Who ranks higher, Hagler or Hopkins

Absolutely wrong.Simple questions.1.Can you honestly say the Hagler that fought Mugabi was anywhere near as good as the Hagler that fought Sibson?2.And more importantly.If Hagler wasn't shot,then why did Leonard chose to challenge him when he did after Leonard openly discussed fighting Hagler for at least 6 years while ducking Marvin until Hagler looked like he was wearing cement shoes and holding dumbbells against Mugabi?

 

Toney can shoulder roll vs. guys like Peter and Jirov. Marvin had a double jab and when his opponent backed up he leap in with punches. The should roll works vs. some guys an not with the top caliber. Saying Hagler is overrated is different than Hagler being overrated. There is more proof that Toney is overrated than Marvin. Toney is good but not great. Marvin is great.

 

Right, because there were no good middleweights around for the 15 years the Executioner held the title, and SRL was a much, much tougher challenge than an active Trinidad who was knocking fools dead during his reign of terror.

Hard work making Hagler look as good as Hopkins, isn't it?

 

Toney at MW (assuming he brought his "A" game) could beat the older Hagler who was slower, easier to tag, and came forward more.

The Hagler of earlier years who was fresher with his legs, defense, and had faster feet would make Toney chase and follow him, a style in which Toney was less effective in. Hagler would win that one by decision.

 

not hard at all. Just look at the resume. One guy demolished everyone whom he defended his title against.. He did not handpick. Trinidad was not a natural middleweight when he fought Bernard. It was a good win, but nothing close to Marvin's career wins. Marvin was fighting great guys before he even won the title.

 

You mean the great Sibson, who went on to get KTFO by the immortal Don Lee two fights later? That magnificent Hagler victory that Hopkins could never possibly duplicate? GREAT point. I'll have to think about that one.

 

This subject always comes up, and I'm too lazy to right out a new analysis, so I'll copy what I've been saying.

As I've always said, this is a very close fight between two great, versatile fighters.

Both guys are complete fighters. Hagler was a terrific boxer-puncher with a great jab, good combos, heavy hands, good set of legs, terrific chin, nice parrying skills and head movement, and he could slug it out as well and fight on the inside.

Hopkins is a master of controlling the pace and picking his spots. He knows the angles and knows where to position himself to land good shots and avoid the incoming. Like Hagler, he is versatile. He can box from the outside using the ring, or maul guys up close and "stink it out". He has a big of dirty tricks to frustrate opponents. As proven throughout his career, he is very effective against lefties.

Hagler had the heavier hands, superior jab, and was more proven in the slugging/pressure department. Hopkins was a little quicker and slicker, and just has a brilliant fighting brain in there.

No matter how the fight takes place, I see it being very close. I doubt either guy gets stopped. Hopkins is slick and has a sound chin. Hagler's chin was great, and he didn't exactly have a soft body either.

Over the years, Hagler was developed a reputation as a face-first brawler from people who don't watch enough of his fights, but he usually boxed behind his jab and broke guys down over the course of the fight. It'll probably be a pretty tactical fight, and I see Hopkins winning a close decision, with his straight right hand being the key.

As for their all-time rankings. Hagler with the slight edge at middleweight. He beat better opposition, fighting lots of good middleweights on the road to the title. I also thought he definitely won the first Watts fight and scored the Leonard bout even.

I can see Hopkins being ranked a little higher overall though. Not only was Hopkins a long-time middleweight champ, but also dominated the Ring champ at 175 in Antonio Tarver. At age 43, he fought very close with Joe Calzaghe and dominated the undefeated Kelly Pavlik. Then a month before turning 46, he draws with Jean Pascal for the LHW title. That longevity is insane.

 

Right, right... Hopkins handpicked ALL his opponents for 15 years, no good middleweight got a shot at him. None. And Trinidad wasn't a natural middleweight of course, but Duran, Hearns, Mugabi and SRL sure were. Ok. I'm starting to be convinced now.

 

I don't see Toney chasing anyone, he would make Hagler come forward. So would Nard most likely. Jones wouldn't care either way, he'd just go in circles all night long if he had to.

 

Id favor B-hop over hagler h2h ... hopkins will have the better gameplan and can make more adjustments ... people fold on haglers pressure .. I don't see hopkins being one of those people ... I see hopkins frustrating hagler to a majority decision

 

I'd say Hagler purely because of the quality of opponents. They both fought the best opposition out there, but Hopkins didn't have the career defining names around like Hearns & Duran. H2H though it would be a VERY good matchup.

 

Hopkins, because of what he did above middleweight. And it's clear cut.

 

look at the way Hopkin acted vs Calzaghe

look at the way Hopkin acted vs Jones 2


and you can even compare this ****** to Hagler?????????