Hagler Vs. Hopkins: who wins? explain.

[portuge puncher]

Credit to original uploader:

thanx a ton man, i appreciate it

[Obama]

Which Hagler wins did you feel were questionable?

You misunderstood me. I'm saying should he have had better luck and beat Leonard and Boogaloo, people would have still questioned those wins.

That aside, pretty sure his fights fight Sugar Ray Seales are debatable. Him not being a Philly fighter however, I didn't bring him up. Hopkins stuggled with him because of his movement. Hopkins would be giving him a lot of the same. Hagler was never really in seek and destroy mode unless the other guy was out to get him, or if he was avenging a previous performance. If the other guy wasn't doing much, neither would Hagler. He did NOT look good in the first Antuofermo fight for this very reason. If you didn't hurt Hagler, he didn't think he was losing. So essentially I believe Hopkins would beat Hagler by putting him to "sleep" for 12 rounds. Hagler just wasn't all that bright when it came to fighting technical boxers.

[Thread Stealer]

I don't feel like typing out an analysis again, so here's what I said about this awhile ago.

This subject always comes up, and I'm too lazy to right out a new analysis, so I'll copy what I've been saying.

As I've always said, this is a very close fight between two great, versatile fighters.

Both guys are complete fighters. Hagler was a terrific boxer-puncher with a great jab, good combos, heavy hands, good set of legs, terrific chin, nice parrying skills and head movement, and he could slug it out as well and fight on the inside.

Hopkins is a master of controlling the pace and picking his spots. He knows the angles and knows where to position himself to land good shots and avoid the incoming. Like Hagler, he is versatile. He can box from the outside using the ring, or maul guys up close and "stink it out". He has a big of dirty tricks to frustrate opponents. As proven throughout his career, he is very effective against lefties.

Hagler had the heavier hands, superior jab, and was more proven in the slugging/pressure department. Hopkins was a little quicker and slicker, and just has a brilliant fighting brain in there.

No matter how the fight takes place, I see it being very close. I doubt either guy gets stopped. Hopkins is slick and has a sound chin. Hagler's chin was great, and he didn't exactly have a soft body either.

Over the years, Hagler was developed a reputation as a face-first brawler from people who don't watch enough of his fights, but he usually boxed behind his jab and broke guys down over the course of the fight. It'll probably be a pretty tactical fight, and I see Hopkins winning a close decision, with his straight right hand being the key.

As for their all-time rankings. Hagler with the slight edge at middleweight. He beat better opposition, fighting lots of good middleweights on the road to the title. I also thought he definitely won the first Watts fight and scored the Leonard bout even.

I can see Hopkins being ranked a little higher overall though. Not only was Hopkins a long-time middleweight champ, but also dominated the Ring champ at 175 in Antonio Tarver. At age 43, he fought very close with Joe Calzaghe and dominated the undefeated Kelly Pavlik.

[TheGreatA]

To be honest even in his prime Hopkins could be brutal to watch in some of his fights. The Holmes and Vanderpool fights were awful unless I'm confusing them with some other fights of his.

I wouldn't call Hagler's Philadelphia record "spotty". He was brought there to lose against the undefeated Olympian Sugar Ray Seales but Hagler beat him and drew in the rematch while just 19 years of age.

He was quite honestly robbed against Watts but supposedly lost fairly to Monroe. Hagler was still only 21 I believe.

In rematches he proved to be much superior, destroying both Monroe and Watts in two, stopping Cyclone Hart in 8, KO'ing a prime Roy Jones in three rounds (), showing his punching power in the later stages of a fight by stopping the number 1 ranked middleweight contender Mike Colbert in 12, twice TKO'ing the durable Kevin Finnegan, decisioning Bennie Briscoe and dominating Seales in a one-round blowout.

[Southpaw16BF]

As I've said before no boxing is virtually boring to me, I study it. Of course I enjoy exciting fights, but I have never found Bernard Hopkins boring or no other world class fighters for that matter that is not known for a exciting style.

As I'am studying what they are doing in the prize ring, I never just watch for excitment. I watch to learn and study every move.

[TheGreatA]

As I've said before no boxing is virtually boring to me, I study it. Of course I enjoy exciting fights, but I have never found Bernard Hopkins boring or no other world class fighters for that matter that is not known for a exciting style.

As I'am studying what they are doing in the prize ring, I never just watch for excitment. I watch to learn and study every move.

Say that after 12 rounds of Hopkins vs Eastman.

[Southpaw16BF]

Say that after 12 rounds of Hopkins vs Eastman.

Well to be honest I have watched this fight a fair few times, and do Hopkins may be using a caution first style due to there being so much on the line, but Hopkins uses brillant footwork and times and places his shots well for a UD victory over the underrated Eastman.

Going into that fight Eastmen hadn't been beat in 4 years, and had some pretty decent wins over Scott Dann, Hacine Cherifi, Sergey Tatevosyan, and Jerry Elliott.

And out of 41 fights had only 1 defaet against World Champion William Joppy in a fight many thought he got, but he was just out of his league with world class Hopkins, which is nothing to be ashamed of.

[Thread Stealer]

The first few rounds of Hopkins-Eastman were terrible, but I did enjoy some of the moves Hopkins did later on though. Positioning, slipping, countering, avoiding the follow-up shot.

As I've said before no boxing is virtually boring to me, I study it. Of course I enjoy exciting fights, but I have never found Bernard Hopkins boring or no other world class fighters for that matter that is not known for a exciting style.

As I'am studying what they are doing in the prize ring, I never just watch for excitment. I watch to learn and study every move.

I sort of agree. While I do find many fights boring, there's little things I usually enjoy when it's a terrific fighter in there doing.

For instance, the first 12 rounds of Duran-Lampkin were dreadful. It was ugly as sin with all that holding. Still, there's things in there that I did enjoy in between all the stink (and before the highlight reel KO). Duran's upper body movement when slipping shots was always something to behold. Ali and Hopkins are also similar in the sense that in their boring fights, I still enjoy the brilliant things they did on occasion. You just have to sit through the dull parts to get to it. Mayweather has had some stinkers (Vargas, Castillo 2, Baldomir), but even in his more dull fights, I enjoy watching the way he avoids punches and counters effectively.

[them_apples]

Hopkins run and duck style would win him the UD over Hagler. I see him leaning on Hagler in the clinches, hitting and holding, then running and potshotting. Hard to bet against Hopkins unless his opponent has a large speed advantage and is able to disrupt his timing.

On the other hand Haglers incredible strength could pose a threat, but Hopkins on a good day takes the UD. Either one winning isn't out of the question, a KO is though.

I've gone back and forth on this fight/matchup.

[jvsnypes]

I respect everyones opinion, but did you guys see Hagler in his prime?The Hagler that fought Leonard,Hearns, and Mugabi was dangerous but not at his best. At that point he was past his prime.I have his career dvd set. I was amazed at how fluid he was when he was younger. He was on his toes boxing using his jab a whole lot, spinning off the ropes, and throwing combinations.Put Hopkins in the ring with a young Hagler and he loses by UD or even KO.Do you realize that Hagler has never been knocked out? Oh, excuse me, he's never been off his feet from a punch.He could knock you out with either hand and he was known for cutting opponents with his punches.The stye Hopkins use now works against slower methodical fighters.Hagler was definitely not that.And to be honest, Hagler would have knocked out Trinidad,Jones,Calzaghe,and Pavlik.With the exception of Roy, Hagler fought guys much better than them on the regular.He fought real legit middleweights all the time. Don't believe me, go get his career set.This fight would almost be equilavent to Hopkins' two fights against Jermaine Taylor.Taylor, who is a natural middleweight looked stronger at times than Hopkins.He threw the sharper punches and simply could not be outsmarted or outboxed by Hopkins.Well, a prime Hagler was stronger, smarter, better conditioned, and just as fast as Taylor. If you compare their careers, really there is no comparison.Hagler fought and beat the better and more dangerous fighters. I think its easy to beat guys that the media considers great fighters(Hopkins) compared to beating lesser named opponents who were beasts, and going to war with other legends.(Hagler)