Hagler -Hopkins who was better????

ShoeShine · Post by **ShoeShine** » 27 May 2005, 13:56

Im just curious on everyones opinion on who had the better career, I know Hopkins isnt retired yet but he probably only has 2 fights left at the most...their careers are eerily simuliar ...they both had to win a title overseas..they both had to go fight long without being noticed until later in their careers, neither went to the olympics and both stayed with their primary trainer throughout their career, except for Hopkins 1 fight without Fischer. Who would win if they fought, does anyone think Hopkins shouldnt be mentioned in the same breath as Hagler or vice versa

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 27 May 2005, 14:36

One glaring difference between Hagler and Hopkins - Hagler beat a much higher class of opposition than Hopkins ever did, long before even winning the title

To compare their respective careers IMO is a disgrace

ShoeShine · Post by **ShoeShine** » 27 May 2005, 15:01

Really?? I dont think Haglers opponents were THAT much of a difference, I mean he fought Hearns, Hopkins fought Trinny, He fought SRL and Hopkins Fought DHL, he fought Mugabi and Hopkins fought Echols twice....after that they pretty much fought the contenders in their era.

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 27 May 2005, 15:51

ShoeShine wrote:Really?? I dont think Haglers opponents were THAT much of a difference, I mean he fought Hearns, Hopkins fought Trinny, He fought SRL and Hopkins Fought DHL, he fought Mugabi and Hopkins fought Echols twice....after that they pretty much fought the contenders in their era.

You're from Philly? Some of the best, most durable, toughest Middles came from Philly during the 70's. Hagler went into their back yards to fight them all. Lost a couple along the way (learning experience type fights) before beating them decisively in rematches

These fighters were better than anyone Hopkins ever fought. Trinidad and DLH would have been cannon fodder for the top Philly fighters of the 70's. Simply too small and not tough enough

ShoeShine · Post by **ShoeShine** » 27 May 2005, 16:41

Sure he fought some tough fighters from philly, most notable Watts...and Monroe but I think Hopkins fought the best that was out there during his time just like Hagler did...Im not even saying that Hagler didnt face tougher opposition to a certian degree..I mean he had like 20 more fights than Hopkins...but fighting DHL, Trinny, and RJJ isnt nothing to hang your head about. Just like Hagler faced a lot of decent fighters he also had his share of stiffs. I just think that although there might be a slight edge in opposition in Haglers favor it isnt that great of a difference. You seem to be saying Hopkins doesnt deserve to be in the same breath as Hagler and thats crazy.

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 27 May 2005, 16:47

ShoeShine wrote:Sure he fought some tough fighters from philly, most notable Watts...and Monroe but I think Hopkins fought the best that was out there during his time just like Hagler did...Im not even saying that Hagler didnt face tougher opposition to a certian degree..I mean he had like 20 more fights than Hopkins...but fighting DHL, Trinny, and RJJ isnt nothing to hang your head about. Just like Hagler faced a lot of decent fighters he also had his share of stiffs. I just think that although there might be a slight edge in opposition in Haglers favor it isnt that great of a difference. You seem to be saying Hopkins doesnt deserve to be in the same breath as Hagler and thats crazy.

He deserves to be mentioned in the same breath mainly for the number of defences and longevity. I believe he's half a notch below the very best of the middles

How he would have handled say a Bennie Briscoe would have been interesting

Chopping Right · Post by **Chopping Right** » 27 May 2005, 16:47

It is certainly not a "disgrace" to compare Hopkins' career to Hagler's but Marvin does seem to have clearly beaten the stronger and better opponents. That's not necessarily Hopkins fault, he has been dominant in a fairly poor era for middleweights without much strength in depth. He does demand respect for beating 2 certain Hall of Famers in De La Hoya and Trinidad, however both of those guys were fighting a weight or two beyond the divisions where they gave their best performances.

red_archerv · Post by **red_archerv** » 29 May 2005, 04:44

hopkins

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 29 May 2005, 04:50

Hagler

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 29 May 2005, 04:52

To compare Trinidad to Hearns a f'n sham.

barry · Post by **barry** » 29 May 2005, 06:05

Hagler without a doubt! Hagler was a different style and different class of fighter all together as opposed to Hopkins!

red_archerv · Post by **red_archerv** » 29 May 2005, 13:53

hopkins pretty god tho

lumpymo · Post by **lumpymo** » 05 Jun 2005, 12:55

HAGLER!!!

red_archerv · Post by **red_archerv** » 06 Jun 2005, 17:28

HOPKINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

does hag... have these pretty things??
does he have an annoying sports reporterwith a finger in his ear ?????
in which he eats potato chips without washing his hands ?????????????

NO!!!!!!!!! now look

and looook at that guy with that outa date sweat shirt...... and the guy with the paper above hishead (only in boxing)

Owain · Post by **Owain** » 06 Jun 2005, 22:04

Easy answer - HAGLER.
BHop is good but not THAT good.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 06 Jun 2005, 22:24

Now wait. Hagler is a legend and is one of the top 5 greatest middleweights ever, but Hopkins is no ordinary champion. Hopkins is a true champion too. Remember, keith holmes and syd vanderpool both lefties were not able to fool Hopkins with their southpaw style. Now of course, vanderpool and holmes ARE NO HAGLER, but its just something to consider that just cause haglers a southpaw, Hopkins wont be fooled. I think Hagler is a warrior, but so is hopkins and it would be a great fight. Hopkins is an excellent boxer and hes proven that and he can take a punch. Whos the last guy to floor him ?? segundo Mercado????? Hopkins fares well against boxers like tito and de lay hoya (though they were stepping up) Hopkins never really has faced a top puncher. He is big for his weight class and tall. I think it would be a good fight and I think hopkins would be able to box with him but haglers brute power and strentgth would win because he would pound away at hopkins inside and hopkins would not be able to slug it out iwth him. I think Hagler would win a unanimous decision with it being like 10 rounds to 5 or 145-140. I dont think Hagler would KO like u said unless hopkins tries to go toe to toe with him. I defiinetly think hagler would win, but not as easy as some of u guys think. Hopkins is a great champion and can compete wit hhagler.

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 07 Jun 2005, 00:28

Chopping Right wrote:It is certainly not a "disgrace" to compare Hopkins' career to Hagler's but Marvin does seem to have clearly beaten the stronger and better opponents. That's not necessarily Hopkins fault, he has been dominant in a fairly poor era for middleweights without much strength in depth. He does demand respect for beating 2 certain Hall of Famers in De La Hoya and Trinidad, however both of those guys were fighting a weight or two beyond the divisions where they gave their best performances.

When you mention De La Hoya and Trinidad moving up in weight you could also consider that Hearns and Duran moved up in weight.

And RJJ would be to Hopkins as Leonard was to Hagler.

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 07 Jun 2005, 04:39

Grimm wrote:
Chopping Right wrote:It is certainly not a "disgrace" to compare Hopkins' career to Hagler's but Marvin does seem to have clearly beaten the stronger and better opponents. That's not necessarily Hopkins fault, he has been dominant in a fairly poor era for middleweights without much strength in depth. He does demand respect for beating 2 certain Hall of Famers in De La Hoya and Trinidad, however both of those guys were fighting a weight or two beyond the divisions where they gave their best performances.
When you mention De La Hoya and Trinidad moving up in weight you could also consider that Hearns and Duran moved up in weight.

And RJJ would be to Hopkins as Leonard was to Hagler.

So what are Hopkins' equivalent of all the top fighters that Hagler won before even winning the title? I'd say that lot was collectively better than all of Hopkins' title rein opponents combined

ShoeShine · Post by **ShoeShine** » 07 Jun 2005, 12:03

Hagler faced some tough opposition but so did Hopkins..I really dont think Haglers opposition was THAT much tougher than Hopkins. Hagler had his share of stiffs in the begining of his career like everyone else...Hopkins has faced everyone out there during his time also his 20 title defenses speak for itself. I definantly think they should be mentioned together bc their careers are very simuliar. Hagler was no better than Hopkins...I think they are on the same level.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 07 Jun 2005, 18:58

Tantum wrote:To compare Trinidad to Hearns a f'n sham.

I think Hopkins, like Hagler, could be a tough fight for just about any middle in history.

But yes, Trinidad really can't be compared to Hitman Hearns. Hearns would have wiped Trinidad across the ring.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 07 Jun 2005, 19:05

Grimm wrote:
Chopping Right wrote:It is certainly not a "disgrace" to compare Hopkins' career to Hagler's but Marvin does seem to have clearly beaten the stronger and better opponents. That's not necessarily Hopkins fault, he has been dominant in a fairly poor era for middleweights without much strength in depth. He does demand respect for beating 2 certain Hall of Famers in De La Hoya and Trinidad, however both of those guys were fighting a weight or two beyond the divisions where they gave their best performances.
When you mention De La Hoya and Trinidad moving up in weight you could also consider that Hearns and Duran moved up in weight.

And RJJ would be to Hopkins as Leonard was to Hagler.

Hearns was an incredibly lanky and long limbed welter who moved up naturally to middle and later had great success at light HW. Can anyone imagine Trinidad as a legit light HW??

Duran clearly was not at his best as a middle but even years after he fought Hagler he was able to win a major middleweight title from Iran Barkley. What did Oscar do at middle? Get a gift vs an unknown German titleholder, lose to Bernard, and then promptly moved back down to WELTER!!!!

The opponents are not really comparable

red_archerv · Post by **red_archerv** » 08 Jun 2005, 04:07

remember hopkins fought with a dislocated arm... after he woulda won with a disqualification i think that shows some great courage.. he won 2.... with dislocated arm//..

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 08 Jun 2005, 04:47

Ray Seales
Bobby Watts
Willie Munroe
Eugene Hart
Bennoe Briscoe

Probably the best of Hagler's pre-title opposition and most of these guys he fought more than once. Any of Hopkins' opponents better than this lot? I don't think so

red_archerv · Post by **red_archerv** » 08 Jun 2005, 04:58

but hagler also got his ass kicked by sugar ray leonard and he didnt give him a rematch so he quit :( whaaaaaaaaaaa.

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 08 Jun 2005, 06:43

red_archerv wrote:but hagler also got his ass kicked by sugar ray leonard and he didnt give him a rematch so he quit :( whaaaaaaaaaaa.

Er ok then

Thanks for your invaluable and insightful input. Have you got enough bubblegum to share around to the rest of the class?