BoxRec

theone wrote:

eah, Hopkins was phenom at 160. Hey, just because he lost to the two best fighters he met at 160 let's not worry about that. Don't forget those great wins over Joe Lipsey, andrew council and that great fighter robert allen. Ha! Minter regularly beat blokes like that and minter struggles to crack the top 100 middleweight champs. Revisionism reigns.

Yup Hopkins was a phenom at middleweight. Its silly to belittle his accomplishments. The fact that he lost to the even greater Jones and two very highly controversial fights past his prime to Jermaine Taylor should not detract from his legacy.

Talk about revisionist! Minter was regularly ko'd by lesser fighters than Lipsey or Council! All before he fought Hagler!

That being said, I still rank Hagler head to head over Bernard, but barely.
Hagler never fought anyone as complete as him. And Jones would most likely have defeated Hagler just as easily as he did Hopkins.

Minter was only stopped on cuts prior to the Sibson knockout at the end of his career.

The two cuts stoppages he had in his prime-not largely irrelevant losses while a novice-prior to Hagler were against Tonna and Ronnie Harris...certainly NOT worse fighters than unproven prospect Lipsey(who never beat anyone) and the very average council.

Tonna was a limited, but huge punching brawler on about the same level as Benn and Roldan...Minter was beating him when he got stopped on cuts and then thrashed him in the rematch.

Harris was a superbly talented stylist, but didn't have a world title fight mentality as showed when he choked against less talented Corro-nonetheless in non-title fights he was formidable.The fight was very close until Minter took some hard shots with his mouthpiece out that cut him to shreds.

theone wrote:

I know Hagler has his detractors on this board but anyone who thinks the Marvellous one isn't in the top 3 MW of all time needs to go back to the tapes.

In terms of accomplishment I agree. However watching thoses same fight tapes I also came to the conclusion that there are at least four ATG middles who would have beaten him more often than not.

1. Monzon - I think his bigger size and composure would be the difference in a razor thin decision over Hagler.
2.Robinson - Not the one who came out of retirement and fought Fullmer and Basillo; Hagler takes him fairly easy I think. But the Robinson who defeated LaMotta for the middleweight title has almost every advantage over Hagler and would decision him probably every time.
3. Leonard - I bellieve if Leonard would have fought Hagler much earlier he still would have beat him. People talk about how past his best Hagler was when he lost to Leonard. Well, Leonard preformed nothing like his prime self either and would have always been too fast and smart for Hagler.
4. Jones - Yes, Roy Jones Jr. The middleweight Jones would have been too fast for the somewhat plodding Hagler and probably hit harder than him too. Hard enough at least to gain Haglers respect and cruise to a somewhat easy decision victory.

With there defensive skills and solid chins I think Hopskins and Toney would have given Hagler fits, but I believe Marvin edges them out with solid pressure.

What are you talking about? When did Leonard ever look that good? The night he fought Hagler was his best performance ever. That's not to say he wasn't facing a mannoquin in boxing trunks by the time the fight came off. But it was his best performance.

Besides, Leonard was always in close fights, prime or no prime.

Even during his prime he lost to Duran. He just about lost to Hearns, being outboxed and losing just about every round. Make no mistake, it wasn't skill that won the day but strength.

To be honest, Hearns' lack of muscle proved to be his downfall because up until the 13th round, leonard hadn't done much of anything.

Tommy could have taken those same shots much better in the earlier rounds but he wasn't in championship condition-not at 145 pounds.

My question is: if leonard was so great, why did his own handler tell him "you're blowing it son"?

Angelo Dundee kept telling Leonard "you're blowin it son" so he'd become more agressive and KO Hearns, WHICH HE DID.

Seamus wrote:Angelo Dundee kept telling Leonard "you're blowin it son" so he'd become more agressive and KO Hearns, WHICH HE DID.

That's right. He was blowing it for most of the fight and that was supposedly his crowning achievement. But since he didn't look that great, only winning four rounds in all, what sets this performance apart from the Hagler fight?

If you really believe in what you say, this statement will be closely scrutinized and open to discussion.

Seamus wrote:Anyway you look at, Hagler was disappointing the night he fought Duran. He just didn't attack him like the guy had killed his pigeons. You could see it right from the beginning, metaphorically speaking, he wasen't breathing fire, he wasen't on a search and destroy mission. Compare that with Tommy Hearns' demeanor for his bout with Duran, (and yes I know Hearns was technically a bad matchup for Duran) and you see a guy with just one objective in mind, knockout. All the great ones have there disappointing nights though, and this one was Marvelous Marvin's. He didn't fight terrible, he just lacked his usual intensity.

I have to agree. search and destroy version was much more deadly. Don't think Hagler had a fight plan going into the fight. He may have figured he didn't need one and shows during that 11th round.

Hearns had much more going for him than Duran since Tommy beat Wilfred by a wide margin and Wilfred had beaten Duran by a wide margin.

So Marvin may have felt Tommy was more of a threat especially since Tommy had just peaked. The way he blew out Duran removed all doubt that Tommy was in a league all his own and was now light years better than the 145 pound stripling that gave out in the late rounds to Sugar Ray leonard.

Can't agree with the assessment of Hopkins against Hagler. Hagler was an all time great-even #1 middleweight of all time wheras Hopkins only qualifies as a semi great.

All time great

great

semi-great (Hopkins-lost one sided decision to Roy Jones)

Decagon wrote:Hopkins did win around 4 or 5 rounds in that fight, depending on how generous you're being. Also, the rounds were fairly competitive. That's not what I'd call one-sided.

Considering the amount of weight Roy had taken off the day before the fight (to make weight) and the fact that he was fighting with a busted mitt, makes it all the more amazing that the margin of victory was as wide as it was.

Especially when the score was actually 9 rounds for Roy, three for Bernard. That's how Harold Lederman scored it. That's how I scored it and after all was said and done X wound up just another victim of RJ. Take that IBRO!

I don't buy the excuse Bernard lost because was green. Both had roughly the same number of fights and turned pro the same year.

Roy was the only one that had legit excuse for losing. Roy was weight drained and fighting with one good hand. he fought Roy's fight and that's why he lost.

As for a Hagler-Hopkins bout, That's a joke. Better to place a volkswagon in the Indy 500.

Hagler by savage tko in the 5th.

Decagon wrote:

blueberrymuffin wrote:I don't buy the excuse Bernard lost because was green. Both had roughly the same number of fights and turned pro the same year.

That's a complete whitewash of the two fighters' respective careers. Do you engage in this type of bullshit arguing on a regular basis?

..... says the dullest bullsh!tter of the forum.

Decagon wrote:Damn, are you still mad because I said that I wasn't impressed with Bitschko's LOSSES to Byrd and Lewis?!?!?!?!

Bore on.

Decagon wrote:

blueberrymuffin wrote:I don't buy the excuse Bernard lost because was green. Both had roughly the same number of fights and turned pro the same year.

That's a complete whitewash of the two fighters' respective careers. Do you engage in this type of bullshit arguing on a regular basis?

Why is it bullshit? Anyone saying that Hopkins would have given Hagler a close fight....now that's bullshit.

You can't expect me to believe Hopkins was better in his mid to late 30's than he was at 28. You just can't.

The difference between victory and defeat was the opponent standing before him and nothing else. This was for a title and Hopkins lost. You can't even say that Bernard didn't give it his all-he was trying like hell but the problem was he was too low on power taking too many shots.

Moreover, it is well know fact that Roy had trouble making weight-real trouble. That's the reason he fought conservatively. Not to mention his hand was broken.

Roy Jones beat Hopkins handily -- and with one hand! (No pun intended)

Decagon wrote:Damn, are you still mad because I said that I wasn't impressed with Bitschko's LOSSES to Byrd and Lewis?!?!?!?!

You are pretty dull.

Why is it bullshit? Anyone saying that Hopkins would have given Hagler a close fight....now that's bullshit.

Hopskins was just as tough, strong and powerful as the any of the brawlers(Roldan,Hamsho,Lee,Antefuermo,etc) Hagler feasted on during his reign. He was also vastly superior to them in boxing skill and defense.
Prime Hopkins gives prime Hagler the fight of his career. I'm not saying Hopkins wins it, but to imply he wouldnt even be competetive is downright silly.

Especially when the score was actually 9 rounds for Roy, three for Bernard. That's how Harold Lederman scored it. That's how I scored it and after all was said and done X wound up just another victim of RJ. Take that IBRO!
[

I sort of agree with your scoring of that fight but just because Jones clearly beat Hopkins doesnt translate to an easy Hagler win over "The Executioner". Hagler had no where near the speed or defense of Jones,nor did he punch any harder. Hagler would have lost in a very similar way as Hopskins if he fought Roy.

Hagler by savage tko in the 5th.

Nonsense. No middleweight in history savagly TKO's Hopkins in any round. He's just too smart a fighter to allow that.

theone wrote: Hopskins was just as tough, strong and powerful as the any of the brawlers(Roldan,Hamsho,Lee,Antefuermo,etc) Hagler feasted on during his reign. He was also vastly superior to them in boxing skill and defense.
Prime Hopkins gives prime Hagler the fight of his career. I'm not saying Hopkins wins it, but to imply he wouldnt even be competetive is downright silly.

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. Granted it's not Hopkins' fault that he reigned the division when it was historically weak, but put him back in the 70's & 80's facing tougher opposition on a regular basis and I don't see him doing as well. Perhaps he was able to look so good so often for so long because he was very rarely challenged seriously.

theone wrote: 3. Leonard - I bellieve if Leonard would have fought Hagler much earlier he still would have beat him. People talk about how past his best Hagler was when he lost to Leonard. Well, Leonard preformed nothing like his prime self either and would have always been too fast and smart for Hagler.

You're out of your mind on this one. Obviously this is a controversial fight and I believe Leonard out-psyched Marvin and fought the right fight to win ie. run for 2min30sec and then finish each round with a flurry of meaningless punches and showboat to look like he's in control. But if they fought again 6 months afterwards do you really think Ray would have won the rematch? IMO Leonard gets way too much credit as a Middleweight. Tommy Hearns beat him in their rematch - everyone knows that.
Leonard was a great Welterweight but after his comeback in '87 I have serious reservations at the higher weights. I could never rate Sugar as a great middle or super middle based on his record and performances in those fights. This takes nothing away from the fact that he is a great fighter, albeit as a welter.

theone wrote:

Why is it bullshit? Anyone saying that Hopkins would have given Hagler a close fight....now that's bullshit.

Hopskins was just as tough, strong and powerful as the any of the brawlers(Roldan,Hamsho,Lee,Antefuermo,etc) Hagler feasted on during his reign. He was also vastly superior to them in boxing skill and defense.
Prime Hopkins gives prime Hagler the fight of his career. I'm not saying Hopkins wins it, but to imply he wouldnt even be competetive is downright silly.

Especially when the score was actually 9 rounds for Roy, three for Bernard. That's how Harold Lederman scored it. That's how I scored it and after all was said and done X wound up just another victim of RJ. Take that IBRO!
[

I sort of agree with your scoring of that fight but just because Jones clearly beat Hopkins doesnt translate to an easy Hagler win over "The Executioner". Hagler had no where near the speed or defense of Jones,nor did he punch any harder. Hagler would have lost in a very similar way as Hopskins if he fought Roy.

Hagler by savage tko in the 5th.

Nonsense. No middleweight in history savagly TKO's Hopkins in any round. He's just too smart a fighter to allow that.

I see you have witnessed the contenders in Hagler's day.

I personally wonder if you ever saw anything of Hagler's prime let alone the top contenders.

Few have unless they were hardcore fans.

In fact, I think you were the one that mentioned Hagler was known as a plodder which tells me that you probably just watched his last 3 or 4 fights. So when you mention his style as plodding to someone like me who is more familiar with how he fights, it comes across as sounding strange because that's not how I remember him at all. Like most people who haven't seen much of him, they tend to underrate him-including his power. You said hagler didn't hit as hard as Roy-that is bizzare! marvin's knockout ratio was one of the highest in the history of the division. Again you underrate Marvin in that category.

I don't underrate Bernard. I saw enough of him to know what he can do and what he can't. I found out his what his limits were from the Jones fight. But I have never underestimated him. I picked him to beat Trinidad. But to this day, I never saw X beat one really quality, top notch middleweight. Hagler beat that kind on a regular basis-with ease.

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.

Which one of these bouts have you seen? You can't comment on something you haven't seen? Otherwise, in order to know about the division, you had to have followed it.

I have seen both Hopkins and Hagler (I have every one of his fights available including Hagler-Cabrera). I have also seen or own the bouts I mentioned above on tape.

No one can match Hopkins for longevity. 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).

Had X come along at the time Hagler's reign was coming to a close, about 1986, he would have done better. All he had then was an aging Hagler, already shopworn and Kinchen and Shuler, the top ranked contenders.

el tigre del sur wrote:

theone wrote: 3. Leonard - I bellieve if Leonard would have fought Hagler much earlier he still would have beat him. People talk about how past his best Hagler was when he lost to Leonard. Well, Leonard preformed nothing like his prime self either and would have always been too fast and smart for Hagler.

You're out of your mind on this one. Obviously this is a controversial fight and I believe Leonard out-psyched Marvin and fought the right fight to win ie. run for 2min30sec and then finish each round with a flurry of meaningless punches and showboat to look like he's in control. But if they fought again 6 months afterwards do you really think Ray would have won the rematch? IMO Leonard gets way too much credit as a Middleweight. Tommy Hearns beat him in their rematch - everyone knows that.
Leonard was a great Welterweight but after his comeback in '87 I have serious reservations at the higher weights. I could never rate Sugar as a great middle or super middle based on his record and performances in those fights. This takes nothing away from the fact that he is a great fighter, albeit as a welter.

I agree that Ray cannot be rated as anything other than a great welter, but in regards to a rematch with Hagler, I think that Ray would probably have beaten Marvin in rematch.

Hagler's speed was on the wane when they fought the first time round, it would be almost non existent by the time of a rematch.

I believe that SRL would have gone into a rematch with more buoyancy, knowing for sure that he had the measure of MMH, whereas first time around, he was coming back 'blind' after being off for 3 years (1 fight in 5 years).

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.

Relax guys, neither Hopkins or Jones would have beaten Monzon or Hagler...

Decagon wrote:

blueberrymuffin wrote:

Decagon wrote:That's a complete whitewash of the two fighters' respective careers. Do you engage in this type of bullshit arguing on a regular basis?

Why is it bullshit? Anyone saying that Hopkins would have given Hagler a close fight....now that's bullshit.

You can't expect me to believe Hopkins was better in his mid to late 30's than he was at 28. You just can't.

The difference between victory and defeat was the opponent standing before him and nothing else. This was for a title and Hopkins lost. You can't even say that Bernard didn't give it his all-he was trying like hell but the problem was he was too low on power taking too many shots.

Moreover, it is well know fact that Roy had trouble making weight-real trouble. That's the reason he fought conservatively. Not to mention his hand was broken.

Roy Jones beat Hopkins handily -- and with one hand! (No pun intended)

I didn't say any of that. I simply said that you were whitewashing the respective early careers of Hopkins and Jones by simply saying that they had the same number of fights and turned pro in the same year. Roy Jones had a sensational amateur career, winning the Val Barker Cup. Hopkins had a few fights, but spent most of his youth in jail. Jones was brought along fairly well, starting in 1989 and had faced a number of decent fighters. Hopkins was thrown in with a cruiserweight in 1988 and didn't get his first win until 1990. He'd only faced one real live body, while Jones was much more experienced.

thanks for setting me straight.

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.

Ringsider is the only guy I have seen who refered to Hagler as a plodder. Are you sure you don't have these guys mixed up? If he reads this he will probably be back to chime in to say how he thinks Hagler was not much of a fighter.

here's another winning line from theone came up with. He puts Toney on the same level as Hagler saying he would have given him fits.

Toney was the one having fits every time I saw him at 160. Let me name them for you: Micheal Nunn, Reggie Johnson, Mike McCallum. The last two which could have gone either way. And James wore out too quick in fights.

This is the guy that would have given Hagler fits? :P

hagler would have schooled this amateur!!


he couldn't even handle that Sunday school teacher/boxer in his spare time, Dave Tiberi.

Tiberi-Toney..robbery of the year.

kick asner wrote:Ringsider is the only guy I have seen who refered to Hagler as a plodder. Are you sure you don't have these guys mixed up? If he reads this he will probably be back to chime in to say how he thinks Hagler was not much of a fighter.

it's on the first page of this thread.

Mike McCallum was better than anyone Hagler beat. In fact I would not be terribly surprised if McCallum could beat Hagler.

Haglers punch count would be to high for Toney to have won a decsision and his chin was to solid for Toney to win by knockout. Plus I give Hagler a big advantage in all of the intangebles such as the will to win, better conditioning ect. Anyway you break it down Hagler wins this matchup hands down.