do people actually think that bhop beats hagler?

[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.