I call a draw.
Printable View
I call a draw.
That is a good question and actually makes a good point. Hopkins has always been somewhat of a southpaw specialist. They both had problems with speed and movement and both employed ring cut off tactics largely dictated by ring size. Thats the thing about this match up. You could hold it in a 10 x 12 Wall tent. If these two fought three times they would need a third to settle it. Flip a coin. I rank Marvin higher on my ATG list but that does not mean Hop could not beat him.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavilaJones
Id go with hopkins to win by very close decision.
Hagler was very adaptable, he would've worked out the awkwardness that Hopkins brings to the ring, but Hagler is simply the better fighter. I don't think Hopkins beats Hearns either.
Hagler on Monzon: "For me still, I feel as though Carlos Monzon was the greatest champion.
That’s one of those fights that many people to this day talk about and wonder how it would have played out. Well I believe behind my orthodox style I’d probably be fighting him on the inside to get inside his long reach. Just knowing that this guy had a powerful right hand, I mean Monzon had one of the best right hands in the business also besides Tommy Hearns. So I kind of learned a lot and I think I would have given him a lot of fits."
Hagler on Hopkins: "He was really my successor as the next great middleweight champion, although I don’t think he was as great as me. That’s a great achievement for Bernard but some guys don’t always know when to walk away. That happens to a lot of fighters. He greatly benefited from one of the worst eras in middleweight history."
Hopkins doesn't beat either Hagler or Monzon.
I think people tend to look at the way Hop fights these days n mistakenly think that prime Hop fought in a similar manner. The Hop that fought Roy was good but still green n relied more on a heavy right, great chin, n outstanding stamina to beat fighters. The Hop that lost close decisions to Taylor, Joe C, n Dawson was an older fighter who had to control the pace n slow it down to win.
The Hop that fought Tito Trinidad, predicted by almost EVERY FIGHT EXPERT to stop Hop, ranked #2 p4p, n a legitimate MW titlist was the perfect fighter n had the tools to beat any fighter in history at 160. Hagler had issues with the counter punching, cagey Duran. He also had issues with physically strong fighters like antufuermo
...in the first fight. Hagler also had issues with clever boxers like Leonard. Hop could fight like all of those mentioned, n at a better level at 160. Both Hagler n Hop r ATGs, n stand a shot of winning, but I would lean towards Hop n definitely see how that article did as well. Sorry about the two posts but I fat fingered it from my cell!
Hagler all the way over 15rounds, beating the shit out of Hopkins.;)
If they fought 3 times Hagler would win 4 of them.
Remember Hagler was feared, Hopkins is just a dirty git fucking truly terrible to watch,
about as entertaining as a shit house rat eating a turd.;D
You know its funny some of you scoff at Hops chances against Hagler while touting the chances of that homer Monzon. Did he ever even leave Argentina? Did he ever beat one prime middleweight in his day outside of Briscoe who almost ko'd him or Nino. Griffith and Napoles were not middles and were no where near their prime.
I can wait. Hopkins would have kicked the shit out of Monzon.
Why Hagler because Hopkins like to fight at his own pace,! Hagler would be relentless be on
him, Marvin was a excellent inside fighter, his jab would bust up Hopkins remember 15 rounds
yes and Hagler could be a dirty git as well.
Not a pretty fight to watch, but after 15 round Hagler would be king, why do I dislike Hopkins
so much, if I want wrestling I watch WWE, but this is boxing Hopkins wrestling and acting skills
are second to none.;D
monzon is even more of a nightmare match up for bhop than hagler. monzon would keep him on the outside of his jab and right hand all match.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
i agree 100%Quote:
Originally Posted by Dia bando
I don't mind people picking Hagler (truth be told I like Hagler a HELL OF A LOT more than I like Bhop), but there's way too much BS being spoken here about Bhop.
It's strange that to this day people still underestimate Bhop and don't understand his style or what he brings to the table.
Someone above even said "bhop likes to fight at his own pace, hagler would push the pace on him". That right there shows a complete inability to grasp what Bhop actually does.
And almost worship a guy in Monzon who might have fought 2 B level middleweights over a career or maybe 3 if you include Denny Moyer. Most of Monzons career is spoon fed like the 7-6-3 Estra in 69 or Eddie Pace in 1970 who was 32-22-1 followed by Rosa who was 7-2-0 then jumping to the always dangerous Guerrero in 1971 who was 3-5-1 at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
I don't like to use these terms to much but here you have the most overrated fighter in history or at least one of them verses perhaps the most underrated of all time.