Hopkins or Hagler - who should rank higher in an alltime list ??

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:11 am

Having a good natured debate with my friends Haz and Rodders on Hagler and Hoppo.

Haz reckons Hoppo couldn't carry Hagler's jockstrap.......Rodders agrees but not nearly as vehemently........

I think they are rose tinters...........and have Hoppo above,,,,,,,

Perhaps it's been done but feel free to express your opinions..

by captain carrantuohil Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:39 am

P for P? Hopkins, narrowly. What he has done at 175 in his twilight years sees to that for me. As a middleweight, pure and simple, I make Marv 3 all-time and Hoppo 5. Hopkins went on for ever, but he didn't have to fight his way through those Philly guys before he got to the top. Neither had the greatest foes as champion, but the Hearns win trumps either Oscar or Trinidad for me and Marv may not have looked great against Vito or Duran, but he looked a sight better against both than Hopkins did against Mercado. Marv also wasn't soundly spanked by anyone at the weight as Hopkins was by the admittedly great Jones (who would rank above either in my p for p list).

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:41 am

You'd pick Jones to beat Hager though right ? Captain..

by Rodney Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:09 pm

Hagler both head to head and all time rating Truss.

Ok then if we say Hagler's title challengers weren't all the best, but overall I'd pick them over Hopkins foes.

Hopkins has a good number of outright bad and unqualified challengers..hakkar, Bo James, Frank, Simon Brown, shot John David Jackson, Daniels etc..

I'm not the biggest fan of some of haglers challengers, but they were generally good solid middleweights that at least had some really good components.
Howard Eastman for instance is not even remotely close to the British middles hagler beat.he's more comparable to someone like james Cook from the eighties British scene.

Hopkins was dominant and did all he could, so i tend to think he shouldn't get penalised too much for this but still not at Marvins level who were a special fighter.

Marvin just all round better fighter for me

Cheer Rodders

by captain carrantuohil Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:16 pm

Mmmm....possibly, Truss. Wouldn't want to put my house on it, and think that it would, in any case, have been a lot tighter than the original Jones-Hopkins joust.

by paperbag_puncher Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:21 pm

Hopkins for me. Both great fighters with long but questionable MW reigns. What Hopkins has down in his twilight years edges it for me and I'd also fancy him to get the nod in a head to head

by **88Chris05** Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:21 pm

I'm not too far away from captain's thinking. Hagler one of that special trio, along with Monzon and Greb, who have a bit of daylight between themselves and the chasing pack at 160, in which Bernard is near the front. But for overall career and pound for pound standing, Hopkins takes it for me.

Just as consistent as Hagler at their respective peaks, lacking some of Hagler's physical gifts but making up for it by clearly being the smarter, more thoughtful fighter, but crucially still picking up world titles and beating good fighters at ages which Marvin, by the time he'd hit them, had already been retired in Italy for a decade making terrible films! Appreciate that Hagler's road to his Middleweight title was a very difficult one, and that win over Tommy eclipses anything that Hopkins has done singularly, but that aside I just think Hopkins' longevity, as well as his titles at 175, mean that his career has more notable moments than Hagler's, and his record more weight to it.

by horizontalhero Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:23 pm

I would just lean toward Haglar, but not with too much conviction, whilst I admire what Hopkins has done as an older guy at LHW, his form has been a bit patchy, and he's a title holder rather than the champion ( I still count Foreman as the oldest champ) I think Marv wins head to head at peak, was definately in better fights, and his opposition (with obvious exception of Jones) is marginally better. Would not have any qualms with those who go with Hoppo though - both ATGs

by **owen10ozzy** Thu Sep 19, 2013 1:06 pm

Head to Head - I wouldn't like to call it all to be honest, the natural skill and athleticism lies with Hagler, the question though is would he be able to use them against Hopkins whose ring IQ, Craft and general boxing intelligence is just phenomenal..gun to head I would go with Hagler...just!

In terms of an all-time list, Hopkins closely...but not razor thin close. As Chris points out, whilst Marvin no doubt had the biggest single career moment of the two with his win over Tommy..Hopkins longevity and depth of wins/names is hugely impressive.

Glen Johnson, Felix Trinidad, Joppy, De La Hoya, Pavlik, Wright, Tarver, Cloud, Pascal ...

That doesn't include running a number of fighters very close..such as Calzaghe, Taylor, (both of whom he could have arguably been given the nod against).

Two weight World Champion...20 World Title defences at Middleweight where he was Undisputed Champion (the first since Hagler funnily enough) and handing out lessons at the age he is (Pavlik) gives him more than enough of an edge in the Greatest Of All Time stakes against Hagler.

by hogey Thu Sep 19, 2013 1:15 pm

Hagler for me, he completely dominated the division in a way that Hopkins never has. Hopkins is a great fighter no doubt but has been beaten when facing the very best and also sometimes by those who were a bit below the very best. I think in 100 years time people will talk about Hagler as one of the greatest middleweights ever and Hopkins as a great athlete who performed at high level far beyond the years a normal man could. Truth is Hopkins isn't an ATG Middleweight, Super middle or Light Heavy he was just a very very good fighter at all those weights who's fame will be longevity.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Sep 19, 2013 1:16 pm

Not sure a guy outsmarted by Duran till he got tired...............and outsmarted by a three year out Leonard......

Doesn't find Hoppo to be too much........

by **owen10ozzy** Thu Sep 19, 2013 1:24 pm

I'm not sure you can say Hopkins didn't dominate the division Hogey, he held the title for 20 defences over a period of 10 years, unifying the division and beating the likes of Joppy, Trinidad, De La Hoya, Echols, Johnson & Jackson along the way...not sure there is anyone he missed or avoided during those years.

He should have got the nod over Taylor the first time round and when you consider he was already 40 years old when he faced him, this was a fighter hardly still at the prime (though as close to it as you could possibly be at 40).

He then moved up to Light Heavy and beat the then current man at the weight in Tarver. From there he beat the always tricky customer Winky Wright..ran Calzaghe as close as anyone ever had (some had him winning) destroyed an at the time extremely well thought of Pavlik,...before then beating the man at Light Heavyweight once again Pascal (who was coming of a win over the previously unbeaten Dawson.

by paperbag_puncher Thu Sep 19, 2013 2:02 pm

hogey wrote: Truth is Hopkins isn't an ATG Middleweight

Couldn't be further from the truth.

by catchweight Thu Sep 19, 2013 2:06 pm

Haglar all the way. Hopkins stinkometer reading is far too high.

by Boxtthis Thu Sep 19, 2013 2:12 pm

Head to head would be tight. I'd maybe give Hopkins the slight edge to outsmart Hagler.

Purely on MW record, Hagler has a slight advantage. In overall achievements across the weights Hopkins takes it, especially given how he's now the oldest ever world title holder. Got to be extra points for longevity.

by Boxtthis Thu Sep 19, 2013 2:13 pm

paperbag_puncher wrote:
hogey wrote: Truth is Hopkins isn't an ATG Middleweight
Couldn't be further from the truth.

by **owen10ozzy** Thu Sep 19, 2013 2:15 pm

I'm not sure what people expect of Hopkins...yes he has had some right stinkers, but the vast majority I would say have come during the tail end (if you can call it that) of his career.

He knocked out an unbeaten Johnson after dominating the fight, went toe to toe with Jones Jnr in their first fight...tore the script up against Trinidad winning a TKO decision (anyone who thinks Hopkins lacks skill in the ring and can't entertain watch Round 10)..was phenomenal against Pavlik who he outboxed (had that been Mayweather people would have been creaming themselves)...and against Pascal showed every facet of the skill required to reach the top (good footwork, ring IQ, shot selection, countering skills...and all at the ripe old age of 45!

Never a true entertainer of the highest form but the man has incredible skills which are often overlooked..instead people choosing to just tar him with the brush of being dirty & crafty when the truth is in his earlier career he had all the skills needed to not have to rely on such tactics!

by catchweight Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:10 pm

Too many stinkers from Hopkins. People had to watch him holding there nose. Haglar was never about that. Greatness should be about more than just record.

by Guest Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:21 pm

catchweight wrote:Too many stinkers from Hopkins. People had to watch him holding there nose. Haglar was never about that. Greatness should be about more than just record.

If it's about entertainment then Gatti should be ranked above Mayweather....sadly it's not that cut and dried

by catchweight Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:29 pm

Not about entertainment. I said its about more than just record. Haglar is greater in the sense of the word imo.

by Lumbering_Jack Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:37 pm

Hoppo for me too. Great fighter (albeit a boring one) who has some fantastic wins.

How do we see Hopkins coping with Haglers 2 biggest fights against Hearns and SRL?

by Guest Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:42 pm

catchweight wrote:Not about entertainment. I said its about more than just record. Haglar is greater in the sense of the word imo.

But you talk about Hopkins and stinkers and people holding their noses. What are we meant to infer from that?

by Rowley Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:42 pm

Think I am with those that would have Hagler higher at middle but Hopkins higher P4P. Think there was just a bit more quality to Hagler’s middle reign and as tends to be the case with these modern mega reigns such as Calzaghe and Hopkins the number of defences and the number where he was undisputedly the man at the weight at very different things. No such caveat for Hagler who was the man at his weight throughout.

However with Marv as has been discussed countless times middle is all he has to his name. Hopkins has gone on to achieve with some distinction at a higher weight. We can talk all we want about him stinking the place all we want and in many a fight I would not disagree but should not be forgotten or easily dismissed that Hopkins is still amongst the top two or three at his weight in the world at nearly fifty. The number of guys who can make such a claim through the 100+ years of the sport is a damned short list and as such the achievement should not be sold short.

by catchweight Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:44 pm

I think Hoppo loses them both. He didnt excel against quality well rounded boxers and he wasnt as dangerous a puncher as Marv.

by catchweight Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:47 pm

DAVE667 wrote:
catchweight wrote:Not about entertainment. I said its about more than just record. Haglar is greater in the sense of the word imo.
But you talk about Hopkins and stinkers and people holding their noses. What are we meant to infer from that?

His stinkiness counts against him. Haglar didnt stink the place out to win. His fight against Hearns alone has more entertainment than all of Hoppos career combined.

by Guest Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:50 pm

catchweight wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
catchweight wrote:Not about entertainment. I said its about more than just record. Haglar is greater in the sense of the word imo.
But you talk about Hopkins and stinkers and people holding their noses. What are we meant to infer from that?
His stinkiness counts against him. Haglar didnt stink the place out to win. His fight against Hearns alone has more entertainment than all of Hoppos career combined.

Which is why I said that if it was about entertainment Gatti would be ahead of Mayweather

by Strongback Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:53 pm

Have Ketchel and Ray Robinson fallen from their perch near the top?

Haggler was a better fighter than Hopkins. Hopkins was slicker. Hopkins has struggled with fast slick punchers in the past. Haggler would come at Hopkins and would have enough fire power and quality to get past Hopkins spoiling tactics. Haggler had the chin to really go after Hopkin's.

Hagler wins a head to head at middleweight in my view.

Greatness wise Hagler is the greater middleweight in my opinion but there isn't much in it. Obviously Hopkins did the p4p thing as well so that's another feather in his cap.

by catchweight Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:53 pm

DAVE667 wrote:
catchweight wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
catchweight wrote:Not about entertainment. I said its about more than just record. Haglar is greater in the sense of the word imo.
But you talk about Hopkins and stinkers and people holding their noses. What are we meant to infer from that?
His stinkiness counts against him. Haglar didnt stink the place out to win. His fight against Hearns alone has more entertainment than all of Hoppos career combined.
Which is why I said that if it was about entertainment Gatti would be ahead of Mayweather

Ok if it was about entertainment Gatti would be Mayweather.

Doesnt really have a great deal of bearing on Hopkins and Hagler or the point that being a stinker counts against Hopkins in relation in comparison to Hagler imo.

by Guest Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:58 pm

catchweight wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
catchweight wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
catchweight wrote:Not about entertainment. I said its about more than just record. Haglar is greater in the sense of the word imo.
But you talk about Hopkins and stinkers and people holding their noses. What are we meant to infer from that?
His stinkiness counts against him. Haglar didnt stink the place out to win. His fight against Hearns alone has more entertainment than all of Hoppos career combined.
Which is why I said that if it was about entertainment Gatti would be ahead of Mayweather
Ok if it was about entertainment Gatti would be Mayweather.

Doesnt really have a great deal of bearing on Hopkins and Hagler or the point that being a stinker counts against Hopkins in relation in comparison to Hagler imo.

Well IMO it does as you're saying Hagler rates higher due to Hopkins stinking the joint out. Implies that irrespective of his wins and the quality of oppostion he beat, the fact he wasn't doing it in an eyecatching manner means you can't rate him highly.

by catchweight Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:14 pm

DAVE667 wrote:
catchweight wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
catchweight wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
catchweight wrote:Not about entertainment. I said its about more than just record. Haglar is greater in the sense of the word imo.
But you talk about Hopkins and stinkers and people holding their noses. What are we meant to infer from that?
His stinkiness counts against him. Haglar didnt stink the place out to win. His fight against Hearns alone has more entertainment than all of Hoppos career combined.
Which is why I said that if it was about entertainment Gatti would be ahead of Mayweather
Ok if it was about entertainment Gatti would be Mayweather.

Doesnt really have a great deal of bearing on Hopkins and Hagler or the point that being a stinker counts against Hopkins in relation in comparison to Hagler imo.

Well IMO it does as you're saying Hagler rates higher due to Hopkins stinking the joint out. Implies that irrespective of his wins and the quality of oppostion he beat, the fact he wasn't doing it in an eyecatching manner means you can't rate him highly.

If thats the way you want to interpret it.

Should interpret that those rating Hoppo above Hagler are doing so because stinking out the place more is the most relevant criteria?

I said that for me, greatness is about more than just record (see above). And that Hoppos stinkiness counts against him in that regard. Hagler was a great boxer, in a great era with other great boxers and rivals and he left a legacy that people will never forget and fights that people will revisit time and time again. This all counts for me.

by Out for the count Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:18 pm

How often during his middleweight reign did he actually stink the place out?

by captain carrantuohil Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:29 pm

Nope - Robinson is at 4 in my middleweight list - something like 8-6-1 in middleweight title fights, including a losing record against Fullmer, and an even one against Basilio (a welter rising) and Turpin. Unmatched at welter, but beatable by the best at 160, good as he was.

Ketchel at 6 - mighty hitter, but hard to say that he belongs above Hopkins on achievements.

by Lance Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:32 pm

I could name more entertaining performance by Hopkins than stinkers. maybe some people have only known Hopkins since De La Hoya or even since Calzaghe did his fair share off stinking against Bhop. Even since that though I would suggest both Pascal fights, the Pavlik fight, the Tarver fight and the Eastman fight were entertaining performances. Also it wasn't his fault Cloud didn't want to throw any punches after being countered early.

I agree Hagler ranks above him at Middle but I would give Hopkins at least a 50% chance in a head to head at middle. If we are talking about the Hopkins that stopped Johnson and Tito that is. I think he had gone pretty stale by the Taylor fights and didn't get his drive back until he tasted defeat again

by azania Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:39 pm

Easy one. Hagler by a street. He was a unified champion and took on the best. The Vito fight was a total robbery and that the judges had the Duran fight close was nothing short of a joke.

by catchweight Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:40 pm

I could name more stinkers from Hopkins than entertaining performances. You would need a gasmask to watch his fights with Taylor or Allen or Holmes. It doesnt get any better at light heavyweight. Calzaghe, Winky, Dawson, Cloud, Jones Jr - stank to high heaven.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:41 pm

Wonder If catchweight is Ghosty.............Style is very similar..

by Rowley Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:43 pm

Now, now Truss, already been one thread locked for speculating on who new users are, lets avoid it being two.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:45 pm

Hoppo's longevity should count for more on here..........Seems to be a big thing in some debates ..

by Guest Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:55 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hoppo's longevity should count for more on here..........Seems to be a big thing in some debates ..

Yeah a two year lay off for Floyd somehow adds to his longevity... laughing

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:57 pm

Bradley Pryce has had a longer one..

by azania Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:57 pm

Actually the layoff should. Who comes back after a two year lay off and delivers a masterclass against a top 5 P4P? Only great boxers do that.

by azania Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:58 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bradley Pryce has had a longer one..

You're not at the oyster now sonny.

by Guest Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:01 pm

azania wrote:Actually the layoff should. Who comes back after a two year lay off and delivers a masterclass against a top 5 P4P? Only great boxers do that.

BUt how do you class that as being at the top for 17 years when he was retired? Do we count Vitali's three year lay off or Ali's when he was banned?

by azania Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:29 pm

DAVE667 wrote:
azania wrote:Actually the layoff should. Who comes back after a two year lay off and delivers a masterclass against a top 5 P4P? Only great boxers do that.
BUt how do you class that as being at the top for 17 years when he was retired? Do we count Vitali's three year lay off or Ali's when he was banned?

A hiatus. Yes we should count both Ali and Vitali's break. Why shouldn't we?

by hazharrison Thu Sep 19, 2013 6:47 pm

Hagler had the better middleweight resume and title reign: 12 successful championship defences to Hopkins' 6. Hagler has the biggest win (Hearns to Hopkins' Trinidad) and was never comprehensively beaten as someone mentioned earlier. Hagler also didn't lose to a fighter of Jermain Taylor's quality (by no means a slouch but also no all-time great either).

While I appreciate Hopkins' light heavyweight run I'd still rank Hagler ahead of him all time. Hopkins has been very good at exploiting a series of one-dimensional fighters yet he came up short against Calzaghe and Dawson - I just can't imagine Hagler losing to those two .

In addition, if Roy Jones had decided to stay at middleweight he may never have become a titlist much less a champion.

by catchweight Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:11 pm

I cant see boxers like Holmes or Allen or Echols ever hearing the final bell against Hagler. He took care of his mandatories and contenders in pretty ruthless fashion. Hoppo as often as not not stank the place out, butted and low blowed his way to a UD over the kind of opponents Haglar would eat alive.

by **owen10ozzy** Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:20 pm

Butted De La Hoya...Trinidad...Pavlik...Tarver to UD did he?

Lets not forget that he was never going to look awesome against Winky Wright but he got the job done.

People forget that for the past 8 years he has been fighting people much younger than him...therefore naturally quicker and just all round fresh *except for Jones Jnr*...I would argue that even the great Hagler would struggle to look stunning when he was 43,44,45,46 etc etc taking on fighters of a newer generation.

Lets not forget that Hagler lost to Watts and Monroe who were hardly absolute stellar names of the boxing World.

Hagler had the natural power to take out fighters and look incredible doing so, something Hopkins didn't have...decent power yes...but the same level of Marvin, no chance. So for that reason it isn't completely fair to compare the fighters actual bouts in terms of entertainment level because they had such varying styles of fighting.

by hazharrison Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:26 pm

owen10ozzy wrote:
Lets not forget that Hagler lost to Watts and Monroe who were hardly absolute stellar names of the boxing World.

Might not have been stellar names but they were better fighters than a large proportion of the men Hopkins racked up title defences against.

by azania Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:29 pm

Watts and Monroe were good names and Hagler went to the lions den to fight them. He lost close decisions but put the record straight in the return. He was never gifted anything and on many occasions he had to fight the judges as well as the opponent. So it seems we are to use losses early in careers to base a fighter who fought for cents and away from cameras. Do we use the two draws and loss early n Hopkins career against him also?

We take them at their best when they were champions.

by captain carrantuohil Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:53 pm

Not much between their title fights at middleweight - the odd good name and a lot of so-so stuff for each of them, whether for one belt or all (both) of them. The key is what Marvin did before becoming champ, and in that regard, his record knocks Hopkins' into a cocked hat. The only fight that he either lost or drew before becoming champion that deserved to be scored like that was the first Monroe fight - not for the last time in his career, Hagler got outsmarted and the right man got the decision. Other than that, he got stiffed a lot.

by Sponsored content