QUOTE(timing @ Oct 21 2008, 02:50 PM) [snapback]407941[/snapback]
Let's not get carried away with this win over pavlik and use it to suggest that hopkins was better than a prime hagler let's be realistic here, pavlik is a very limited fighter with virtually zero versatility consider the fact that he was fighting 10 pounds above his natural fighting weight and never even tested the waters at that weight and you have an even more handicapped, limited, flawed fighter, and you have the outcome that you saw saturday night, a dominant performance by bhop, the older wiser bernard hopkins is one of the most calculating, analytical fighters of his era, and believe me he took all these things into account before signing to fight pavlik he knew the outcome before even going into the fight that's why he was so confident.
So let's not blow this victory out of proportion it was a great win for bhop, but it has to be put in it's proper perspective, and incidentally I predicted that hopkins would win, bottom line pavlik does not compare to a prime hagler who could do it all box, counter, punch, great foot movement, great combination puncher, great lateral movement, and the list goes on if you want to get an idea of how great a boxer hagler was when he wanted to be just watch the 1st hamsho fight that was hagler's underrated boxing ability on full display and that display is comparable to the best performances of any pure boxer that I have ever seen, the truth of the matter is that hagler was a boxer puncher and one of the most complete fighters in the history of the sport.
And in a matchup with hopkins in all honestly could have beaten hopkins in the role of the boxer or pressure fighter the truth of the matter is that hagler was better in virtually all depts than the physically prime bhop, the older version of bhop is in fact the better of the two in terms of defense, intelligence, and strategy you yourself admitted as much, and I agree with that assessment, and it is not far fetched to suggest that hagler could have played the role of boxer in that match up much like he did when he fought duran, many thought that duran would be the better boxer, but hagler turned out to be the better boxer in that fight, a fight in which he beat duran convincingly in the role of boxer and banger.
Only al bernstein was calling that fight right that night when he stated that hagler was suprisingly dominating duran in the role of boxer and banger the fight with duran was not nearly as close as many would claim or as the biased judges that night would suggest, a scenario with hopkins in my opinion would have been no different prime for prime, now a prime hopkins with the defense and savvy of the older hopkins would have been a much more competitive fight in my opinion, but I still see hagler winning in either scenario, hopkins is a great fighter who got a great win over a very limited kelly pavlik but let's not use that win to suggest that he would have beaten a true all time great a complete, versatile, destructively dangerous fighter like hagler, let's keep the win in it's proper perspective.
Hagler is the greatest MW in the history of the sport bar none when you consider a fact that many like to overlook, that hagler didn't get his first title shot until his 49th fight which is absolutely crazy and unheard of now, when fighters get their first title shots in there 19th and 20th fights, can you imagine the defenses hagler would have racked up if he had gotten his shot and won the title 20-29 fights earlier? factor in the antufermo robbery in the first fight, as well as the leonard fight and 25-30 defenses for hagler in his career is not at all unreasonable.
And angelo dundees statements carry very little weight because they are obviously biased and considering the fact that he is one of the most overrarted trainers in the history of the sport, and one who no one enlist as a trainer, what also needs to be noted is and has been argued by many and is something I agree with is that hagler may have very well peaked well before he won the titles, and was on a steady decline after he won the titles, because of his long road to the titles, it is very possible that we never really got to see the best marvin hagler, the peak, prime hagler , which would make his accomplishments even more amazing, and would, should definitely stamp him as the best MW in the history of the sport period, but a great win and dominating performance by the great bernard hopkins never the less.
Reasons Marvin Hagler could never beat Bernard Hopkins: Boxing IQ not even in the same ballpark as B-Hop, Hopkins is a much bigger, stronger and versatile fighter than MMH ever faced and he was much easier to hit than was/is Hopkins. Hagler's resume included some great names, but Hearns was chinny and a Welter, SRL was a Welter(he befuddled Hagler after 4 years in retirement), Duran was a lightweight(and really extended Hagler), Mugabi was a Jr. Middle and not even close to as polished as Pavlik. Hamsho, Obel, Sibson, Minter ant Antuofermo were all 2nd rate contenders who were in the 5'8"-5'9" range. Yes Hagler was a great 160lb. champion, but never really put on a display lik Hopkins did vs. Tito, Tarver, Pavlik and Wright. One sided schoolings, each and every one of them. He made RJJ look ordinary when RJJ was simply incredible, he easily beat JT in the 1st fight, rematch was debatable, And made 45-0 Calzaghe look like a bum.
Hopkins would make Hagler fight "HIS" fight like he does everyone else. IMO a fight between them at any point in either's career would be a one sided whitewash win for Hopkins, too slick, too tall and simply too smart for Hagler and the Petronelli brothers to deal with. Plus MMH was done by the time he was 33, B-Hop seems to still be a top 3 P4P fighter when he is closing in on 44!
If you look at their careers you can see so many paralells it is somewhat uncanny(to a point): Both had losses and draws early, Both were unsuccessful in their original attempts for the title at 160, each had numerous defenses before being recognized as great fighters, Hagler fought posterboys Hearns and SRL, Hopkins got Tito and Oscar, both unified the titles and both beat whoever they fought wherever they fought them for a long time. Hopkins took his career one step further by venturing into the higher weight classes and beat up on Tarver, Wright and Pavlik and almost squeaking one out vs. Calzaghe. Depending on how well Pavlik does in the rest of his young and promising career, and if Tarver maybe has a decent return, he is still fighting and beating(mostly) H.O.F. candidates one after another at the ripe age of 43, Hopkins is a legend, and so is Hagler, but when it is all said and done their resume's IMO are miles apart. Hopkins' is much more extensive.