Why Does Hopkins Get Criticism But Hagler Does Not?

[Boom Boom]

First, let me say that I think Marvin Hagler was a superb fighter and one of the greatest of all time. But I think that If you look at his biggest wins at Middleweight, and you look at Bernards biggest wins at Middleweight, there are some similarities.

Hagler was indeed one of the fabulous four. He was also the naturally biggest man out of all of them and the strongest. He beat Hearns, who was not far removed from Welterweight, so this win as spectacular as it was, was not surprising. He beat Duran, who as we all know started his career a lot lighter, in a fight that was extremely close. As for Leonard, he was removed from his prime, and like Hearns, past his best weight. Still Leonard was victorious in a competitive and close fight. Hagler had other good wins win his career against credible opponents, but these fights were highlights in his career.

On to Hopkins. His reign at Middleweight went under the radar for quite some time, but he was defending his title against top contenders. It wasnt until he fought Felix Trinidad that he got his recognition as one of the best fighters at the time. Still, he was criticized because Trinidad was a former Welterweight champ and passed his best weight. Sound familiar? Then Hopkins went on to beat De La Hoya, who much like Duran moved through the weight classes and was much higher than his prime weight. Again, Hopkins was given some credit but the naysayers still critisized him for beating another "smaller man." ...For the rrecord I am not comparing Trinidad to Hearns and Oscar to Duran in terms of greatness, only in terms of circumstances.

I believe that that both of them were unquestionably two of the greatest Middleweight Champions of all time. But when someone says that Marvin has a much better resume at Middleweight than Hopkins, I disagree to a point. The names do stand out more, but the accomplishments at that weight are pretty even. I think it should also be noted that between the two champions, neither was ever stopped and neither was ever decisively beaten in a one sided fight. I credit both guys and this thread is not a knock on Haglers great accomplishments, its just my perspective on the two fighters and how theve been looked at by the boxing population, and if the ever fought prime for prime, I think it would be a tough fight to call.

[OumaFan]

1)Hopkins is hated for his later career boring style/obnoxiousness and lets face it we're not objective people, Hagler is not universally loved maybe but moreso than Hopkins clearly.

2)Like you say you're not comparing greatness but still IMO and most people's opinion Hearns>Trinidad, definitely SRL>Oscar, plus you thrown in Duran. People recognize those guys were smaller but put them on such pedestals (not saying that's wrong) because they were such legendary fighters.

[CGM]

I would question some of your base assumptions here.

For starters, I don't think it is so obvious that Hearns was past his best weight at 160. For starters, Hearns was 6'1" and had some notable victories, including devastating KOs, at 160 and up. He also battled Hagler toe to toe until he took one upside the head and got KO'd.

[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.

[porkypara]

First, let me say that I think Marvin Hagler was a superb fighter and one of the greatest of all time. But I think that If you look at his biggest wins at Middleweight, and you look at Bernards biggest wins at Middleweight, there are some similarities.

Hagler was indeed one of the fabulous four. He was also the naturally biggest man out of all of them and the strongest. He beat Hearns, who was not far removed from Welterweight, so this win as spectacular as it was, was not surprising. He beat Duran, who as we all know started his career a lot lighter, in a fight that was extremely close. As for Leonard, he was removed from his prime, and like Hearns, past his best weight. Still Leonard was victorious in a competitive and close fight. Hagler had other good wins win his career against credible opponents, but these fights were highlights in his career.

On to Hopkins. His reign at Middleweight went under the radar for quite some time, but he was defending his title against top contenders. It wasnt until he fought Felix Trinidad that he got his recognition as one of the best fighters at the time. Still, he was criticized because Trinidad was a former Welterweight champ and passed his best weight. Sound familiar? Then Hopkins went on to beat De La Hoya, who much like Duran moved through the weight classes and was much higher than his prime weight. Again, Hopkins was given some credit but the naysayers still critisized him for beating another "smaller man." ...For the rrecord I am not comparing Trinidad to Hearns and Oscar to Duran in terms of greatness, only in terms of circumstances.

I believe that that both of them were unquestionably two of the greatest Middleweight Champions of all time. But when someone says that Marvin has a much better resume at Middleweight than Hopkins, I disagree to a point. The names do stand out more, but the accomplishments at that weight are pretty even. I think it should also be noted that between the two champions, neither was ever stopped and neither was ever decisively beaten in a one sided fight. I credit both guys and this thread is not a knock on Haglers great accomplishments, its just my perspective on the two fighters and how theve been looked at by the boxing population, and if the ever fought prime for prime, I think it would be a tough fight to call.

Some good points there.

I think Hopkins hand picked his opponents a little bit but you cant deny he is a great fighter.

[KananKrus]

<He beat Hearns, who was not far removed from Welterweight, so this win as spectacular as it was, was not surprising.>< Boom Boom>

Before anything else, let me just point out that Hagler's win over the "Detroit Cobra" was nothing less than spectacular, in the truest sense of the word. Attaching unsurprising to it diminishes the feat, for it truly was one of the most spectacular wins in the history of the sport! Hagler was not the favorite going to the fight, for it actually was considered a death wish to face Tommy Hearns, especially at those weight classes; W, SW/LM, and M during those days.

I saw the fight live on TV, and I can tell you it was electric, the apprehension on Hagler's face leading on to the fight was so evident. What game plan? What strategy? What personal endangerment was at stake? These where all the source of the apprehension was from.

Hearns' superior reach, the jab-right straight was lethal, too much to overcome, hence, the Detroit Cobra. How can Marvelous Marvin overcome his handicap against Hearns? His strongest suit, the converted southpaw stance with the most sfillful and most active right hand in the business, was negated by Hearns' superior physical attributes.

BRAWL! There it was, the most brutally lopsided three rounds that Hearns ever been in his whole career. The Cobra was defanged, in such short fashion, that he was unable to call on his superior advantages to save himself from the savage beating he is experiencing. At times he was shown as weakly and vulnerable. Knees wobbling, and trembling vulnerable.

Surprising indeed! Hagler was way bloodied himself. To give one, he had to, be at harm.

Marvelous Marvin Hagler, repeatedly in these kinds of wars, (even not as bloodied), and the reason for his retirement, (more from SRL's refusal to give him a rematch than from his failing abilities) forever endears MMH in the minds of boxing fans. The integrity that he showed in choosing retirement when refused the Leonard rematch (he personally thought that he was robbed), showed greatness even superior to that which he showed atop the ring. A class by himself!

Hopkins will have his day, I am sure, for he too, is a cut above great. But for now let Hagler be in a class on his own!

[CountryBoy]

Because Hagler was humble and Bernard constantly runs his mouth

[ICB]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QpGCvipwTxE

I just watched that round and it still wasn't that close to me, Marvin Hagler beat SRL up in that round. SRL threw alot of combinations which most of the punches missed. But he was fighting back out of desperation, it was a Marvin Hagler type of a round, and he won it clearly.

I also felt Marvin Hagler won the 12th round aswell if i remember rightly, he hurt SRL quite badly at the end of the round. And despite SRL showing off to the crowd he didn't do a whole lot in that round. And i think those 2 rounds make the difference in your scoring, and you may need to watch those rounds a bit closer Frank.