How does Hopkins get on against the Fab 4?

[jamesmcdonnell]

Yes, unlike Hagler, I don't think Hopkins would stand and trade with Hearns.

However, Hearns was a hell of a boxer himself, lest we forget, he boxed Leonard's ears of for most of their first fight before getting bombed out.

[MightyWarrior]

Yes, unlike Hagler, I don't think Hopkins would stand and trade with Hearns.

However, Hearns was a hell of a boxer himself, lest we forget, he boxed Leonard's ears of for most of their first fight before getting bombed out.

Very true. He also put on a 15 round boxing masterclass against the so called best pure boxer of his era - the great Wilfred Benitez.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Yes, it could be that Hopkins' unwillingness to trade could mean that Hearns takes him from long range. However, you have to figure Hopkins would then take the fight up close.

The more I think about it, the more I favour Hearns, Hopkins never had anything like the power Hagler had, or the physical strength. Would have been an intriguing fight.

[MightyWarrior]

[MightyWarrior]

[jamesmcdonnell]

That's a fantastic shot that last one, must be canastota I'm guessing?

[MightyWarrior]

That's a fantastic shot that last one, must be canastota I'm guessing?

It's a great shot isn't it, think it must be Canastota. Got those pics from his website, which Max posted over at old timers section

http://www.marvelousmarvin.com

[jamesmcdonnell]

God, I just cannot decide whether or not Hopkins would have beaten Hearns, Barkley and Hagler hammered him, but both those guys were bigger punchers, especially Barkley who had a hell of a left hook on him and was built more like a short LH.

[Lickszz]

[quote="jamesmcdonnell"]Yes, unlike Hagler, I don't think Hopkins would stand and trade with Hearns.

However, Hearns was a hell of a boxer himself, lest we forget, he boxed Leonard's ears of for most of their first fight before getting bombed out.[/quote]
Yes Hearns got bombed out by someone with unbelievable levels of courage and someone who could take punishment and come back with energetic flurries as late as the 14th round. I can't see hopkins been able to do this. He doesn't have the gears Sugar Ray had.

[bennie]

You can almost hear Archie saying to Joe, "Here's the right hand you never had, Joe." Magnificent men.

[Kilburn]

As good as Hopkins is I feel a 40yr old great at his peak is always going to come off second best to a 25-30yr old great at his peak. And Hopkins must currently be at his peak surely? Has he ever looked less beatable at 160?

[bennie]

Beautiful shot. Time heals all wounds.

[KOJOE90]

Hagler beats Hopkins on points in my opinion.

[jamesmcdonnell]

You can almost hear Archie saying to Joe, "Here's the right hand you never had, Joe." Magnificent men.

Archie Moore is one guy I would have loved to have sat and had a whisky and a cigar with, quite a raconteur.

[lirva33]

damn, glen Johnson looks exactly like Archie

[stujones]

Hopkins L pts UD Leonard

Hopkins L pts MD Hagler

Hopkins W pts MD Hearns

Hopkins W pts MD Duran (who might have been "out of his depth" but took Hagler to the wire).

I think Hopkins' excellent Chin would have been a factor. I think he would have had a bit too much strength in the middle rounds for Duran, I think Haglers better workrate and agression would have eeked him out a decision in a fight quite similar to Hagler vs Duran. Leonard would have done a similar job as Roy Jones.

Comes to Hearns vs Hopkins - close one to call, I just think Hopkins like Leonard did in the 5th round of the rematch, land a shot which will change the course of the fight. I don't think he has the power to take Hearns out but I don't think Hearns will be able to floor Hopkins like he did a faded Leonard in their second meeting (which did save him the contest).

So I would say, Hopkins would be a behind big style, land a sweet punch in the middle stages and sweep the rest of the rounds to eek out a close decision win.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Agree with those, Hearns would probably get taken down late on, after building a big lead, and maybe get stopped. Hearns didn't have a great record against good middleweights.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I'm not so sure the Roy Jones Jnr was a lesser version of Leonard, as a middleweight.

What Leonard did against a fading Hagler was remarkable but had Jones stayed at Middleweight I think we might be talking about 35 defences right now.

Other than Hagler, Sugar Ray drew with Hearns and that was it.

As for Hopkins against the fab four, I think he batters Starr and Lennon but Harrisons ability to soak up punishment (proven when victim of a knife attack by a stalker) and Mcartneys rifts would prove too much for the executioner.

There's no way Jones could have stayed at MW for long, he was having big problems making weight even when he faced B-hop, he was practically a SM by that time.

[Graham Brett]

I'm interested to see who you would pick if you had Hopkins against Leonard, Hagler, Duran and Hearns? How highly do some of you rate Hopkins? Does he beat any of these guys?

What a fight it would be against Hagler.

Hopkins would have beaten all of them

[jamesmcdonnell]

Don't talk bollocks mate. 20 defences in an era paper thin on talent, when the belts were fractured for most of those is not the same as competing in an era stuffed with talent like the late 70's to mid 80's.

Trinidad is not the fighter Hearns was in terms of overall skills. Better record against lesser competition, but not as good a boxer or puncher as Hearns.

Roy Jones Jr was not the fighter Ray Leonard was, Leonard was technically sound, and just as fast as Jones, as well as smarter, braver and with a bigger fighting heart.

Duran is better skills wise than ANYONE Hopkins faced to date, he's one fo the greatest fighters of all time. DLH by modern standards is an all time great, but not as good as Duran by some margin.


You're dreaming mate if you Think Hopkins is a better man than all those guys. He would have struggled with every single one, win or lose.

As for beating Hagler, no way on god's earth.

[Graham Brett]

Don't talk bollocks mate. 20 defences in an era paper thin on talent, when the belts were fractured for most of those is not the same as competing in an era stuffed with talent like the late 70's to mid 80's.

Trinidad is not the fighter Hearns was in terms of overall skills. Better record against lesser competition, but not as good a boxer or puncher as Hearns.

Roy Jones Jr was not the fighter Ray Leonard was, Leonard was technically sound, and just as fast as Jones, as well as smarter, braver and with a bigger fighting heart.

Duran is better skills wise than ANYONE Hopkins faced to date, he's one fo the greatest fighters of all time. DLH by modern standards is an all time great, but not as good as Duran by some margin.


You're dreaming mate if you Think Hopkins is a better man than all those guys. He would have struggled with every single one, win or lose.

As for beating Hagler, no way on god's earth.

Hopkins is one of the most technically sound boxers you are ever likely to see. Its not his fault that his era was not filled with all time greats.

You are talking as if the fab four were unbeatable. But the fact is none of them were.

Hearns was not a GREAT middleweight, neither was Duran or Leonard.

Hagler was a Great Middleweight, but was beatable, just ask Bobby Watts and Willie Monroe.

I'm not saying Hopkins is a certainty of beating all of them, but I can see him winning a decision in every case.

As for my point of view being bollocks, I've seen some of your writing and have to say that some of that is pretty much bollocks too

[jamesmcdonnell]

"I've never been so insulted in my life."

"you should get out more."

Touche

I agree that Hearns was far from a great middleweight, too susceptible and fragile. However, I'd give him a shot against Hop, because Hop is not really a big puncher, and never really was. Hearns was a fantastic boxer with great handspeed and skills, his defence was a little suspect as he tended to be able to jab people at range with his hands down. For that reason I reckon eventually Hop catches him, but he'd have to survive a kicking early on.

Those losses came in Hagler's career early on, and at least one of them as I recall was a dubious decision. Hagler was one of those fighters who became better once they got the belt. He was a great counterpuncher though, you can see that in his fight with Minter, who was no slouch, at least as good as Keith Holmes and Joppy.

Hagler was also technically brilliant, and versatile. He tended to bash the shit out of people as champion, but he showed how well he could box against Duran. His one slip up was in trying to outbox Leonard for the first 4 rounds, and he was also undone by not being used to the 12 round distance and misguaging it

Yes, it's not Bernard's fault he is in a weak era, but you have to judge his achievements and wonder whether he would have been able to do so in a better era.

The one really class fighter who was also a natural middleweight that he faced in Jones Jr, he lost too.

If Jones could beat him, I say Leonard could too, because Leonard had everything Jones had and more.

Hagler, I just think he did everything that little bit better than Hopkins. His power meant he didn't have to use his skills as much, and nobody was ever really able to live with him close up, because they just got broken down, so he was never on the back foot.

Of course, all of these are conjecture, but I was just taken aback at the bald way you were able to write all of those guys off as if Nard just creams them.

[MightyWarrior]

You are talking as if the fab four were unbeatable. But the fact is none of them were.

Neither is Hopkins mate, ask Roy Jones.

[Graham Brett]

You are talking as if the fab four were unbeatable. But the fact is none of them were.

Neither is Hopkins mate, ask Roy Jones.

True.

Hopkins has never been stopped, and down only twice, but against the same fighter.

[MightyWarrior]