Why Does Hopkins Get Criticism But Hagler Does Not?

[Boom Boom]

CGM,He did beat have some good wins at 160 but I think Hearns was best at 147 because he had that power and height advantage over almost anyone. He was still a good at Middleweight but I think Welterweight he was best, but its just my opinion not an assumption.

Ouma, I agree that maybe people didnt like his style based on his later fights, but I think a lot of those people didnt see most of his title defences at Midlleweight. He was an exciting fighter. Perhaps because Hagler was fighting the big names there was bigger interest and this made his fights more exciting.

[Kel]

Hagler never faked getting hit low in a bid to get points deducted from an opponent for starters.

[CGM]

CGM,He did beat have some good wins at 160 but I think Hearns was best at 147 because he had that power and height advantage over almost anyone. He was still a good at Middleweight but I think Welterweight he was best, but its just my opinion not an assumption.

ok, merely the fact that I called it an assumption doesn't diminish the value of the statement, it's just means it a statement that is used to support the main point of your argument.

I will say that IMO some people are too quick to pass judgement on what was a fighter's best weight, just because that fighter lost at a higher weight. Or they use the term "a fighter's natural weight" a little too easily. But that's just me.

I could say the same about Trinidad, who looked just fine thrashing Joppy and Mayorga, but ultimately lost to Hopkins not so much because of a difference in natural weight, but because Hopkins was a better boxer, by far.

I do tend to agree with you though, I wouldn't say that Hopkins deserves the critisism any more than Hagler, critisism he does take is mostly unjustified, and mostly used to talk up another fighter, such as Trinidad or Calzaghe. IMHO.

[Spicoli]

Both Hagler and Hopkins did not lack in self belief....or ego.But I think alot of Hopkins backlash is based on .....Him.....Dude is brash,abrasive and will tell you exactly what comes into his head without hesitation,his own biggest fan!!You can slight his overly defensive,almost arrogant backfoot style in his late career but I think his persona and added baggage at times wrongfully comes easier than slighting his in ring ability or career achievements.I think in hindsight Hopkins waited too long at middleweight,not a strong era but he pretty much swept it out and stayed around.Trinidad,Oscar......those were not really about benefiting or advancing Bernard,he capitalized hugely though,turned it on it's ear.Remember all the chatter about a Trinidad vs.Jones Jr "Super fight"?Still wondering about Oscar as a middle,that was a stretch.Now Simon Brown....that was disgusting.Brown,a top superb fighter at peak,belonged noooo where near the elite Middleweight field then.Many have fought guys moving up in defining fights....look at the division jumping going on today,almost out of control.Really can be a broad brush.

[Scott22]

this might not be popular but i think hopkins is greater than hagler. what hopkins has done at his age is increiable.

[kingfrnk]

hopkins should not get any criticism for beating trinidad. trinidad made his name at 160 by destroying joppy which neither bhop or jermain taylor couldnt do. they may have beat him but not like tito did. now as for as oscar goes i dont know but oscar was way out his league anyway. but he was the first to ko him.

[Kev]

Well I've said many times that Hagler's achievments are a little overratted. He was a great fighter for sure but to me Bernard is certainly on his level and has achieved every bit as much.

The reason Hagler is more praised has to do with the illustrious names of his opponents and the manner of his most famous victories imo.

His fight with Hearns was a war, one of the most famous fights ever and he did spectacular jobs on other fighters, destroying Alan Minter and busting his face comes to mind.

When you demonstrate an iron chin, a willingness to slug it out and the punch power that bowls over your opponents and cuts them up then the public will love you and historians will lavish praise on you.

It's like with Rocky Marciano, hailed as one of the alltime greats his resume has no big names on it at really, at least not when they would have meant anything. But he was in some barnburners and retired undefeated thus creating a legend. Having his own punch, the Suzy Q helped.

When you think of Hagler you can picture his ring wars, just like Marciano.

When you think of Hagler you can't picture a real rumble that he had, a toe to toe slug fest with another great fighter.

In order to be considered great you have to have a dancing partner, and the likes of Jones, Hopkins, Calzaghe and Mayweather have never had one.


That's why Floyd needs to come out of retirement and fight Manny Pacquaiuo imo.

If he fights Manny it becomes a legendary superfight like Hagler Hearns, Leonard Duran etc and his all time status will jump right up as people will have a superfight and a potential memorable fight to remember him by.

[Trainer Monkey]

Hagler had one of those careers,that got much better in peoples memory after he retired.
At the time a retired Sugar Ray had more endorsement deals then Hagler did.
10 years from now people will be looking at B-hops career and marveling at it.
You may not like his style,that mixed philly crab,Bernards defense stuff,but you cant argue with the results. And an even weirder part of Bernard,is he takes guys hearts. Nobody except Jones ever looked quite right after fighting Bernard. Taylor became a plodding defensive fighter,Trinidad became a balloon,Holmes became an afterthought,so did Tarver,Johnson went from an undefeated prospect of the highest caliber,to a journeyman.
At the time,nobody liked Hagler's style either,he was neither a bully like Duran or Hearns,neither did he have 5 tons of flash like SRL,but he was somewhere in the uninspiring middle. But he was effective.