top-10 p4p fighter. Huge difference.

A prime Leonard and prime Hagler would of been a great fight. Leonard winning in 12, Hagler winning in a 15 round fight. Though Hagler was much closer to his prime than SRL when they fought.

 

Leonard is a better fighter than De La Hoya. I agree. Difference here, is that Del La Hoya didn't beat Hopkins, like Leonard beat Hagler. Hopkins stopped De La Hoya, the only man to do so. De La Hoya wasn't an elite MW, nor was Leonard.

And now he's fighting one of (if not the best) the top SMW's of all-time in Calzaghe.

And I hope you aren't insinuating that Hopkins struggled with De La Hoya, he owned him at 39 years old.

The major difference is that Hopkins is much more past his physical prime now (and when he beat De La Hoya and even Trinidad) than Hagler was when he fought Leonard. People forget that Hopkins had a lot of wars early in his career. The difference being Hopkins showed his boxing acumen by adapting and staying a top fighter (top5 p4p nonetheless), and moving up in weight at LHV to beat the man (Tarver) who beat the man (RJJ).

And now he's fighting one of (if not the) best SMW's of all time in Calzaghe. A fight in which he is a very live underdog.

 

No, Hagler beats him in a 12 round fight.

 

He was definitely over the hill compared to the prime Hagler of years past. His style was completely changed due to his faded reflexes and physical ability. If you can't see that then I simply have to assume you've not actually seen a peak Hagler for comparison. De La Hoya saw the same things as Leonard did? The only similarity they both saw was this: $$$

De La Hoya couldn't even legitimately beat Sturm, he saw no weaknesses in Hopkins, just a big payday. Hell, even if he did see(or think he saw) a weakness in Hopkins's game, it certainly wasn't that Hopkins was significantly fading, as was the weakness that Leonard saw in Hagler.

Also, Leonard was clearly a MUCH better fighter at higher weights than the bloated De La Hoya.

Why, because I've actually seen Bad Bennie fight? None of those fighters offer even a past prime Briscoe any significant stylistic problems.

 

You consistently show that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Based on what they showed in those fights(and even prior) Hagler was clearly more deteriorated physically than the Hopkins that beat Tito, which was one of Hopkins's best performances.

 

No way

Hopkins was able to stay at the top longer because he still had a good deal of mobility and reflexes. Hagler faded much more than Hopkins did as he reached his 30s.

Who are you picking?

 

Hopkins was 36 and past his physical prime, but he fought an amazing fight. Hopkins was 41 when he fought Tarver, and way past his pysical prime, yet he against dominated another top fighter and LHV king.

I already stated that Leonard was better than De La Hoya. The MAJOR difference is that Hopkins took care of business with De La Hoya and STOPPED him, whereas Hagler LOST to Leonard. Do you get that???

I got Hopkins by decision. I thing he will counter Calzaghe and possibly drop him once. Calzaghe showed a lot of weaknesses in his game vs. Kessler, luckily for him, Kessler didn't have the game plan to exploit them.

Though it is quite possible that Calzaghe outworks him and Hopkins shows his age as he is 43, PAST HIS PRIME and still fighting ELITE fighters, this one being naturally bigger.

 

Correct.

1) Prime Haglar would have KO'd Trinidad in 5 or less.
2) Haglar, IMO, was well past his prime against Mugabi, and Haglar ruined Mugabi's promising career
3) The Haglar who fought Leonard was way past his prime, especially after that war with Mugabi
4) Leonard fought a fantastic fight against Haglar, I had it a tie, and Haglar threw away the first 2 rounds fighting conventional..
5) If Leonard was so past it, why did he continue to win championships in higher weights?

 

Not true; a prime Hagler had great upperbody movement, which made him difficult to hit. And he had great movement on his feet.

Here's a video

[yt]TZHIo5ylQA8[/yt]

 

1. I doubt Hagler would have KO'd Trinidad in 5 or less, when he couldn;t do that with Mugabi. Are you calling Mugabi a better fighter than Trinidad? That's outrageous. I would pick Hagler over Trinidad, though. And I would pick Trinidad over Mugabi any day of the week!

2. I just don't see Hagler being well past his prime at 32, not prime,but not over the hill either.

3. Again you really are stretching it here. You make it sound like Hagler was shot when he fought Leonard. And even if he was, he still should of beat Leonard convincingly.

4. Leonard fought an okay fight, he really outsmarted Hagler and yes Hagler was a dumbass for fighting orthodox early on.

5. Look who he fought, Donne Lalonde and a past his prime Duran.

 

If anybody is getting punched often, it would be Mosley. Duran had much better defensive skills, much better head movement, and was a far more dynamic in-fighter than Mosley. The latter comes into play, and would be very important, because Shane has never been difficult to lure into a brawl in close.

The speed and power of Mosley would be tough to deal with, but Duran had the defense and overall ability to deal with it. He also had great speed at lightweight.

Over 12, I'd pick him in a 8-4, 8-4, 7-5 decision. The only fighter I'd actually favor over Duran at this weight is Pernell Whitaker.

I noticed you picked Hopkins over Hagler because of your opinion that Hopkins is simply superior technically and skill-wise. Doesn't Duran hold those same advantages over Mosley?

 

He said a prime Hagler, which everyone but you seems to be able to distinguish. Trinidad was not a better fighter at MW than the Mugabi that faced Hagler. He was a greater fighter and better P4P given his success at WW, but not at MW.

Again, if you'd actually seen enough of a truly prime Hagler to compare, you'd see the difference quite easily.

He was too good a fighter to be called shot, but he was way past his prime. Leonard, while past his prime as well, still implied successfully the same style that he used in his younger days, unlike Hagler.