IPB  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Hagler vs Hopkins
The Original MrF...
post Nov 18 2007, 08:57 PM
Post #1


Super Middleweight


Group: Members
Posts: 3,464
Joined: 9-December 04
From: Atlanta
Member No.: 1,309



Prime vs Prime. I was thinking about this earlier today. I dont ever remember anyon posting a thread about it. there have always been the comparisons as to who's the better fighter. I wondered what other thought if they were to match up H2H prime vs prime.

I may be going out on a limb here when I say Hopkins takes this. I think Hagler's height and reach would put him at significant disadvantages to a guy who may be on eth the best defensive fighters at MW. I think Hagler(whose boxing ability was underrated), come out with reckless abandon trying to punish Hopkins body. Hopkins realizes that he cant win MArvin Hagler's fight. I think Hopkins would keep Hagler on the outside as often as possible. I think he pulls out a SD against Hagler in the long run.

Hearns had significant height, reach and speed advantages on Hagler. he just negated all of thos things when he decided to fight Marvin's fight. Stupidest mistake in the world. Hopkins would not make that mistake. Also at 160, Hopkins looks alot bigger than Hearns. I think Hagler would have been in for a tough fight. What do some of you guys think??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
xxxxxx
post Nov 19 2007, 11:35 AM
Post #2


Lightweight


Group: Members
Posts: 921
Joined: 10-November 06
Member No.: 5,559



QUOTE(The Original MrFactor @ Nov 18 2007, 09:57 PM) [snapback]365877[/snapback]
Prime vs Prime. I was thinking about this earlier today. I dont ever remember anyon posting a thread about it. there have always been the comparisons as to who's the better fighter. I wondered what other thought if they were to match up H2H prime vs prime.

I may be going out on a limb here when I say Hopkins takes this. I think Hagler's height and reach would put him at significant disadvantages to a guy who may be on eth the best defensive fighters at MW. I think Hagler(whose boxing ability was underrated), come out with reckless abandon trying to punish Hopkins body. Hopkins realizes that he cant win MArvin Hagler's fight. I think Hopkins would keep Hagler on the outside as often as possible. I think he pulls out a SD against Hagler in the long run.

Hearns had significant height, reach and speed advantages on Hagler. he just negated all of thos things when he decided to fight Marvin's fight. Stupidest mistake in the world. Hopkins would not make that mistake. Also at 160, Hopkins looks alot bigger than Hearns. I think Hagler would have been in for a tough fight. What do some of you guys think??



Good thread here.I'm a fan of both fighters so it's tough to pick a winner.I think the amount of rounds could play a factor.Neither man has ever been stopped so I think it's safe to say it goes the distance.In a 15 rd fight I would favor Hopkins because he always seems to come on strong midway through a fight.Not saying Hagler doesn't either, but I think Hop uses his Length in this one.In a 12 rd fight I believe Hagler woulda won a close dec based on activity and aggression.Either way the fight would be close and an instant classic in my opinion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maxy
post Nov 19 2007, 11:52 AM
Post #3


Born in England, Live in England, Die in England.


Group: Team BU
Posts: 4,370
Joined: 23-December 04
From: Land of Hope & Glory
Member No.: 1,443



I really honestly couldn't pick a winner here. For me, Haglers a better, greater fighter than Hopkins, but maybe thats because I just preferred his style over Hopkins.

Its definitely going the distance (whether 12 or 15 rounds) and if they boxed 10 times I'd have to go with 5 wins each.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nobudius
post Nov 19 2007, 03:06 PM
Post #4


Heavy...wait!


Group: Members
Posts: 749
Joined: 16-July 05
From: Jersey
Member No.: 2,606



QUOTE(xxxxxx @ Nov 19 2007, 11:35 AM) [snapback]365979[/snapback]
Good thread here.I'm a fan of both fighters so it's tough to pick a winner.I think the amount of rounds could play a factor.Neither man has ever been stopped so I think it's safe to say it goes the distance.In a 15 rd fight I would favor Hopkins because he always seems to come on strong midway through a fight.Not saying Hagler doesn't either, but I think Hop uses his Length in this one.In a 12 rd fight I believe Hagler woulda won a close dec based on activity and aggression.Either way the fight would be close and an instant classic in my opinion.


Not saying you are right or wrong...but it's odd you give an edge to a guy (X) that has NEVER fought 15 rounds..... the 15 round edge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
STEVENSKI
post Nov 19 2007, 06:04 PM
Post #5


Chief Haterizer


Group: Team BU
Posts: 10,592
Joined: 30-May 04
From: Sydney
Member No.: 91



QUOTE(Maxy @ Nov 19 2007, 04:52 PM) [snapback]365986[/snapback]
I really honestly couldn't pick a winner here. For me, Haglers a better, greater fighter than Hopkins, but maybe thats because I just preferred his style over Hopkins.

Its definitely going the distance (whether 12 or 15 rounds) and if they boxed 10 times I'd have to go with 5 wins each.



I fully agree with that sentiment. This is a close to a even fantasy fight I have ever seen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Original MrF...
post Nov 19 2007, 09:09 PM
Post #6


Super Middleweight


Group: Members
Posts: 3,464
Joined: 9-December 04
From: Atlanta
Member No.: 1,309



QUOTE(STEVENSKI @ Nov 19 2007, 06:04 PM) [snapback]366080[/snapback]
I fully agree with that sentiment. This is a close to a even fantasy fight I have ever seen.



What in your eyes makes hagler the better fighter?? I know you mentioned you prefer his style as opposed to Hopkins, but that doesnt necessarily make Hagler the better fighter.

I'm not accusing anyone of this, but i do notice this alot. When we talk about greats of the past, we are stuck in a, sort of, Paul Bunyon, legacy.When we talk about Ray Robinson, we talk like none of the guys of today could have beaten him. Its like saying Joe DiMaggio would have dominated todays MLB. I dont think so. DiMaggio, would have been a slightly above average player at best. Barry Bonds would have dominated in the 40's and 50's.

I think things have een changed since the 1980's. I think most fighters today are better trained, better tuned athletes. In my eyes, Kelly Pavlik would give hagler work. 1st due to his size and the fact that KP can crack. Would he have beaten hagler? Possibly. Definately has a punchers chance... And i'm not saying that KP is an alltime great. He's just THE GUY right now...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
STEVENSKI
post Nov 19 2007, 09:24 PM
Post #7


Chief Haterizer


Group: Team BU
Posts: 10,592
Joined: 30-May 04
From: Sydney
Member No.: 91



QUOTE(The Original MrFactor @ Nov 20 2007, 02:09 AM) [snapback]366111[/snapback]
What in your eyes makes hagler the better fighter?? I know you mentioned you prefer his style as opposed to Hopkins, but that doesnt necessarily make Hagler the better fighter.

I'm not accusing anyone of this, but i do notice this alot. When we talk about greats of the past, we are stuck in a, sort of, Paul Bunyon, legacy.When we talk about Ray Robinson, we talk like none of the guys of today could have beaten him. Its like saying Joe DiMaggio would have dominated todays MLB. I dont think so. DiMaggio, would have been a slightly above average player at best. Barry Bonds would have dominated in the 40's and 50's.


Hagler fought & beat the better fighters IMO. Weather he is a better fighter is up for debate but it would be a close fight as both guys are smart & crafty.

When I think of SRR vs the guys of today he would put a whuppin on them so bad it would be nothing short of murder. One thing that the old timers have in massive quantities is EXPERIENCE FIGHTING. Fighting long fights, fighting tough fights, fighting the top contender not who will sell the most PPV, fighting 15 or 20 rounds, fighting frequently. Piss weak chumps like Taylor get gassed after 4-5 rounds please cry me a river.

A true ATG would have been great in any era IMO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Original MrF...
post Nov 19 2007, 10:01 PM
Post #8


Super Middleweight


Group: Members
Posts: 3,464
Joined: 9-December 04
From: Atlanta
Member No.: 1,309



QUOTE(STEVENSKI @ Nov 19 2007, 09:24 PM) [snapback]366117[/snapback]
Hagler fought & beat the better fighters IMO. Weather he is a better fighter is up for debate but it would be a close fight as both guys are smart & crafty.

When I think of SRR vs the guys of today he would put a whuppin on them so bad it would be nothing short of murder. One thing that the old timers have in massive quantities is EXPERIENCE FIGHTING. Fighting long fights, fighting tough fights, fighting the top contender not who will sell the most PPV, fighting 15 or 20 rounds, fighting frequently. Piss weak chumps like Taylor get gassed after 4-5 rounds please cry me a river.

A true ATG would have been great in any era IMO.



Great point!! The guys from the 30's, 40's and 50's all fought, damn near monthly. I guess the gate was the PPV of the day. I think SRR beats many of the pros today. I think he beats DLH, Mayweather, Mosley and Trinidad in their primes. I think Winky Wright and Mike mcCallum give him major problems. I think he beats james Toney at 160 and loses by decision to RJJ. I think he decisions Hopkins and flat out loses by KO to Hagler(this may raise some eyebrows). I think he loses to Leonard by SD. I think SRR KO's hearns late. He and Calzaghe draw at 168.

I dont think its possible to be an ATG in any era simply because the guys of today have the guys of yesterday's experince to build on. Its because of SRR that we have a SRL and SSM. Kinda like the LeBron, Kobe and Jordan thing. Would Kobe and LeBron be as great if they didnt see the MJ era??

ray Robinson, like MJ in his sport, was the posterchild for the sport for years. He transcended Boxing. He was a 40'/50's rock star. In that regard, he may have been the greatest Fighter in the world, save for Ali. But people confuse greatest with best. I think he was a very good fighter, but not the best. Hopkins and Hagler didnt chase PPV's for much of their career. In Hagler's case, he did fight in 15rounders. He fought some grueling fights at a fast all out pace. I know its sounds hipocritical to say that Hagler would beat SRR and lose to Hopkins. While at the same time saying that Hopkins Would lose to SRR but beat Hagler. Just the way I feel.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
STEVENSKI
post Nov 19 2007, 10:41 PM
Post #9


Chief Haterizer


Group: Team BU
Posts: 10,592
Joined: 30-May 04
From: Sydney
Member No.: 91



Horses for courses really. Personally I wonder how they would handle a really good pressure fighter like LaMotta who had endless stamina & a granite chin. That would be interesting to say the least.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fuse
post Nov 20 2007, 01:38 AM
Post #10


Amateur


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 7-July 07
Member No.: 6,172



Not really sure what to say here. I followed Hagler in the late '70s through the end of his career. A fight with Hopkins would've been a great fight, but I think that Hopkins' output and ability would diminish as the fight went on due to Hagler's endurance and attack to the body. Hagler wasn't a tall fighter, but he had unusually long arms for his height, superior training, arguably the greatest chin ever at 160, and his ability to look as fresh finishing the 15th round as he did starting the 1st. He could box with the best boxers and could slug with the best sluggers and no one could put a dent in him. He was a southpaw (which would give Hop fits) and could switch and fight conventional in spurts. He also fought much better competition (Watts, Briscoe, Hearns, Roldan, Duran, Leonard, etc) than Hopkins did. I think the only advantage Hop would have here would be defense, but that wouldn't be enough to win the fight.

I'm not going to go back and reread this thread to see who wrote it, but there's NO WAY IN HELL a guy like Kelly Pavlik beats Hagler or even makes it a midly close fight! Hagler probably stops him during the mid rounds. All Pavlik really has going for him is his power. He's not anywhere near the boxer or slugger that Hagler was. If Hagler had to, he'd stand toe to toe with Pavlik and end the fight that round. A "puncher's chance" won't win a fight against Hagler. If Hagler could walk through what he had to against guys like Briscoe, Roldan, Mugabi, and Hearns, there really isn't anything that Pavlik could offer that could save himself from getting stopped somewhere near the 6th round.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 01:15 PM