Who would you rank the highest out of these 3 ?

Impossible and irrelevant question to what we're discussing.

But i'll try to answer...do i think any of these fighters are better P4P H2H? Yes, i think De La Hoya is and has the style to beat him. Trinidad, stylewise is a bad matchup and his puncher's chance is limited. Brown is half a class below.

I feel cheated even answering this question, its possible certain ******s are going to read this and act like its of any significance or means anything

 

I'm a big Hopkins fan, and I think Pachilles is a bit of a troll/idiot for his childish Duran hatred campaign.

But I believe Hagler was a better boxer than Hopkins, all-round. Hagler had a much better jab, threw better combinations, and was more versatile in my opinion (Hagler was amazing when he brawled, and was amazing when he boxed intelligently. Hopkins was amazing when he fought from a defensive starting point, but he was not as effective when forced to come forward).

I think Hopkins's footwork is a tiny little bit overrated, to be honest. Well, it wasn't overrated with a view to his footwork in his prime, but I think a lot of people overlook how his footwork deteriorated a little as he aged. Many times in his aged 40+ fights, Bernard would leap forward with his head down, throw a few flailing punches, and then lift his head to try and tie his opponent up. I thought his footwork was borderline clumsy at these times, leaving him exposed in centre-ring and there to be hit. If he had faced opponents with better footwork, sharper brains and better accuracy than the likes of Taylor and Calzaghe, he would have been in a bit of trouble IMO.

I rate B-Hop very very highly, but I genuinely think Hagler was slightly the superior fighter. I think the prime Hagler was one of the most complete and effective fighters ever. Bernard was brilliant too, but a little bit below that level.

 

Obviously it means something. You claimed that Hopkins only won through physical advantages in those fights. Presumably then, if you take those physical advantages away, he'd start losing.

You're clearly just too thick/lazy/biased to see what Hopkins' skills are, despite having me point them out to you.

 

i didnt answer your question directly though did i? Its impossible, how can you hypothesis a natural incarnation of these men at higher weights? Surely they would be completely different fighters??

The discussion is still a comparison between Hagler and Hopkins. And no, picking Hopkins as a better P4P fighter than Trinidad and Brown, does not all of sudden set me in some kind of trap, where i've accidently admitted being better than those two makes him better than Marvin Hagler:blood:blood

 

Hagler has the better jab, but Hopkins has the better right hand.

 

Nobody's underrating Hagler in any department here. This reply means nothing to what i just highlighted.

 

I never said it did, you horse's arse. You ducked that particular discussion after your attempt at technical analysis was thoroughly refuted by various posters. But if you claim that the only reason X beat Y was that X had physical advantages over Y, it follows that without those advantages X wouldn't have beaten Y.

 

:good

 

Hagler is ultimately a better fighter imo, sure. I don't believe that was being disputed though. It was strictly a technical issue that was under debate. And Hopkins is the man.

 

Take time to read this twice and try to follow it, you absolute ****ing ******. The entire argument is about me claiming Hagler is technically better.

In reality he did not fight these mythical MW creations of yours. It is impossible to say whether he would or not because they dont exist, the question is void. Do i think Hopkins is a better P4P fighter than Trinidad and Brown? yes! Have i at all said that without the physical advantages he wouldve lost to them? No! But the fact still remains that he had a significant physical advantage when he fought them! And that is what happened in reality.

You are in this thread with a semi on defending Hopkin's ability...why???? The only thing thats being argued here is who is technically better, Hagler or Hopkins. And praise from Corckhill and Hitler whom you are in a 3way finger bumming session with currently, does not mean you won that debate.

 

Wrong. Hopkins is a master at setting traps, feinting, footwork etc but he committed the cardinal sin against three lesser fighters. Forgetting to throw enough punches to win the fight!

His punch output has often been too low throughout the latter half of his career, fine against fighters such as Trinidad, Pavlik etc whose offence he can completely neutralise with his superb technical ability. But he didn't adapt and throw more punches against Taylor and Calzaghe, instead allowing himself to get outworked. How the man lost to Taylor twice I will never know, the first half of both bouts was painful to watch.

 

Refrain from taking cyber jabs at me virgin clown

 

or what mate? im gunna meet yer friend Stanley?

 

Oh really? Then how come you stated this (nothing to do with a technical comparison between the two):

His physical advantages saw this future LHW gain his two greatest wins against a two prime WW's, not his technical skill. ?

I know - because you were completely embarrassed on the technical issue - and rightly so, for defending a nonsensical position.

Backtracking. You brought up physical advantages Hopkins had in certain fights and then dismissed him as being over-rated. If you didn't think he lacked skills or anything to his record other than size advantages and cherrypicking, you never would have done as much.

I won by default, since you never responded to this post: http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7870484#post7870484

 

Fair enough points, although every fighter has the odd ill-strategised night out from time to time. Also, Hopkins' fading in terms of punch output could well have been related to the penalty exacted from his body through weight-making, which of course changed for a time once he moved up.