Discussion in 'Boxing News and Discussion' started by Black Gatti, Oct 1, 2013.
I have a definite opinion but let's hear yours first.
Hagler would've mauled Hopkins.
If you think Hopkins was a good inside fighter, imagine Hagler.
Hagler, an unorthodax relentless granite chinned warrior who could bang with either hand...Hopkins bag of tricks would've been useless against the Marvelous one at prime middleweight.
Hagler TKOs Hopkins late...or gives him a thourogh beating for 12/15 rounds.
The Executioner gets Marvelously executed.
P.S. Hagler is my second all time favorite fighter for a reason...I don't pick bums.
I agree Hagler would stop Hopkins in later rounds. Very strong puncher and would come right at Hopkins till he cornered him. Ringo
Hopkins would make it a tedious fight and lose a decision.
If the question is who would win a fight between the 2 then i would say Hagler by decision, Bhop has never been stopped so i don't know what Kimba and Ringside are thinking by saying Hagler will stop him, it will be much closer than people think though and i would say Hagler wins by majority decision. If the question is who is better of the 2 as in who will go down in history better looked at then i would have to say Bhop, his achievements over such a long career and such an old age will go down as monumental, he might not get the recognition he deserves now but 20 years after he retires his feats over much younger world champions will be historic. Boring fighter or not Bhop is an all time great and one of the best of his generation.
I kept in mind he has never been stopped. But he has never been tagged hard to my knowlege by as good a puncher as Hagler. Refresh my memory as most folks know I live near Philly, have attended some of his functions, parades, etc. and have followed him back to when I was at the Tito fight in the Garden and before. I always said Bernard would be remembered way past Roy JJr. when Roy would be long forgotten..my prophesy is coming true... I love Bernard.I have a whole boxing section in my room with pics of him I took over the years..real nice ones..lol.. making an X for me and all.... , but having said that I just can't remember him being tagged hard like I feel Hagler would. Just an educated guess. Also I am assume both in their prime and Hops boxed like during his heyday about 2001 when for a while he stopped holding and fighting dirty and boxed with timing..... instead of hold and clinched. Hopkins even then did not heave the punching power nor speed to keep a great fighter like Hagler off of him...again... Who hit him hard like Hagler would if Hagler connected in his prime? Also Hagler already has gone down in boxing history...hence these posts. lol Ringol.
Mercado I think. Knocked Hopkins down a couple of times in a title fight. Tagged him pretty good. That weren't yesterday.
I've never seen Hagler fight but I just think Duran (a blown up lightweight) went the distance with him & Hopkins gets stopped?
A faded Duran at that.
I've never seen Duran fight for that matter either.As I follow boxing I hear their names & stories of their more high profile bouts.So I'm talking out my other side but I'm just trying to make sense of it.
The earliest I go back is Macho Camacho vs Greg Haugen,Pernell Whitaker vs a Cuban guy that got knocked out the ring,Chavez/Taylor.That's as far back as I can recall.Azuma Nelson vs Jesse James Leija.
lol. I screwed up the answer...Kimba will get after my ass again for doing it...senile me.
I loved Camacho Sr. I saw Leija fight Gatti at AC when both were over their day.... Sometimes that makes for a good fight..lol...Ringo
Here are some things to consider:
1) Hagler never moved up to LH to face Michael Spinks. Hopkins moved up and Defeated Antonio Tarver and a slew of other LH champs.
2) Hopkins had just about all the physical advantages over Hagler that you can imagine.
3) Hopkins defended the title more times than Hagler.
4) Hopkins handled the superstar welters moving up better than Hagler. Hagler had a memorable war w/ Tommy Hearns but lost to Leonard & fought a lack luster 15 rounds with Duran. Hopkins dominated both De La Hoya & Trinidad.
In a nutshell I feel their Middleweight careers are comparable but then Hopkins has an additional Light Heavy career that is Hall of Fame worthy. Hagler is percieved as this seek & destroy type guy, when in fact he was more of a strong boxer puncher type.
Hopkins is not on Hagler's level as a fighter.
Rodrigo Valdez would have defeated Bernard.
Agreed. Valdez is underrated imo. To bad he was in the same era as Monzon. TIP
Yep,that sounds right.That was the Cuban gentleman that Pernell punched out the ring savagely & Pernell's not even like that.
He was trying to save his fight with De La Hoya.
Odd how 30 years on Hagler gets "questioned" for not moving up to face Michael Spinks.. So quick quiz who was the last reigning middleweight champion prior to Hagler to fight for the light heavyweight title. The way it is described anybody would think Hagler was the exception to the rule, like it was an everyday occurrence before he came along. You got to put it into perspective, when Spinks won his portion of the title nobody cared, when Spinks was WBA champion the WBC title fights were producing wars, nobody was rushing to put on a cerebal Michael Spinks title fight. Sad but true. When he does finally beat Qawi to become the top dog he falls victim to weightgate, then breaks a hand and is inactive for a year and once again nobody cares about Michael Spinks. As good as he was Michael Spinks reign at lightheavyweight was largely undistinguished.
I've seen both fight (almost all their fights actually). B-Hop is one of the craftiest fighters ever.
All that said, I would put my money on Hagler to win 3 out of 4 in 48 loooong rounds.
Hagler had some "lapses" were a guy like Hop would convert to points.
Separate names with a comma.