do people actually think that bhop beats hagler?

espn had the article with people predicting who would win the fight. people actually think that bhop would win the fight. i cant see that happening in any way. i think that hagler beats him 10/10 times.

first off, hagler is arguably the greatest middleweight ever. hopkins is probably closer to #10 than #5. second, haglers style is all wrong for bhop. bhop has trouble with people who have good jabs and that throw a lot of punches.

bhop wins by making the fight ugly and tying up his opponent. this would not work on hagler at all. hagler would just keep swinging even if bhop tried to grab him. plus, im sure that he would work his jab for the fight and make bhop come to him. also, bhop can bully smaller fighters like tito but couldnt do that to hagler.

i literally cant see stylistically how bhop beats hagler.

I have no idea who would win, think it's a great hypothetical matchup. What's certain is that neither ever beat a better middleweight than the other man, or even saw anything like it imo.

Marvin beats him for me.

Based on what though? The more I ponder about it I'd favour Hopkins considerably, he has a much better resume in retrospect and was the superior fighter imo. He would've been much bigger than any of the really skilled opponents Hagler fought, who all gave him trouble despite giving up a lot of size. Leonard arguably deserved the decision against Hagler and Duran ran him really close, those guys were actually much smaller men. Hearns came right at him so isn't much of a benchmark here, Hopkins would have never made it a war like that and he had all the tools to win a convincing decision come to think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Based on what though? The more I ponder about it I'd favour Hopkins considerably, he has a much better resume in retrospect and was the superior fighter imo. He would've been much bigger than any of the really skilled opponents Hagler fought, who all gave him trouble despite giving up a lot of size. Leonard arguably deserved the decision against Hagler and Duran ran him really close, those guys were actually much smaller men. Hearns came right at him so isn't much of a benchmark here, Hopkins would have never made it a war like that and he had all the tools to win a convincing decision come to think.

---

i dont think that you know who haglers opponents were. he had a way better resume. he was thrown to the wolves at the beginning of his career. hopkins had a few solid opponents but none really at MW, or at least a natural MW at that weight. by the time leonard fought hagler, he was about done. he retired after that fight. he didnt fight well against duran i admit but both of them are far superior to bhop even if they were smaller.

just think of how hopkins has faired against people that didnt let him just grab and that were his size. he didnt do well.

oh and i forgot to add that in no way is hopkins a superior fight to hagler. its actually the other way around.

Its a 50/50fight. Like many other fighters people tend to look at the Hop now to make the comparison. I like to call that myopia.

It's a great hypothetical matchup, but I know one thing: I wouldn't count either man out against any MW in history. In Bhop and Hagler you're talking the creme da le creme, the upper echelon of MW champs.

For me, I'll take Bhop in that match. I think Bhop is poison for Hagler's style. I think Bhop for sure could get his pot shots off and tie Hagler up on the inside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

oh and i forgot to add that in no way is hopkins a superior fight to hagler. its actually the other way around.

---

Depends what you're talking about.

Accomplishment? Debatable.

The better puncher? Hagler

The better boxer/technician? Bhop

More intelligent fighter? Bhop

Not that Hagler wasn't a great boxer/technician or an intelligent fighter, it's just that Bhop would have him beat in those catagories.

I see this as a very close fight if it happened. Would be an ongoing debate just like Hagler- Leonard. Controversy , perhaps a draw. If I had to choose , it would be Hagler. 2 legends

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Based on what though? The more I ponder about it I'd favour Hopkins considerably, he has a much better resume in retrospect and was the superior fighter imo. He would've been much bigger than any of the really skilled opponents Hagler fought, who all gave him trouble despite giving up a lot of size. Leonard arguably deserved the decision against Hagler and Duran ran him really close, those guys were actually much smaller men. Hearns came right at him so isn't much of a benchmark here, Hopkins would have never made it a war like that and he had all the tools to win a convincing decision come to think.

---

i dont think that you know who haglers opponents were. he had a way better resume. he was thrown to the wolves at the beginning of his career. hopkins had a few solid opponents but none really at MW, or at least a natural MW at that weight. by the time leonard fought hagler, he was about done. he retired after that fight. he didnt fight well against duran i admit but both of them are far superior to bhop even if they were smaller.

just think of how hopkins has faired against people that didnt let him just grab and that were his size. he didnt do well.

---

I'm not sure how good Bobby Watts or Willie Monroe were as I haven't seen those fights, Hagler avenged both losses but did lose to them first. Other than that; Antefuermo, Mugabi, Hamsho, Roldan..Were there better middleweights that he fought? Saying Duran or Hearns are better than Hopkins despite being smaller is fairly silly here imo. Would Rigondeaux be a better win for Mayweather than Alvarez was to? Hopkins has the better track record imo, but it's a very tough fight to call prime for prime at 160.

Tough to call because Hagler was nonstop and you couldn't keep him away from you for 12-15 rounds and because Hopkins is so cagey and hard to hit. I think I side with Hagler because his punch output alone would win him rounds and Hopkins doesn't go into a fight thinking "I'll win every second of every round" it's more he'll work a few rounds, take a round or two off then get back to work.

At his physical peak, Hopkins was a much busier, more active fighter. He also was not nearly as clever as he has become, as he was learning his trade. At his physical peak, Hagler was at least a match for Hopkins, and I think he was smarter, having already fought Bugaloo Watts, The Worm Monroe, Sugar Ray Seales, Bennie Briscoe and Cyclone Hart. He fought all those guys before he fought for the title, and that is a list of well, well respected pro fighters and a tough row to hoe for any middleweight that has ever fought.

Hagler wins it for me as there is nothing Hopkins could do that would put him off his game. Hopkins was cagey and could hit but not enough to deter Marvin.

Well lets do this gentlemen, over the course of their career, what styles did they have difficulty with the most?