How does Hopkins get on against the Fab 4?

lirva33 · Post by **lirva33** » 21 Feb 2005, 11:24

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.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Feb 2005, 11:25

Leonard beats him. Hagler beats him, Duran loses on points, Hearns hurts him early and then gets chinned in the last third of the fight.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 21 Feb 2005, 12:04

Hagler knock him out, Leonard outpoints him, Duran chases him all-night and loses on points and Hearn’s too chases him but gets the verdict.

J · Post by J » 21 Feb 2005, 12:07

Personally its too difficult to call.

Hopkins is so versatile and can do anumber of things it depends what fight he decides to make it / whether the others dictate.

the other undoubtedly were better at what they did, SL as a boxer, Hagler as a fighter, Hearns as a puncher, Duran as a brawler, but you have to ask yourself how hopkins would have counteracted their strengths.

too difficult to call.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Feb 2005, 12:11

Hearns probably had the skills to outbox Hopkins, and might have stopped him. I don't know that Hop would have survived three rounds of what Hearns dished out, Hagler was unnaturally tough and was a much stronger man and bigger puncher than Hop. Still think Hearns was too susceptible at middleweight though, look at what Barkley did to him.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 21 Feb 2005, 12:39

Hagler wins on points, Leonard losing on points, Hearns wins on points, Duran losing on points

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 21 Feb 2005, 14:24

topper123 wrote:Hagler wins on points, Leonard losing on points, Hearns wins on points, Duran losing on points

Leonard loses on points, Hearns wins on points? Okee dokee...

Leonard was a master at stealing rounds with his flashy style and flurries - if he can beat Hagler on points (and aside from Jo Jo Guerra's peyote-induced score, that was *not* a robbery - Hagler gave away the first 4 rounds, basically fighting as if it was a 15-rounder), with a style and physical assets very similar to the one Jones Jr beat Hopkins with, how do you figure BH wins on points?

Next, Hearns/Hopkins would be a war, no way does that go to the cards. Hearns had freakish punching power, and I say at some point he lands a bomb and takes Hopkins out.

Agree with Duran losing on points, but say that he gives Nard all he can handle en route to the decision.

Oh, and Hagler wins on points or by late-round TKO.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 21 Feb 2005, 14:43

Eric the Viking wrote:
topper123 wrote:Hagler wins on points, Leonard losing on points, Hearns wins on points, Duran losing on points
Leonard loses on points, Hearns wins on points? Okee dokee...

Leonard was a master at stealing rounds with his flashy style and flurries - if he can beat Hagler on points (and aside from Jo Jo Guerra's peyote-induced score, that was *not* a robbery - Hagler gave away the first 4 rounds, basically fighting as if it was a 15-rounder), with a style and physical assets very similar to the one Jones Jr beat Hopkins with, how do you figure BH wins on points?

Next, Hearns/Hopkins would be a war, no way does that go to the cards. Hearns had freakish punching power, and I say at some point he lands a bomb and takes Hopkins out.

Agree with Duran losing on points, but say that he gives Nard all he can handle en route to the decision.

Oh, and Hagler wins on points or by late-round TKO.

I would say that Hopkins wouldn't give away the first 4 rounds like Hagler did, De La hoya tried to outbox Hopkins and couldn't. Roy Jones Jnr did out point Hopkins, but that was a long time ago and IMO Hopkins wasn't in his prime, i just see it that he figures out his oponents, when he wins on points he wins big.

As for Hearns i didn't say it wouldn't be a war, just he wins on points.

Thing is all these , "what would have happened", threads always drive me mad , just a shame the fights couldn't really happen

Manos de Oro · Post by **Manos de Oro** » 21 Feb 2005, 15:43

Pointless to speculate on these matchups considering how emotional some people get, but I'd rank Hopkins a slight underdog for Hagler, heavy - but live - underdog against Hearns. For the Leonard and Duran matches I'd tip Hopkins on points. Off-topic but Monzon is the middleweight great I'd most like to see Hopkins against. Big superfight at MSG, styles would gel superbly for a stunning technical fight, in my opinion.

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 21 Feb 2005, 15:48

I would also like to have seen Hopkins-Monzon, Hopkins-Leonard would have been a real chess match.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 21 Feb 2005, 16:08

Is Hopkins the greatest middleweight of all time? Statistically, yes, but, as Mighty Warrior has already pointed out, Bernard has suffered for a lack of competition and that loss to Jones niggles (with me). Jones was a lesser version of Leonard. The Sugar Man was a magnificent fighter who did have the competition and showed he could beat them all at his peak.
He had the all-round ability to get the better of Hopkins.
As for Hagler, he made his name by taking on the best Philly had to offer in the 70's (a frightening prospect), and eventually beating them all. He beat Bennie Briscoe in front of 15,000 at the Spectrum, which is still an indoor record for boxing in Philadelphia. So Hagler would also have beaten Hopkins in my opinion.
Hearns and Duran were also magnificent fighters - but Duran's lack of size and Tommy's struggles with Barkley (a cute fighter in the Hopkins mould), perhaps lean me towards Hopkins.

Manos de Oro · Post by **Manos de Oro** » 21 Feb 2005, 16:40

Yeah, Duran's lack of size would be his downfall against Hopkins in my view. I can just picture him plodding around getting picked off for a Hopkins UD. If Hopkins didn't fight on the backfoot it very much could be game on, though.

Hagler - who I rate as probably the greatest middleweight - would get mindphuked against Hopkins, I think. Hopkins would do what he did versus Eastman - and what Roy Jones was good at - in making the opponent think he's fragile and trapping him in a parallel world.
Hagler was too thick-set on wanting to get stuck in, in a lot of his fights. He'd be pumped up and psyched for Hopkins, which would play right into Bernard's hands. I think it would be like the Leonard fight with Hagler swearing and getting confused, being unable to put his finger on exactly what was going on, all the while believing he was winning.
Physically, Hopkins is a lot taller, which would get the jab going easier. Most importantly he can really mix it up (for a tall man) on the inside and make it rough. I don't think you'd see him trading at mid-range like the 6'1 Hearns did. I can see him gradually getting the better of these rough flurries the longer the fight goes on, racking up the points.
Another thing is, I can't help thinking how tough Duran made it for Hagler, and the way I felt Roldan could cause the upset in the early rounds (incidentally, I always think of the Roldan fight when talk of Hagler - La Motta surfaces), until he got a Holmes-esque accidental thumb. Also was really disappointed in Cyclone Hart when he looked to just quit in a very close (from what I remember, it's hazy) fight.

I think Hopkins would draw Leonard into a fight better than Hagler did; there would be more frequent exchanges. Leonard would undoubtably win rounds, but I think the increase in the exchanges would begin to tell in the later rounds, and if Hopkins surged at the end I can see him taking it 115-113 or so.

Hearns I can picture giving Hopkins hell the opening quarter. I just think of the first Antwun Echols fight and see Hopkins pitched up against the ropes doing his level best to block them, but quite a number getting through. Echols dropped him in a farce knockdown, but I can picture a similar right hand coming from Hearns, but being more heavy and having more effect. If Hopkins managed to neuter Hearns then it swings in his favour, but I just can't help thinking of what effect that fast start would have on him...

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 21 Feb 2005, 17:11

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.

Neri · Post by **Neri** » 21 Feb 2005, 18:15

Leonard points, Hagler KO, Late stoppage over Duran, beats hearns on points

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Feb 2005, 19:35

Manos de Oro wrote:Yeah, Duran's lack of size would be his downfall against Hopkins in my view. I can just picture him plodding around getting picked off for a Hopkins UD. If Hopkins didn't fight on the backfoot it very much could be game on, though.

Hagler - who I rate as probably the greatest middleweight - would get mindphuked against Hopkins, I think. Hopkins would do what he did versus Eastman - and what Roy Jones was good at - in making the opponent think he's fragile and trapping him in a parallel world.
Hagler was too thick-set on wanting to get stuck in, in a lot of his fights. He'd be pumped up and psyched for Hopkins, which would play right into Bernard's hands. I think it would be like the Leonard fight with Hagler swearing and getting confused, being unable to put his finger on exactly what was going on, all the while believing he was winning.
Physically, Hopkins is a lot taller, which would get the jab going easier. Most importantly he can really mix it up (for a tall man) on the inside and make it rough. I don't think you'd see him trading at mid-range like the 6'1 Hearns did. I can see him gradually getting the better of these rough flurries the longer the fight goes on, racking up the points.
Another thing is, I can't help thinking how tough Duran made it for Hagler, and the way I felt Roldan could cause the upset in the early rounds (incidentally, I always think of the Roldan fight when talk of Hagler - La Motta surfaces), until he got a Holmes-esque accidental thumb. Also was really disappointed in Cyclone Hart when he looked to just quit in a very close (from what I remember, it's hazy) fight.

I think Hopkins would draw Leonard into a fight better than Hagler did; there would be more frequent exchanges. Leonard would undoubtably win rounds, but I think the increase in the exchanges would begin to tell in the later rounds, and if Hopkins surged at the end I can see him taking it 115-113 or so.

Hearns I can picture giving Hopkins hell the opening quarter. I just think of the first Antwun Echols fight and see Hopkins pitched up against the ropes doing his level best to block them, but quite a number getting through. Echols dropped him in a farce knockdown, but I can picture a similar right hand coming from Hearns, but being more heavy and having more effect. If Hopkins managed to neuter Hearns then it swings in his favour, but I just can't help thinking of what effect that fast start would have on him...

I just don't see Hop being able to outbox Hagler. Hagler was a fantastic boxer, in his early career he worked behind the jab and fought from distance, when he became champ

Duran is one of the greatest inside fighters of all time, and was strong enough at middleweight to deck the shit out of Barkley when he was way past his prime. Hagler beat Duran at his own game on the inside. Never mind how close it was, Hagler did enough to win.

Too much is made of the fact Duran struggled with Duran, and a loss to Leonard was no great indictment of his career. I dare say he would have battered Leonard in a rematch. Hagler was at the end of a long career by that point and was sliding, but he only lost by the very narrowest of margins to Leonard.

Duran and Leonard are both better fighters than DLH and Trinidad, they were truly exceptional all time great, who prospered in an era blessed with talent and tough guys. Hearns was an all time great puncher, yet Hagler brushed him aside after shrugging off his best shots. Nothing in Hopkins arsenal would have troubled Hagler, but conversely, I think Hagler could have hurt Hopkins with an accumulation of punches.

I think they would have had a close fight, but Hagler would have won a close one.

JimStone · Post by **JimStone** » 21 Feb 2005, 19:51

I think he'd stop Hearns and beat the other three on points. Hagler and Leonard are overrated.

I'd like Duran to be able to beat him, but sadly he couldn't - lightweight was Roberto's true stomping ground.

Monzon was my favourite middleweight.

Lefthookhappy19 · Post by **Lefthookhappy19** » 21 Feb 2005, 21:01

Eric the Viking wrote:
topper123 wrote:Hagler wins on points, Leonard losing on points, Hearns wins on points, Duran losing on points
Leonard loses on points, Hearns wins on points? Okee dokee...

Leonard was a master at stealing rounds with his flashy style and flurries - if he can beat Hagler on points (and aside from Jo Jo Guerra's peyote-induced score, that was *not* a robbery - Hagler gave away the first 4 rounds, basically fighting as if it was a 15-rounder), with a style and physical assets very similar to the one Jones Jr beat Hopkins with, how do you figure BH wins on points?

Next, Hearns/Hopkins would be a war, no way does that go to the cards. Hearns had freakish punching power, and I say at some point he lands a bomb and takes Hopkins out.

Agree with Duran losing on points, but say that he gives Nard all he can handle en route to the decision.

Oh, and Hagler wins on points or by late-round TKO.

Totally 100% agree with this.

Lickszz · Post by **Lickszz** » 21 Feb 2005, 22:44

They all beat Hopkins with the exception of Duran who was out of his dept with the weight.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 21 Feb 2005, 23:37

In answer to your question I think Hopkins would knock out any of the Beatles.

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 21 Feb 2005, 23:44

Well there's only two left to fight

Sweet P · Post by **Sweet P** » 22 Feb 2005, 05:09

I think the only one of them four to really trouble Hopkins is Hagler with his sheer size and power, The other 3 are blown up Welterweights and lightweights.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 22 Feb 2005, 05:15

tonyevs wrote:Hagler knock him out, Leonard outpoints him, Duran chases him all-night and loses on points and Hearn’s too chases him but gets the verdict.

I agree with all these outcomes.

Sweet P · Post by **Sweet P** » 22 Feb 2005, 05:22

But really wouldn't the fab four at middleweight be like Monzan, Robinson, Hagler and Hopkins

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 22 Feb 2005, 06:07

Put Hopkins in that era and he'd be a top ten contender at best - let's face it, the middleweight divison has been dire over the last ten years or so.

Fighters like a peak John Mugabi, and even old Bennie Briscoe couldn't get past Hagler. Marv would've been too much for Hopkins.

Hagler UD
Leonard UD ( better hand speed and even more ring smarts than BH )
Duran - Hop would probably win that one, but it's the wrong division for Duran anyway. Saying that, if he was facing Duran in Madison Square Garden, on the Panamanian's birthday..................

Hopkins KO 10 Hearns. I think he's be smart enought to stay out of trouble over the first few rounds.