Who would you rank the highest out of these 3 ?

You just quoted the worst attempt at a scouse accent ever.

 

I thought Hopkins beat Calzaghe personally. Only by one point, but i have that score every time i watch it.

 

I had Hopkins winning 7-4-1, 116-112.

 

Tststs, where are your manners my little friend? You are nothing but a troll. And a pretty bad one.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgphmCrLwpY[/ame]

Only wws, yep.

Same here, the knockdown making the difference.

 

Anyone agree/disagree?

 

I agree that Hopkins´ footwork got sloppy at old age but I disagree with Hagler beeing a better fighter. I don´t think there is anything between them. If they would fight it would end up as a disputed decision either way and both would come out damaged goods.

 

The only thing damaged on Hagler might be one or two hair follicles of his moustache. Soapy on the other hand would lose all 3 of his teeth and the grip on his bicycle tyres

 

The 3 paragraphs are reasonable but the opening line is ludacrous hyperbole and wishful thinking at best

 

Like i said, i agree Hagler is better ultimately/overall, however that should be put. But no i don't agree that his footwork is overrated, if anyhting i haven't seen it rated enough so as to do it justice. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree straight off the bat because i've studied it ridiculously and i've already started to go into it a bit already on this thread. That's my opinion on how fine his footwork is from a technical standpoint, all substance and zero flash.

 

I agree with most of what you said, though there are certain points I think you haven't dealt with. Hagler has the better jab, for instance - that's something I agree on. Is Hagler more versatile? Not for my money. On the outside, he probably has the tools - greater extension on his shots, more power and comparable timing and accuracy. On the inside, though, I think Hopkins has a decisive advantage. He's much better technically, keeps himself in defensive positions better (chin down, utilising glove/shoulder blocking etc.) and is better at picking out weak spots to attack. Hagler had a tendency to labour inside, often just standing there and hammering his opponent Monzon style - which has its merits in a war, but against a cutie like Hopkins it's something that could be exposed.

The other thing is something I mentioned earlier. I think Hopkins is better at enforcing his kind of fight on an opponent than Hagler, which is an important thing. If they fought, Hagler could do well in an outside fight IMO, though he'd always be second in defence which could be a problem, but he makes up for it in terms of jab and range. The issue is that I don't think he has any real way of stopping Hopkins going in and out when he wants, and that (as well as size) is a big edge when you're talking about one man exploiting an opponent with a weaker inside game and who isn't as good at shifting ranges. I understand the criticism of Hopkins' footwork - I'm with teeto that it's technically pretty much flawless, but admittedly Hopkins doesn't have the natural ability of say Napoles, who could just slip-slide in and out of range at the click of the finger. The problem is exploiting that, though - even Jones struggled to stop Hopkins coming in or catch him with significant counters in the act, and I can't see Hagler getting off fast enough to do so. At his best Robinson probably could. Once Hopkins gets that right hand going, though, I think Hagler would really struggle for room to find his own shots in a fight between them.

 

Hopkins for me.

 

It's funny, the head trainer at my gym also thinks Hopkins got lacking technique and that that's reason why he fights so dirty. His fights against Tito and Pavlik are obviously masterful perfomances in every sense, though, while he's less impressive against Calzaghe for example. Are there other fights where he exhibits less polished technical skill you'd say?

 

Jones is the more popular fighter, and Toney is the flashier fighter, but Hopkins is the most accomplished and could take his trade further down the competition line of great middleweights than either Jones or Toney.

His ability to win at different weights and dominate serious competition is remarkable. Jones has a great legacy, and Toney is a near great, but neither would be Hopkins at middleweight on thier best night versus his.