What we need to ask is, who in their right mind would go to Philly (back when it was next to death for a fighter) and throw down with, the Worm`, Bad Bennie`,Cyclone`, and Boogaloo` ??? Bad ass dudes in their backyard ! You know what happened with the decisions, so he fights them all in returns, and KO`s all of em !!! Even Sibbo, Scypion, Hamsho and Antuofermo were tough dudes and MMH destroyed them... He truly fought them all and ducked no one !
Hagler was every bit as good technically as B-Hop. Better in some areas, slightly worse in some. But overall, it balances out. Without his smooth technical skills, great footwork, solid defense, and shotgun jab, he would not have become great. He would have simply been a tough, iron chinned middleweight in a division where, historically, there have been a plethora of those guys. Against a drained Tarver, a blown up Wright, a blown up Pavlik, Enrique Ornelas, a shot to **** RJJ, and Pascal, I'm sure Hagler would have done just fine. He wouldn't have had great success against Spinks and the rest of the great LHWs of that era, but neither would a 40+ year old B-Hop. The current version of B-Hop would have probably been a fringe contender in those days. Not a knock on him, but he's benefiting from this horribly drained down era where some consider Chad Dawson some sort of a beast. Jermain Taylor 1, Jermain Taylor 2, Joe Calzaghe - all winnable fights that he either started too late or faded down the stretch.
Bam - someone who actually has a solid comprehension of both fighters and put it in perspective. And could not agree more with young prime BHop being destroyed by Hagler. Older BHop has a better chance with a UD / SD type victory. Young BHop? No.
Hagler is still greater IMO, but the Hopkins is closing in. Hopkins has better longevity. Hagler had better opponents, though Hopkins is close but has more losses too.
They're resumes are very easily comparable. They rate similarly H2H at their peak. The only major difference is Hopkins has had success at Light Heavyweight into his mid-40's. It's Hopkins.
This. It's not Hopkins fault, he's one of the very best as well, but Hagler had Hearns and SRL as opponents. Those guys were extraordinary.
I know this goes against the general opinion on these boards, but in 20 years, I think Hopkins will be considered the greater fighter.
Agree with Arcane & bodhi. People have nostalgia but Hopkins has done more, plain and simple. They are my favs and I like to watch Hagler a little more but overall Hopkins is greater. People watch Hopkins' war with Tommy and his battle with SRL and say, "Nah Hag is better! Hopkins didn't face that kind of opposition!" which is true though he fought who he could given his era, did not lose to a WW coming up in weight, proved himself at a higher weight, and fought very well at an advancing age. It's Hopkins pfp but as a MW Hagler is more proven, that's about it. If more people view this with objectivity then most will have it for Hopkins aswell.
I love BHop and what he did is extraordinary, but Hagler is the G.O.A.T. in my book. The only way anyone could beat him is by a bad decision (like Leonard and Watts did). Hagler outbrawled the best brawlers and outboxed the best boxers. He had no style, just fought in whatever style he needed to beat the opponent he had in front of him. Also, Hagler had the best chin in boxing history, along with maybe 3 or 4 other guys. Hopkins has been floored 4 times.
better resume is hopkins but h2h hagler is too much of a monster for hopkins at mw hopkins wouldnt be able t control the pace it would be a switch hitting massacre by hagler
This means hopkins is a top 20 atg now right? hagler always gets rated in the top 20 so now hopkins is ranked higher right?