BoxRec

My favorit fantasy match up
who wins and why
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopkins a all time great
with suprem ring generalship
good speed
good power
good chin
10-0 agains southpaws..
great endurande
physikal strong



Hagler a all time great
Good rellentles agrasiv style
big power both hands
good chin
good endurance
physikal strong
can fight both southpaw and ortedoks


Great fight with hagler win by ko 11

Don't give up hope on it just yet. Jeff Fenech and Azumah Nelson are talking about fighting again, so you never know.

Hagler would do to Hopkins what he did to Hearns

Hagler. There's a big difference between being a great in a great era, and being a great in an average one.

Prime Hagler pre 84 would destroy Hopkins who would be on his bike all night.

Later Hagler would soundly UD him.

Remember Hagler is the same size as Hopkins and Hopkins doesnt beat elite fighters his size.

Hagler would top Hopkins in the ring and in any sane all-time list.

yeh hagler would give it to hopkins

p4p1 wrote:yeh hagler would give it to hopkins

Hagler would give B-Hop the blues! Hagler's movement and slip style would win every score card and by round 11 would ware on Hop. Both would be tough and refuse to fold but B-Hop would have to bow out by 12th. Hagler late TKO 12th.

hagler i very strong but so is hopkins.. he is very god vs southpaws and presure fighters ore will haglers attack thust roll over him ?

This one is a toughie ...I like B Hop, but its hard, REAL HARD to pick against Marvelous...it would start of tactical of course, with Hagler pressing the action...he'd have to watch those Hopkins counter rights though...

I believe Hagler's edge in power would carry the championship rounds for him, and lead to a close UD win...

can hagler hurt hopkins and can hopkins hurt hagler.... hopkins like to counter punch and has the fysik and conditioning to keep up with hagler ore ?

glittermonkey wrote:Hagler. There's a big difference between being a great in a great era, and being a great in an average one.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on this match up. Hopkins would be competitive in Hagler's era but I think he'd just be another good win on Hagler's record. Hopkins is great against southpaws because he's a cagey old veteran. He uses his head so subtly most people don't even notice he goes in head first. Against someone who hits hard with either hands and knows how to use uppercuts like Hagler, that might be more of a mistake than a dirty advantage. Besides Hagler had a strong head and wasn't too shy with headbutts himself. Nice interesting match up though.

glittermonkey wrote:Hagler. There's a big difference between being a great in a great era, and being a great in an average one.

Or perhaps -- it's better to be a great in an average era rather than a great in a below average era.

Either way, Hagler tops Hopkins, but I can't see him stopping him. Hagler by comfortable UD.

I wonder if some of you even know who Hopkins and Hagler are. Have you seen any of Hagler's defenses, or did you just look up his record on boxrec and figure "wow, he scored knock outs, I guess he was a great puncher."

Hagler couldn't stop Duran, he couldn't hurt Roldan who he stopped on facial damage, he needed 11 rounds to stop Hamsho the first time and he did it on an accumulated beating, he never hurt Leonard that badly, he needed 11 rounds to make Mugabi quit; but he's going to stop Hopkins. Get out of here. Hopkins is a natual Middleweight and has a great chin, and he's a better defensive fighter than all of those guys, maybe even Leonard.

I would pick Hagler to win a close decision, or maybe a trilogy, but the idea that Hagler is going to stop Hopkins is a definite sign of ignorance of who these guys were. Hagler was a very good puncher, not a great puncher, he stopped most of his opponents on an accumulated beating or on cuts/facial damage, and Hopkins wasn't some push over who would be easily beaten, let alone knocked out, by any Middleweight.

That how I see it. Hagler's era was average at best. Hopkin's era was unbelievably bad.

This isn't to say that it was their fault that their competition wasn't great; they fought the best that was available, which is all that you can do.

Thats the argument Marciano enthusiasts use, but he is often placed on the lower rung of the all-time great heavyweights anyways; why should Hagler and Hopkins be held in such high regard based on the logic that the era was shit but was dominate, when it is an argument used against others?

For the life of me, Monzon gets rated usually at #3, but for the life of me, the majority of his opponents were Argentine jelly donuts, same as Julio Cesar Chavez...

It can't go both ways. But unfortunately in boxing debates, it is always everybody's favorite stand by.

HomicideHenry wrote:Thats the argument Marciano enthusiasts use, but he is often placed on the lower rung of the all-time great heavyweights anyways; why should Hagler and Hopkins be held in such high regard based on the logic that the era was shit but was dominate, when it is an argument used against others?

For the life of me, Monzon gets rated usually at #3, but for the life of me, the majority of his opponents were Argentine jelly donuts, same as Julio Cesar Chavez...

It can't go both ways. But unfortunately in boxing debates, it is always everybody's favorite stand by.

The truth of the matter is we'll never know because they never fought, and I agree many anti Marciano enthusiasts use the "he fought in a weak era" argument. I suppose it should go both ways, I do believe Hagler would be just as sucessful in Hopkins' era, but I can't say the same about Hopkins in Hagler. No doubt it would be a competitive twelve (or 15 if it was in Hagler's days) round fight. And a solid argument can be made for either side, but in my opinion Hagler just faced a little better opposition. De La Hoya and Trinidad were great welterweights but not the best of middleweights. Winky Wright was a great jr. middleweight, and a very good middleweight but Hagler would do the same to those three fighters. Not to say Hopkins didn't fight other great fighters, he just happened to be the great fighter who weighed more. A skilled big man beats a skilled smaller man more often than not. Hagler and Hopkins are the same size, it just comes down to opinion... who was more skilled in yours? I have to get going, it's been nice discussing boxing with you gents. Good day.

HomicideHenry wrote:Thats the argument Marciano enthusiasts use, but he is often placed on the lower rung of the all-time great heavyweights anyways; why should Hagler and Hopkins be held in such high regard based on the logic that the era was shit but was dominate, when it is an argument used against others?

For the life of me, Monzon gets rated usually at #3, but for the life of me, the majority of his opponents were Argentine jelly donuts, same as Julio Cesar Chavez...

It can't go both ways. But unfortunately in boxing debates, it is always everybody's favorite stand by.

Most people rank Hopkins as a middleweight about the same as they rank Marciano as heavyweight. Either just inside or just outside the Top 10.

Hagler did fight tougher competition than Marciano. You also have to look at how easily they defeated their opponents.
Marciano was lucky to get two decisons against journeyman Ted Lowry.
He was lucky to get the decision against La Starza the first time.
He had a lot of trouble with past his prime Ezzard Charles.
His best win of his entire career was the first Walcott fight.


Monzon fought some tomato cans but he also beat some great fighters-Griffith twice, Benvenuti twice, and Valdez twice.

Chavez beat several good fighters as well.

If a prime Louis or Ali or Holmes or Tyson or Holyfield had fought in Marciano's era, they would have gone undefeated and they wouldn't have struggled as much as he did. As alp just said, Marciano is ranked a top ten Heavyweight, as Hopkins and Hagler are at Middleweight; so you're really just bitching about nothing.

I was going to post here, but I Feel Fine basically took everything I was going to say. Touche.

I assumed we were talking about Hagler the champion.

I didn't call Hagler a non-puncher. If you read it more clearly, I say he's a very good puncher, just not a great one, nor one who would be capable of stopping Hopkins. The term "non-puncher" never appears in my post, nor is it implied.

I agree Hagler had it over Hopkins in most areas. Not defense, not size, and, as you say, I believe Hopkins is good at fighting southpaws. But if you read more closely, you will see that I said that I believe that Hagler would beat Hopkins; just not by knockout, and I believe it would be competitive. Hopkins wasn't as great as Hagler, but he was great nonetheless, and at his best he would be no easy opponent for any Middleweight.

Prime Hagler beats Prime Hopkins by a relatively close decision. Hopkins is a defensive wiz and would give Hagler headaches and make a good fight out of it, but Hagler would simply be too strong and too tough and win around an 8-4 type decision with maybe a knockdown as well.

I Feel Fine wrote:
I would pick Hagler to win a close decision, or maybe a trilogy, but the idea that Hagler is going to stop Hopkins is a definite sign of ignorance of who these guys were. Hagler was a very good puncher, not a great puncher, he stopped most of his opponents on an accumulated beating or on cuts/facial damage, and Hopkins wasn't some push over who would be easily beaten, let alone knocked out, by any Middleweight.

If Hagler was able to hurt X, he(X) would probably avoid putting himself in that situation again for the rest of the fight. X does not like to get hit.

X does not like to get hit? Thanks for that information.

Hagler was usually able to hit his Middleweight opponents at will, regardless of what 'situation' they put themselves in, and he rarely KO'd them with one punch. It was almost always facial damage or an accumulated beating. Hagler, again, was a very good puncher, but not a great puncher.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Hopkins won. Hopkins isn't one of those one dimensional sluggers (Hamsho Roldan,Antefurmo etc) Hagler feasted on during his reign. In no way shape or form does he dominate Hopkins let, alone ko him. I would still pick Hagler to win more often than not based mostly on his strength and tenacity, but it would be far, far from easy.