BoxRec

Hmm. Not sure about that. Hagler was a masterful boxer, people forget that. In his early career, he was a very smooth boxing southpaw counterpuncher, it was only as champion that he started to become more aggressive, partly because he was scared of getting jobbed as he had done against Antefuermo, he wanted to make sure that the judges didn't get involved.

Hopkins was a more tactical fighter than Hopkins, but I'm not sure if he was technically superior to Hagler, who was a far cleaner puncher and whose ability to cut off the ring has been sorely undervalued. The one guy he let of the hook, Leonard, was one of the best movers in the ring in modern times, and an all time great fighter.

Hagler's results came against better quality of opposition than Hopkins by far, simply because in our era few divisions have the strength in depth as they are diluted by having multiple champions, and therefore the contender base tends to get diluted as well.

Hopkins deserves his props as an all time great, he fought the best of his era, but that didn't amount to much during his prime unfortunately. Unfortunately the biggest talents of the era, Toney and Jones Jr moved up the weights, and Hopkins inherited the scraps of the division such as they were.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

KO Artist wrote:It was a poorly written and dreadfuly one sided article.

The truth be known, Hagler didnt get his due until he beat Hearns, after qa struggle with pumped up 135 lbder in Duran. After Hearns he had a tusle with 154lbder MUgabi and lost to 147lbder Leonard who was out for four years.

Hagler was great, Monzon was great, but Monzon fought his share of old men and little guys too. Europe was Monzons home and Monaco was his back yard.

Hopkins was still champ at over 40. What was Monzon doing at 40?

I dont know if Hopkins would have beaten either of them, but any fight between the three of them would have gone to the wire.

Too many old has been writers looking through rose-tinted lenses. I'm surprised that BN published such a poor article and saw fit to put it as the front page headline.

They should have more respect for Hopkins who is a great champion.

But hang on. Duran was an all time great, no matter that he was originally a lightweight. He also struggled mightily making that weight, and grew eventually into a good middleweight, capable of beating Barklay at the age of 42. Hagler also brought a ferocity into the ring that Hopkins never had, at least not in his later career.

I would also have given Hearns a shot at beating Hopkins at 160.

Hopkins was still champ at over 40, yes, this is true, but the middleweight division, for reasons hard to fathom, has sucked for a long time. The lack of a unified champion harmed the division greatly, and Hopkins prospered in an era with very few legitimate challengers.

Hopkins was a great tactical fighter, who made the best of his abilities, but I don't quite have him on a par with the likes of Hagler and Monzon, who absolutely dominated their eras.

Duran was 37 when he beat Barkeley.

Hagler and Monzon may have had a slight edge on Hopkins, but I'd back the Hopkins who (at 36) beat Trinidad, to beat the Hagler who lost to Leonard or the Monzon who beat Valdez (both Hagler and Monzon were a month shy of 35).

To cement his legacy Hopkins needs to beat Taylor decisively, though are we being a little harsh insisting upon this, as Hagler never avenged the Leonard defeat.

To me, Hopkins is one of the grandmasters of boxing. Like McCallum, like Toney. There are a small # of fighters who remain outstanding as they get older, and their styles fine tune and their boxing brains become more advanced. That may be one reason I value Hopkins as a cleverer, or a more sophisticated boxer than Hagler or Monzon. In particular, Hagler was on the slide after he turned 33.

But Hagler was a superb technician expert at grinding people down, with a clever way of catching opponents off guard when he switched stances. In his prime he chopped so many good fighters to pieces. He also had the advantage of a brilliant , tough ring education, when he was in Philadelphia (Hopkins was criticised for having too many mismatches in his early days, by contrast).

Although Hagler was past his best when he fought Leonard, I doubt Hopkins could have taken him at that point, though of course this is merely conjecture. Leonard beat Hagler by outmoving him and shoeshining, which is not something Hopkins had the speed to do. Hagler caught up with Leonard as the fight progressed and started to bust him up, but he had wasted the early rounds pissing about trying to outbox the one guy he had no hope of outboxing. Hagler wasn't the smartest fighter in the world, and he allowed Leonard to dictate all terms, and then foolishly tried to outsmart him at his own game and failed. Had the fight been over 15 rounds, the outcome would I think have been different, with Leonard fading over the last few, and losing a points decision by a couple of rounds.

Some fighters are able to extend their careers longer than others due to particular genetics, this doesn't automatically make them better. Hopkins was probably a better fighter at 35 than he was at 25, (he was a late starter after all), because of all the experience he had gained.

I admire what Hopkins has done with a relatively mediocre level of natural athletic ability compared to some, but believe he has benefitted from campaigning in an era where the middleweight division was pretty bereft of talent for almost a decade. His victory over Trinidad was extremely impressive, and showed that guile and experience is more than a match for brute power and aggression, something Oscar had already shown, but failed to stand and punctuate in the last rounds.

Hopkins was shown up by Taylor (whether you agree with the results of the fights or not), because Taylor didn't show him as much respect as previous opponents, and used his size, speed and physical strength to keep Hopkins negative.

As for Hagler, I would have fancied him to beat Leonard in a rematch, and I think Leonard knew he wouldn't get away with the same trick twice, which is why he insisted on Hagler apologising for his comments and admitting that Leonard won the fight, before agreeing to a rematch that never happened. It's a great shame for boxing that it never happened, because Hagler had been a great champion and deserved one.

I won't argue too much with Hagler being ranked as a better middleweight champion than Hopkins. However, I have to go for an old Hopkins to beat an old Hagler. The Hagler of the Leonard and Mugabi fights would've been outboxed the the magnificently preserved 36-38 year old 'incarnation'. Leonard was able to do it running, versus a plodding slowed down Hagler.

Hopkins' defence and accuracy would've got an old Hagler in a dull, slow fight. He had great economy of movement. While Leonard stole it on the run and finished up knackered, Hopkins would be able to beat him on the move with fewer wasted movements/shots. Prime for prime of course it would be different, and my opinions of Hopkins have definitely mellowed a bit.

Hagler really was disappointing after the Hearns fight. Physically he wasn't there and couldn't do the things he took for granted.

Definitely, Hagler had deceptively long arms. Bit like that guy off Fantastic Four.

viciousmaussa wrote:I won't argue too much with Hagler being ranked as a better middleweight champion than Hopkins. However, I have to go for an old Hopkins to beat an old Hagler. The Hagler of the Leonard and Mugabi fights would've been outboxed the the magnificently preserved 36-38 year old 'incarnation'. Leonard was able to do it running, versus a plodding slowed down Hagler.

Hopkins' defence and accuracy would've got an old Hagler in a dull, slow fight. He had great economy of movement. While Leonard stole it on the run and finished up knackered, Hopkins would be able to beat him on the move with fewer wasted movements/shots. Prime for prime of course it would be different, and my opinions of Hopkins have definitely mellowed a bit.

Hagler really was disappointing after the Hearns fight. Physically he wasn't there and couldn't do the things he took for granted.

Leonard BARELY won the fight, and at a guess threw four times as many punches as Hopkins would have done. I don't see anyone beating Hopkins by merely potshotting, as Hagler was too aggressive.

Haglers workrate was still good at that stage of his career, it was his timing and footwork which was a bit on the slide, he was getting caught by shots he would have evaded in his late 20's, but his tremendous conditioning and will to win carried him through.

Much is made of the Mugabe fight, but people seem to forget that Hagler absolutely destroyed Mugabe in the end, giving him a terrible beating that wrecked his career. He didn't barely scrape by the guy, he stood there traded with him, (and Mugabe was definetly a puncher even though a small middleweight), and beat the cack out of him.

Hagler for my money would have been to consistent and too hard working for Hopkins to outbox him with 10 shots a round, and he wouldn't have made the glaring errors which Trinidad made by walking onto shot after shot winding up with big haymakers of his own.

I think Hagler would be too off balance, and also by the end of his career he was really swinging his shots, which Hopkins would see coming easily. In the Mugabi fight, he threw a right hook that was so wild he turned his back to 'The Beast.' It wasn't until an explosive young fighter 15 years his junior that Hopkins really looked his age. Even then, age 40, he did good things in the late rds.

But I'm talking about a 36-38 yo Hopkins to really have his way with an old Hagler. This Hopkins was extremely elusive and still quick enough to pull the trigger. No matter how small the hole was, Hopkins could find target, thanks to his accurate punching and ability to set traps.

Hopkins would be able to slide away from Hagler and drop the occasional shot in. For me, Hopkins is too organized and in control of himself. Hopkins could cope with age; Hagler didn't have the body working well enough to do what he could once do.


Mugabi is a hard fighter to judge. Was he ever really that good? Or was he a destroyer who was simply ruined by Hagler? He certainly didn't have a great career, and won a junior middle title only when his opponent fell over & hurt his ankle.

If Mugabi was able to beat him to the punch with moderately well delivered, accurate shots, I think Hopkins finds a way through. Accurate fighters who fought 'small' - Mugabi, Duran, Leonard were compact fighters from lighter classes with faster punch delivery - did trouble Hagler, particulary by the end. Hopkins can be very subtle and can beat fighters to the punch and find the openings on good fighters even from lower divisions. This tells me that he really has a high level of awareness, a keen sense of timing and a knowledge of exactly when/where to throw a shot. That's the sort of stuff that troubles Hagler (though from '80-85 he was good at finding a way round it).

The point I'm getting at is that Hagler didn't like having his rhythm broken, and I would predict Hopkins to break his rhythm and frustrate him over the distance. Nip and tuck style.


I dislike Hopkins' weird rushes and lunges from the third Robert Allen fight onwards (though 2 narrow losses to Taylor & a one sided win over Tarver are hardly unforgivable). He seems to forget that he can no longe throw seamless right hand leads and take a step over to the side. Before that, however (from the Tito through to the Joppy), Hopkins was still a remarkable, versatile fighter with decent speed and impressive fitness. To me, definitely better than a shell of Hagler.

Hagler 'owned' Philly fighters even before he won the title. He was better than Hopkins. As for Monzon, he was THE man. Check out his unbeaten run when he retired as champ.

I have full respect for Hopkins as stated earlier, but he couldn't defeat Taylor, and could you see Hagler losing twice to Taylor?

Hagler beats Hopkins everytime, he's to agressive, throws to many punches, punches harder and if you watch his fights Hagler is very accurate with his punches.
Hopkins would have had his moments, but ultimatly lost on points.

I can agree with that. Hagler probably peaked before he won the title and no one wanted to fight a ferocious southpaw like him. Monzon perhaps had the most impressive title reign of the three because he had a genuine rival, Rodrigo Valdez, who'd be a Hall of Famer were it not for Monzon.

Hopkins however deserves immense credit for overcoming the fact that he was ducked in his prime (97-00), always being in great shape, for refining his style and improving his technique so much (props to Bouie Fischer), and for shutting the gobshite Antonio Tarver with a wonderful display.

Hopkins deserves mentioning alongside Monzon and Hagler. His win over Tito is a bit taken for granted these days - Tito was regarded as the #1 p4p after wins over Reid and Vargas, and if Tito was one dimensional, Hopkins was brilliantly multi faceted.

It's harder to be a recognized as a great fighter these days because there are so many shortcuts, so many bullshit mandatories and more mismatches. In a way it's a shame that Hopkins wasn't born five years earlier or later. He would've fit well into that outstanding Toney-McCallum-Nunn-Kalambay-Benn-Watson-Eubank-Collins-Reggie Johnson-JD Jackson era...on the other hand it would've been better for his legacy if ayounger version of himself had faced Taylor, Winky, etc.

Terence wrote:I see it the other way with Tito. His wins over Reid and particularly Vargas stripped away the last bit of patience he had in the ring. He went in for the KO with every shot instead of putting them together and letting it happen. Joppy was teeing off on Tito even as he was being hammered into submission. By the time Hopkins got to Tito he was not the guy who had stayed patient and pursuant with De La Hoya and had taken advantage of the Golden Boys dreadful ring generalmanship.

People who regarded Tito as #1 P4P seemed to do so as an extension of the 'Roycott' situation. When Tito moved to middleweight BN had some quotes from various US papers asking for their thoughts on Tito (a blown-up welterweight) versus Jones (comfortable at SM and LH) and the results were puzzling. One guy, I think he was with the Michigna Sun, said "Tito destroys the runner Jones in two rounds". This is exhibit B to Mike Tyson's exhibit A that people see a few KO's and lose all sense of perspective.

Tito was a really exciting fighter who became enamoured by his own punch. The Hopkins defeat was along time in the making. Hopkins was a solid Champion but is jostling for position behind a number of middleweights and would not show Hagler anything he had not seen before.

I would have liked to have seen Toney-Hopkins at MW when it was first proposed, a green Hopkins would lose then come back better for the experience. People forget that Toney struggled with the weight but had the anti-Hopkins garlic of hand-speed at that weight.

definitely, Tito was a bit overrated, even at welter. He seemed to have no patience versus Vargas, whom he loaded up on time after time...I saw Hopkins-Holmes on Grandstand and knew Trinidad was going to get a hiding. However, he still was a major puncher & I credit Hopkins for being able to move consistently and not use up too much energy (by contrast, de la Hoya burned up all he had over the 1st 8 rds). That was the first fight where Hopkins looked quite old physically (he looked far too thin), and it was very clever stuff that he pulled off.

Personally, I wouldn't have liked a 93 Hopkins-Toney. Hopkins was frankly a mess at the time - he had no technique whatsoever. I would've liked the 2003 version that Boxingtalk tried to hype, up at cruiserweight. That would've been such an intiguing fight, with Hopkins coming in around 180 and Toney at 190 (before the division limit went up). Hopkins has shown that the higher weights might have suited an older version of himself, where he would face fighters with less speed, but where he would stil have good movement.

I'd like to see Toney v Hopkins now, at heavyweight. If Hopkins really wants to fight a heavyweight, then why not Toney? Ok, it could potentially develop into a chess match, but is there a better heavyweight fight out there in terms of skills on display?

You are right though. When writers & fans see a big puncher, their brains turn into primordial soup, because they think that if one person crumbles against the power, that every person will. No one could believe that Trinidad would lose, just as the majority seemed to think that no one could escape from the ropes against Lacy, never mind bemuse/back him up. God forbid that Lewis & Holyfield could've beaten Tyson.