theone wrote:What about pre-reign? Briscoe, Hart, Seales, Monroe. I just can't put Hopkins over Hagler EVER, especially when it comes down to opponents faced.
Pre-reign Hagler was held to a draw by Sugar Ray Seales. He was on the losing end of two controversial decision against Bobby Watts and Willie Monroe. He was also held to a draw by Antefuermo that he may have acutually won.
Regardless of the controversies, these fighters were at least competetive with Hagler and none of them were quite as good as Hopkins. I believe Hagler would edge Hopkins more often than not but to say Hopkins couldnt even be competitve is nonsense.
As for the contenders you mentioned, have you ever seen Fletcher-Green? Fletcher-Lee? Fletcher-Braxton? Hamsho-Scypion? Davison-Parker? Davison-Scypion? Hamsho-Czyz? Davison-Sutherland? Hamsho-Watts? Sibson-Collins? Davison-Monroe? Sibson-Minter? Davison-Seales? Sibson-Lee? Sibson vs. Davison?
here's one you might have caught: Hamsho-Benitez-a one sided affair in Hamsho's favor.
So whats your point? Ive seen enough of those fighters to know that none of them were as good as Hopkins.
I'll give him that but put him in Hagler's era and his chances of winning a championship are slim. Hopkins would linger somewhere in the middle of the rankings (about 6 or 7).
Again, utter nonsense. The only fighter of that era that would have been better than Hopkins was Hagler. Your statemnet are based purely on sentimentality for that era.
The reason I asked is that I wanted to know which one of them you saw and at which point in their careers they were. You did label Hagler as a plodder. So if you think Hagler was a plodder and no more, it means you only caught him at the point where he was pretty much spent.
It's not excuses-just the truth.
And if you only caught Hagler's last three fights, it's a good bet you never saw Hamsho, Roldan except at the point they challenged Hagler. That had to be discounted. every one lost to Hagler.
I'm not saying Hagler was unbeatable-he had losses and a draw with Vito but he was more than just the plodder you mentioned.
You actually think leonard could beat a prime Hagler because he caught him at the end of his career.
Seriously. At what other time during Hagler's career was Hagler ever as slow as he was than the time he fought Mugabi or Leonard?
I should mention that Ray intentionally waited for marvin to deteriorate and catch him at the last possible moment to fight him. A first in the annals of the sport.
Don't you realize Leonard passed up the challenge at least twice going back to 1982?
It was Ray that said he wanted to fight Hagler on Hagler-hamsho but backtracked by the end of the fight. He said "i want Marvin but only at 154". That's one. The second time came a year later on the post fight interview (Hagler-Obel 2). Three-two weeks later --Ray's famous line "A fight with this man would be the fort knox of boxing. It'll be an event. A happening. Unfortunately, it'll never happen". Four-his immediate re-retirement after a one time fight with kevin Howard. Five-the morning after Hagler-hearns in an interview. Hagler told Ray he cheated the public by refusing to fight him. Leonard wouldn't even look him in the eye when he said it.
You can even hear the commentary by Clancy and Ryan that reveals Leonard taking the fight based on "Ray said that hagler lost a lot of speed and that he was counting on the slowness of hagler".
If you had really seen Hagler when he could fight, you would have at been aware of some of this.
And if you haven't seen Hagler in his younger days when he was dominant, it's a good bet you didn't see the contenders of that day and so you can't assess their abiltities and your comparison between Hopkins and those fighters can't be true.
Remember: you did call Hagler a plodder and Hagler didn't become a plodder until the end of his career. I've seen Joe Louis at the end of his career-doesn't mean he was always a punching bag for top contenders.
Let me ask you a question. What do you think Ray leonard's chances would be against the man who punched him apart-Terry Norris? Does prime Norris teach Ray a lesson?
If you say yes, then I'll ask you how is it that hagler who lost a split decision (controversial one at that) loses in his prime while leonard reverses a loss to someone who owned him for 12 rounds-a man who had no wins over anyone of note, had three losses, and was fighting in leonard's element-a big time event where Leonard had wins over Hagler, Hearns, duran, Benitez. A five time world champion. Whom had norris beaten? He should have lost. At most put up a little struggle for a few rounds before leonard put him away.
Instead, it was Norris who gave leonard a boxing lesson. Sure leonard was 34 but you can't say he had been thru a lot of wear on his body. besides, who had Norris fought? Still, people tell me that Ray would have schooled the fighter that compltely dominated him yet turn around and say leonard would have beaten Hagler at any point in his career-
Hagler was a plodder
Can't have it both ways.
As for Hopkins, the best I can say is that he was a pretty good overall fighter-defense, solid, good chin,good technician, excellent stamina, but not a big hitter and not a lot of speed.
Since I was the one who
really saw Hagler's competition, I can safely say Bernard wouldn't have made it to championship status. It's not based on sentiment as you say but on making comparisons--which only I can determine.
