do people actually think that bhop beats hagler?

[powerpuncher]

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.

[powerpuncher]

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

[IamInuit]

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.

[Beanflicker]

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.

[Beanflicker]

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.

[gest12645]

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

[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.

[El Kabong]

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.

[greynotsoold]

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.

[Master]

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.

[DavilaJones]

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

[ykdadamaja]

I call a draw.

[IamInuit]

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.

[FinitoElDinamita]

Id go with hopkins to win by very close decision.

[THE THIRD MAN]

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.