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?

I call a draw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavilaJones

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

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

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.

---

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 Dia bando

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

---

i agree 100%

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

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.

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.

---

I think it's a case of the "golden age" bias, especially with a guy like Monzon who never lost in his prime.

Take modern greats like Bhop and Floyd, people will go through their records with a fine-toothed comb and tell you why every win they had was rubbish, how they're boring, how they ducked and dodged so and so.

But when you bring up an old timer like Monzon, people just look at the impressive number without digging deeper and critically thinking about the level of comp, ect.

I like Monzon and think he was a great fighter, but I don't buy him as the unbeatable, unstoppable demi-god of the MW division that seems to be the consensus opinion.

To me, prime BHop gives any MW in history fits.