Toughest Sequence of fights a fighter has had??

First topic message reminder :

Carl Froch got a load of credit for his tough sequence of fights during the peak of his career, where he fought a lot of good fighters back to back. More recently Floyd Mayweather is getting a lot of flak for ‘hand-picking’ his opponents.

My question is simple really – which fighters have put together the most impressive/ toughest (and I mean against hall of fame worthy opponents) sequence of fights back to back? I’m guessing we might have a couple of fighters having 2, 3 or 4 max ‘super-fights’ in a row but then have a gimme thrown in.
What are the best run of (preferably winning) fights that any fighter has had that you guys can think of??

I think it was even better than that hammer. I think he was 40 for the first fight and a few days shy of 41 in the rematch.

Using taylor against hopkins does both of them a diservice; its as though Taylor is some kind of bum. Jermain taylor is a quality boxer with suspect stamina. Pavlick aside, when hes been beat, hes been stopped late while ahead on points. Hopkins just didnt have the power to stop him at his age.....though he did hurt him late in at least one of the fights two fights.

Hoppo has struggled with slick boxers, but never really with guys who've tried to take the fight to him.

Haz, I think the Hopkins that battered your boy trinidad, makes life very hard for hagler. On the flipside, its one thing dealing with guys who come to fight and another dealing with hagler. A very competitive fight for me and not one id like to bet on.

Did you really say Eastman gave him a fight? Don't you have to land a punch to call it a fight?

milkyboy wrote:Hoppo has struggled with slick boxers, but never really with guys who've tried to take the fight to him.

Haz, I think the Hopkins that battered your boy trinidad, makes life very hard for hagler. On the flipside, its one thing dealing with guys who come to fight and another dealing with hagler. A very competitive fight for me and not one id like to bet on.

Did you really say Eastman gave him a fight? Don't you have to land a punch to call it a fight?

Hopkins ran like a thief. Against Howard Eastman. Howard. Eastman. Eastman was competitive through four rounds before disappearing (wasn't rowing with all his oars in the water).

Hagler had more than enough boxing ability to match Hopkins and too much fire. Feigning injuries to bide time wouldn't have washed with Hagler. Dawson is pretty dense -- thick enough to fight completely ignorantly to Hopkins' "mind games" and he had his way with him twice.

Taylor wasn't a smart boxer - all he had was a one-two - he was active, though. Too active for Hopkins (as was Calzaghe). Calzaghe didn't do anything clever - he just worked. Hagler would have thrown too many shots, been too relentless. Easy win for me. Hopkins way too passive to outpoint Marvin.

Tito was a welter with superhuman power but by the time he met Hopkins he'd fallen in love with his left hook.

Saying that, good this:

http://www.thefightcity.com/?p=499

I'm going to agree with the boxing experts that are Dan Rafael, Nigel Collins and Eric Raskin, all of whom think Hopkins would win a decision.

Again your examples are all 40+ Hopkins. Regardless of the fact that trinidad wasn't a natural middle... Hopkins spanked an unbeaten fighter, who'd probably matured into a light middle, in his prime... (One who you think was a great fighter), and he threw a stack of leather in doing so. I appreciate that doesn't fit your argument.

I wouldn't say he ran against Eastman, Eastman was too scared to get in range and let his shots go, because he was getting picked off when he did... Or he just froze. Eastman was a huge disappointment and Hopkins won at a canter without getting out of second gear, because he didn't have to.

I'm not Hoppo's greatest fan, he's stunk the place out countless times, and the Eastman fight is an example of his safety first approach, but you do him a disservice implying he didn't have it when needed.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm going to agree with the boxing experts that are Dan Rafael, Nigel Collins and Eric Raskin, all of whom think Hopkins would win a decision.

Good for you, you see, you see how useful expert opinion is in a debate? Absolutely zero marks for original thought, however.

Can't say I took any notice of what they said to be honest just thought it was interesting that your biased BS wasn't the consensus call as per usual.

milkyboy wrote:Again your examples are all 40+ Hopkins. Regardless of the fact that trinidad wasn't a natural middle... Hopkins spanked an unbeaten fighter, who'd probably matured into a light middle, in his prime... (One who you think was a great fighter), and he threw a stack of leather in doing so. I appreciate that doesn't fit your argument.

I wouldn't say he ran against Eastman, Eastman was too scared to get in range and let his shots go, because he was getting picked off when he did... Or he just froze. Eastman was a huge disappointment and Hopkins won at a canter without getting out of second gear, because he didn't have to.

I'm not Hoppo's greatest fan, he's stunk the place out countless times, and the Eastman fight is an example of his safety first approach, but you do him a disservice implying he didn't have it when needed.

I don't think I've said that (that wasn't my intention anyway).

When do you feel Hopkins was at his peak then? And who did he beat at that point that makes you think he'd handle Hagler? Trinidad?

That fight was a master class - unarguably. Yet Trinidad was a welter with an enormous punch, not a great middleweight champion.

Trinidad was a great fighter (again, that's indisputable), however, his reign of terror at 154 (one he continued against Joppy) convinced him that all he needed against Hopkins was to land his left hook clean. While his power remained potent at 160 - he wasn't the same fighter he'd been at 147. Fernando Vargas game him hell.

Winky Wright handled Tito just as handily (and he'd have no shot against Hagler).

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Can't say I took any notice of what they said to be honest just thought it was interesting that your biased BS wasn't the consensus call as per usual.

So my biased BS is usually consensus opinion? Hang on a sec....

Who exactly did Hagler beat that makes you think he beats Hopkins, a Tommy Hearns who went into the fight with a suicidal gameplan or how about a lightweight Duran who was far from being a great middleweight?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Who exactly did Hagler beat that makes you think he beats Hopkins, a Tommy Hearns who went into the fight with a suicidal gameplan or how about a lightweight Duran who was far from being a great middleweight?

Ha! You need to reach out beyond your Fabulous Four DVD!

Hopkins couldn't hurt Hagler - no chance - so how could he possibly have outpointed a man with Hagler's work rate. Hagler would have put him out of commission.

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Again your examples are all 40+ Hopkins. Regardless of the fact that trinidad wasn't a natural middle... Hopkins spanked an unbeaten fighter, who'd probably matured into a light middle, in his prime... (One who you think was a great fighter), and he threw a stack of leather in doing so. I appreciate that doesn't fit your argument.

I wouldn't say he ran against Eastman, Eastman was too scared to get in range and let his shots go, because he was getting picked off when he did... Or he just froze. Eastman was a huge disappointment and Hopkins won at a canter without getting out of second gear, because he didn't have to.

I'm not Hoppo's greatest fan, he's stunk the place out countless times, and the Eastman fight is an example of his safety first approach, but you do him a disservice implying he didn't have it when needed.

I don't think I've said that (that wasn't my intention anyway).

When do you feel Hopkins was at his peak then? And who did he beat at that point that makes you think he'd handle Hagler? Trinidad?

That fight was a master class - unarguably. Yet Trinidad was a welter with an enormous punch, not a great middleweight champion.

Trinidad was a great fighter (again, that's indisputable), however, his reign of terror at 154 (one he continued against Joppy) convinced him that all he needed against Hopkins was to land his left hook clean. While his power remained potent at 160 - he wasn't the same fighter he'd been at 147. Fernando Vargas game him hell.

Winky Wright handled Tito just as handily (and he'd have no shot against Hagler).

Leonard was a career welter and hagler couldn't handle him haz

I think most pick the trinidad performance as Hoppo's defining performance because of the nature of it rather than the W. Clearly Hopkins never fought a middle as formidable as hagler. I'm not sure what fully fledged middles... Who fought with their brain, not their faces... that hagler ever fought that would prepare him for hoppo. A few of the Philly boys on his way up. None of his title defences. They'd both be fighting the best middle either of them had fought. No beef with anyone thinking hagler would win, its a distinct possibility... Just not a racing certainty in my book.

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Again your examples are all 40+ Hopkins. Regardless of the fact that trinidad wasn't a natural middle... Hopkins spanked an unbeaten fighter, who'd probably matured into a light middle, in his prime... (One who you think was a great fighter), and he threw a stack of leather in doing so. I appreciate that doesn't fit your argument.

I wouldn't say he ran against Eastman, Eastman was too scared to get in range and let his shots go, because he was getting picked off when he did... Or he just froze. Eastman was a huge disappointment and Hopkins won at a canter without getting out of second gear, because he didn't have to.

I'm not Hoppo's greatest fan, he's stunk the place out countless times, and the Eastman fight is an example of his safety first approach, but you do him a disservice implying he didn't have it when needed.

I don't think I've said that (that wasn't my intention anyway).

When do you feel Hopkins was at his peak then? And who did he beat at that point that makes you think he'd handle Hagler? Trinidad?

That fight was a master class - unarguably. Yet Trinidad was a welter with an enormous punch, not a great middleweight champion.

Trinidad was a great fighter (again, that's indisputable), however, his reign of terror at 154 (one he continued against Joppy) convinced him that all he needed against Hopkins was to land his left hook clean. While his power remained potent at 160 - he wasn't the same fighter he'd been at 147. Fernando Vargas game him hell.

Winky Wright handled Tito just as handily (and he'd have no shot against Hagler).

Leonard was a career welter and hagler couldn't handle him haz

I think most pick the trinidad performance as Hoppo's defining performance because of the nature of it rather than the W. Clearly Hopkins never fought a middle as formidable as hagler. I'm not sure what fully fledged middles... Who fought with their brain, not their faces... that hagler ever  fought that would prepare him for hoppo. A few of the Philly boys on his way up. None of his title defences. They'd both be fighting the best middle either of them had fought. No beef with anyone thinking hagler would win, its a distinct possibility... Just not a racing certainty in my book.

Surely we're not matching the Hagler from the Leonard fight against the Hopkins from the Tito fight?!! And this is Ray Leonard remember. He was just a little bit special (even though Hagler won the fight!).

I just think the line that slick boxers bothered Hopkins is a tad off. Dawson is thick as mince and there was nothing clever about Taylor and Calzaghe (against Hopkins).

They out worked him. And Hagler would, too. He'd run over him.

Based on what fights though Haz, you asked the question in reverse but who did Hagler fight that would prepare him at all for a master spoiler?

Anybody that gets taken life and death with Mugabi then loses to a semi retired Leonard probably doesn't dispose of Hopkins anywhere near as easily as you suggest.

Hagler does not possess the speed or athletic ability that Jones did so we can ignore that fight right there and at no point in his prime was Hopkins ever really troubled. Allen did ok for the first couple of rounds in there opening fight but is far too small a sample to take much from.

I don't see how I or anybody else is to expect Hagler to steamroll a genuinely great and tough middleweight like Hopkins when he struggled past Duran slap bang in the middle of his pomp. You can bring up Calzaghe and Taylor all you want but that was an old man losing close decisions that could have gone either way.

You may not like Hopkins, probably something to do with the fact there isn't limitless boxing writers waxing lyrical about him but instead longing for the good old days of the fab four. Hagler was bloody fortunate to have Hearns and Duran about, two great smaller guys willing to test themselves consistently against the best, without them his reign is very thin on the ground.

You'll no doubt have the philly middleweights floating around in your head, fighters you've not seen fight but have read about but I don't see many holding Valdez on a pedestal and he wiped Briscoe clean out once upon a time.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Based on what fights though Haz, you asked the question in reverse but who did Hagler fight that would prepare him at all for a master spoiler?

Anybody that gets taken life and death with Mugabi then loses to a semi retired Leonard probably doesn't dispose of Hopkins anywhere near as easily as you suggest.

Hagler does not possess the speed or athletic ability that Jones did so we can ignore that fight right there and at no point in his prime was Hopkins ever really troubled. Allen did ok for the first couple of rounds in there opening fight but is far too small a sample to take much from.

I don't see how I or anybody else is to expect Hagler to steamroll a genuinely great and tough middleweight like Hopkins when he struggled past Duran slap bang in the middle of his pomp. You can bring up Calzaghe and Taylor all you want but that was an old man losing close decisions that could have gone either way.

You may not like Hopkins, probably something to do with the fact there isn't limitless boxing writers waxing lyrical about him but instead longing for the good old days of the fab four. Hagler was bloody fortunate to have Hearns and Duran about, two great smaller guys willing to test themselves consistently against the best, without them his reign is very thin on the ground.

You'll no doubt have the philly middleweights floating around in your head, fighters you've not seen fight but have read about but I don't see many holding Valdez on a pedestal and he wiped Briscoe clean out once upon a time.

See, I was with you there until you started with the "fighters you haven't seen" guff. Why waste time arguing with a pedant dripping in bitterness  (presumably at the lack of respect you covet so desperately).

The reason Leonard fought Hagler was because the great man had evidently lost a step against Mugabi. Had Hagler not looked a fading force, that fight would never have happened.

Hagler cut his teeth against a host of Philly technicians - none of whom fought as negatively as Hopkins but he'd hardly have been bamboozled at Hopkins' hit and hold routine.

Young Hopkins gets stopped. Old Hopkins outpointed.

And please quit the "you don't like him" spiel. We 're not at a school disco (and if we were, you'd be alone while we all slow danced with girls to "Lady in Red").

Your like and dislike for boxers defines your opinion of them pure and simple, you'll make endless excuses for your favourites and concentrate on the negatives of those who aren't.

Hagler was bamboozled by a lightweight who had the temerity to use a jab and by a Welterweight who fought for the last 30 seconds of a round, he wasn't the brightest of fighters.

You base your opinions on what you read and what you're told to believe but very little of what you say is based on what you've seen. You talk about the Philly middles as if you've seen a whole host of their fights but apart from a couple against Hagler there is next to no footage of them readily available. If i'm wrong point me in the right direction and correct me.

I do enjoy the rivalry between you two. I just wish you didn't have such similar names as I always forget who's who .

The way to differentiate them, is that the one with the initials HH can be a bit argumentative

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Your like and dislike for boxers defines your opinion of them pure and simple, you'll make endless excuses for your favourites and concentrate on the negatives of those who aren't.

Hagler was bamboozled by a lightweight who had the temerity to use a jab and by a Welterweight who fought for the last 30 seconds of a round, he wasn't the brightest of fighters.

You base your opinions on what you read and what you're told to believe but very little of what you say is based on what you've seen. You talk about the Philly middles as if you've seen a whole host of their fights but apart from a couple against Hagler there is next to no footage of them readily available. If i'm wrong point me in the right direction and correct me.

We've done that one chump change - you'll never make Columbo.

The hypocrisy in that post is remarkable. And the cluelessness. I was watching fights when you were being bullied at nursery. I still attend fights regularly at ringside. You?

Hagler was given a tough fight by a one of the truly legendary fighters of all time who was on the top of his game. The Leonard fight was two once great fighters who no longer had it.

Can you imagine Jones beating Hagler without breaking a sweat? Not a chance.

WAR peanut brain! WAR!

Dipper Brown wrote:I do enjoy the rivalry between you two. I just wish you didn't have such similar names as I always forget who's who .

Oh f£&* I'm not having that!

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Can't say I took any notice of what they said to be honest just thought it was interesting that your biased BS wasn't the consensus call as per usual.

So my biased BS is usually consensus opinion? Hang on a sec....

Still chuckling at this. What a knacker.

Yes I do see Jones beating Hagler without breaking sweat, no slight on Marvin but Roy was that damn good, his speed would be something Hagler couldn't deal with.

Hagler was given a tough fight by a once great lightweight who was years and divsions past his best but it looks better on him to say Duran was on his game but it's just not true.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Yes I do see Jones beating Hagler without breaking sweat, no slight on Marvin but Roy was that damn good, his speed would be something Hagler couldn't deal with.

Hagler was given a tough fight by a once great lightweight who was years and divsions past his best but it looks better on him to say Duran was on his game but it's just not true.

Watch the fight. Duran was ON IT.

Hearns was as fast as Jones (that one's on your DVD).

Hagler wasn't on it there's a big difference, drifting through a fight trying to be clever intimidated by the reputation of a once great fighter but do make yet another excuse for him struggling against a former lightweight. Did Monzon or Hopkins struggle against a former lightweight, no they didn't they swatted them with the contempt they deserved.

Hearns didn't possess anywhere near the same speed as Jones nor did he possess the reflexes and frankly he didn't actually hit as hard at middleweight either.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hagler wasn't on it there's a big difference, drifting through a fight trying to be clever intimidated by the reputation of a once great fighter but do make yet another excuse for him struggling against a former lightweight. Did Monzon or Hopkins struggle against a former lightweight, no they didn't they swatted them with the contempt they deserved.

Hearns didn't possess anywhere near the same speed as Jones nor did he possess the reflexes and frankly he didn't actually hit as hard at middleweight either.

I forgot you fought them both at middle. Are you basing this on Fight Night again?

Absolute nonsense.

I'm basing it on watching them fight, i'd feel very confident in saying that Jones is the fastest middleweight of all time, has Bob Mee not written an article on the respective speed of the pair?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hagler wasn't on it there's a big difference, drifting through a fight trying to be clever intimidated by the reputation of a once great fighter but do make yet another excuse for him struggling against a former lightweight. Did Monzon or Hopkins struggle against a former lightweight, no they didn't they swatted them with the contempt they deserved.

Hearns didn't possess anywhere near the same speed as Jones nor did he possess the reflexes and frankly he didn't actually hit as hard at middleweight either.

Apart from some slight swelling on his face, I never thought that Hagler struggled against Duran. Disappointed maybe, but struggle no. I think that the Duran who fought Hagler was very capable of taking Monzon and Hopkins the distance.

Atila wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hagler wasn't on it there's a big difference, drifting through a fight trying to be clever intimidated by the reputation of a once great fighter but do make yet another excuse for him struggling against a former lightweight. Did Monzon or Hopkins struggle against a former lightweight, no they didn't they swatted them with the contempt they deserved.

Hearns didn't possess anywhere near the same speed as Jones nor did he possess the reflexes and frankly he didn't actually hit as hard at middleweight either.

Apart from some slight swelling on his face, I never thought that Hagler struggled against Duran. Disappointed maybe, but struggle no. I think that the Duran who fought Hagler was very capable of taking Monzon and Hopkins the distance.

Hurrah! A boxing fan! Well said bud.

Atila? Boxing fan? Nah just a hagler luvvie like you haz.

Semantics on duran hagler. Hagler was disappointing in that an ATG middle should beat an ATG lightweight pretty easily and he didn't. Personally I had it slightly easier than the judges for him but it was nip and tuck til the championship rounds.

You can't dismiss Hopkins beating trinidad because Tito was a blown up welter, and then justify duran's credentials as a middleweight opponent. Hanging tough with barkley is one thing, but the marvellous one?

milkyboy wrote:Atila? Boxing fan? Nah just a hagler luvvie like you haz.

Semantics on duran hagler. Hagler was disappointing in that an ATG middle should beat an ATG lightweight pretty easily and he didn't. Personally I had it slightly easier than the judges for him but it was nip and tuck til the championship rounds.

You can't dismiss Hopkins beating trinidad because Tito was a blown up welter, and then justify duran's credentials as a middleweight opponent. Hanging tough with barkley is one thing, but the marvellous one?

I'm a Hearns fan rather than Hagler yet can happily discuss his failings. The Floyd, Hopkins, Jones and Leonard fans on here aren't as magnanimous.

My point is that Hopkins struggled with the best middleweights he faced (Jones, Taylor and Calzaghe - a big middle in old money). He struggled with those who out worked him on offense as he likes to work at his own pace.

He could not conceivably out work Hagler.

I could quite easily see that Duran give the "peak" Hopkins of say, the first Robert Allen fight, the business.

Allen looked ready to spring an upset until Hopkins bailed (as he did years later against Dawson).

When you're a fan of someone with Tommy's whiskers you can't help but admit his failings.

Yeh Hopkins must have bricked it against Allen and lucked out in the second fight.

You still picking up that he was outworked by guys he fought when he was 40, and that he lost to jones... Even though he actually won some rounds, unlike toney, despite being green as a championship fighter. He Won every round before stopping the unbeaten glen johnson, not known for being work shy. For a guy priding himself on his objectivity you're doing a fine job of selectivity. Whichever, I agree he wouldn't outwork hagler, not many would, doesn't mean he wouldn't land the cleaner shots... If he could withstand the quiet beating, obviously.

milkyboy wrote:When you're a fan of someone with Tommy's whiskers you can't help but admit his failings.

Yeh Hopkins must have bricked it against Allen and lucked out in the second fight.

You still picking up that he was outworked by guys he fought when he was 40, and that he lost to jones... Even though he actually won some rounds, unlike toney, despite being green as a championship fighter. He Won every round before stopping the unbeaten glen johnson, not known for being work shy. For a guy priding himself on his objectivity you're doing a fine job of selectivity. Whichever, I agree he wouldn't outwork hagler, not many would, doesn't mean he wouldn't land the cleaner shots... If he could withstand the quiet beating, obviously.

Hopkins dogged it against Allen as he did against Dawson (and tried to against Calzaghe - crawling around like a mutt).

So, you think he was a better fighter at 30? Which middleweights did he beat at 30 that would give him a hope against Hagler? Mercado?

Toney was dead against Jones - it's a shame he didn't take care of Hopkins back in the day. Johnson lost to Sosa and Kiwanaku within 12 months of Hopkins - hardly a great measuring stick at 160.

So Hopkins would pot shot Hagler with his anaemic output and Hagler would presumable hit fresh air?

Different levels.

He may have nicked 2 or 3 rounds against Jones but Roy was boxing easy - he didn't need to raise his game in a tepid encounter.

Toney was a far greater challenge and Roy turned it on accordingly.

Lol at original thought. Must have googled this to form his argument (before claiming it was a ridiculous tack to take): http://m.espn.go.com/extra/boxing/story?storyId=9873573&src=desktop&rand=ref~%7B%22ref%22%3A%22http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FJrhG2tM0vy%22%7D

What a crank.

You really are an oddity who as Milky has said can't form a balanced opinion, picking and choosing fights that aren't relevant or twisting them to fit your bias.

hazharrison wrote:Lol at original thought. Must have googled this to form his argument (before claiming it was a ridiculous tack to take): http://m.espn.go.com/extra/boxing/story?storyId=9873573&src=desktop&rand=ref~%7B%22ref%22%3A%22http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FJrhG2tM0vy%22%7D

What a crank.

So the expert consensus is a tight fight, could go either way... With a couple of left fielders going for the hagler KO.

Good to see you going against the grain of expert opinion haz. There's hope for you yet fella!

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Lol at original thought. Must have googled this to form his argument (before claiming it was a ridiculous tack to take): http://m.espn.go.com/extra/boxing/story?storyId=9873573&src=desktop&rand=ref~%7B%22ref%22%3A%22http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FJrhG2tM0vy%22%7D

What a crank.

So the expert consensus is a tight fight, could go either way... With a couple of left fielders going for the hagler KO.

Good to see you going against the grain of expert opinion haz. There's hope for you yet fella!

Well, a couple picked Hagler by KO. So not that tight.

I understand Collins and Raskin picking Hopkins, Ring Mag thought he was the bee's knees under them both (sold a bundle of copies dressing him up as the American Dream).

I think it's possible that, in arguments involving Hopkins (and indeed Lewis) he's viewed as if he was always as good as he became post-40. He became a better fighter late in his middleweight reign, yet if I select that version, I'm picking an "old Hopkins". The younger middleweight who had problems with the likes of Mercado, Allen (first fight), Echols and who couldn't put a dent in Keith Holmes (the guy Roy coasted past) wasn't as good a fighter as the guy who fought Eastman and Taylor.

Hopkins looked even better against light heavyweights - some of his best wins are at 175.

You can't mix that version with the physically younger one. He didn't exist!

My favourite big-name fighters are: Frazier, Lewis, Hearns and Benn (domestically, John Murray, Gary Sykes and Frampton) but you'll never find me on here being anything less than balanced about them.

The Floyd, Hopkins, Leonard and Jones fans rarely are.

I mean Jones wouldn't have broken a sweat against Hagler? Ridiculous.

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Lol at original thought. Must have googled this to form his argument (before claiming it was a ridiculous tack to take): http://m.espn.go.com/extra/boxing/story?storyId=9873573&src=desktop&rand=ref~%7B%22ref%22%3A%22http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FJrhG2tM0vy%22%7D

What a crank.

So the expert consensus is a tight fight, could go either way... With a couple of left fielders going for the hagler KO.

Good to see you going against the grain of expert opinion haz. There's hope for you yet fella!

No, haz went with expert opinion. 4 of the 7 picked Hagler.

I too think Hagler wins this. The problem I see for Hagler is that even though they both fought at middleweight,  Hopkins is the naturally bigger man. Hopkins turned pro as a light heavy and went down to middle. Hagler was always a middle who I thought could have made light middle if he had wanted to. Hagler weighed only 157lbs for the Mugabi fight, and this was in the era of same day weigh ins. With an extra 24 hours like they have today, I don't see it being hard for him to make 154lbs. Hopkins has always had the benefit of an extra day to rehydrate, who knows how much he weighed on fight night? Considering he turned pro at 177lbs, probably more than Hagler ever did. For me, Hagler wins on points. In a 3 fight series, maybe Hopkins nicks one.

Atila wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Lol at original thought. Must have googled this to form his argument (before claiming it was a ridiculous tack to take): http://m.espn.go.com/extra/boxing/story?storyId=9873573&src=desktop&rand=ref~%7B%22ref%22%3A%22http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FJrhG2tM0vy%22%7D

What a crank.

So the expert consensus is a tight fight, could go either way... With a couple of left fielders going for the hagler KO.

Good to see you going against the grain of expert opinion haz. There's hope for you yet fella!

No, haz went with expert opinion. 4 of the 7 picked Hagler.

I too think Hagler wins this. The problem I see for Hagler is that even though they both fought at middleweight,  Hopkins is the naturally bigger man. Hopkins turned pro as a light heavy and went down to middle. Hagler was always a middle who I thought could have made light middle if he had wanted to. Hagler weighed only 157lbs for the Mugabi fight, and this was in the era of same day weigh ins. With an extra 24 hours like they have today, I don't see it being hard for him to make 154lbs. Hopkins has always had the benefit of an extra day to rehydrate, who knows how much he weighed on fight night? Considering he turned pro at 177lbs, probably more than Hagler ever did. For me, Hagler wins on points. In a 3 fight series, maybe Hopkins nicks one.

Good points. Pics of them together show Hopkins as the much bigger man. If it's under same-day weigh-in conditions then that has to favour Hagler.

Ah, so you have to have an agenda to think Hopkins has a chance.

It's the poster not the fighter they support that defines objectivity haz. Seems like you think anyone who disagrees with you lacks objectivity.

I get labelled the Leonard fan, when actually I was a Pryor and nelson fan in the. 80's and was rooting for duran in Montreal. I've always like an underdog and was cheering for him in the hagler fight. But because I'm one of the 50% of misguided fools who couldn't see the quiet beating, I'm a myopic Leonard fanboy in the eyes of some.

I rate hagler very highly and am seemingly in a minority of people who think hagler monzon (my favourite fighter of the 70's as a kid) is a Pickem. I just think Hopkins at his best... and let's say that's circa the trinidad fight where he'd matured as a fighter but still had an engine... Is, stylistically a good match up against marv. If all that makes me a Hopkins fanboy, I'm a Hopkins fanboy.

milkyboy wrote:Ah, so you have to have an agenda to think Hopkins has a chance.

It's the poster not the fighter they support that defines objectivity haz. Seems like you think anyone who disagrees with you lacks objectivity.

I get labelled the Leonard fan, when actually I was a Pryor and nelson fan in the. 80's and was rooting for duran in Montreal. I've always like an underdog and was cheering for him in the hagler fight. But because I'm one of the 50% of misguided fools who couldn't see the quiet beating, I'm a myopic Leonard fanboy in the eyes of some.

I rate hagler very highly and am seemingly in a minority of people who think hagler monzon (my favourite fighter of the 70's as a kid) is a Pickem. I just think Hopkins at his best... and let's say that's circa the trinidad fight where he'd matured as a fighter but still had an engine... Is, stylistically a good match up against marv. If all that makes me a Hopkins fanboy, I'm a Hopkins fanboy.

That's a fair assessment - Hopkins was a marvel in that fight. I realise I'm in a minority in believing Hagler eviscerates him. That isn't a fanboy opinion either.

Pryor man. What a fighter. Have you seen the amateur fight with Hearns?

hazharrison wrote:

Atila wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Lol at original thought. Must have googled this to form his argument (before claiming it was a ridiculous tack to take): http://m.espn.go.com/extra/boxing/story?storyId=9873573&src=desktop&rand=ref~%7B%22ref%22%3A%22http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FJrhG2tM0vy%22%7D

What a crank.

So the expert consensus is a tight fight, could go either way... With a couple of left fielders going for the hagler KO.

Good to see you going against the grain of expert opinion haz. There's hope for you yet fella!

No, haz went with expert opinion. 4 of the 7 picked Hagler.

I too think Hagler wins this. The problem I see for Hagler is that even though they both fought at middleweight,  Hopkins is the naturally bigger man. Hopkins turned pro as a light heavy and went down to middle. Hagler was always a middle who I thought could have made light middle if he had wanted to. Hagler weighed only 157lbs for the Mugabi fight, and this was in the era of same day weigh ins. With an extra 24 hours like they have today, I don't see it being hard for him to make 154lbs. Hopkins has always had the benefit of an extra day to rehydrate, who knows how much he weighed on fight night? Considering he turned pro at 177lbs, probably more than Hagler ever did. For me, Hagler wins on points. In a 3 fight series, maybe Hopkins nicks one.

Good points. Pics of them together show Hopkins as the much bigger man. If it's under same-day weigh-in conditions then that has to favour Hagler.

Expert opinion, was it was a close fight. I see a close fight. Haz thinks its a walk in the park for hagler... He's not going with expert opinion.

Re size. Hagler is naturally stockier, Hopkins rangier. Bhop was still fighting as a middle at an age after hagler retired. He probably is a naturally 'bigger' man and there's something in the weigh in argument... but not to a degree that's hugely significant in my view. The guys he was fighting had the same 'advantages' if you're considering like for like performances.

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Ah, so you have to have an agenda to think Hopkins has a chance.

It's the poster not the fighter they support that defines objectivity haz. Seems like you think anyone who disagrees with you lacks objectivity.

I get labelled the Leonard fan, when actually I was a Pryor and nelson fan in the. 80's and was rooting for duran in Montreal. I've always like an underdog and was cheering for him in the hagler fight. But because I'm one of the 50% of misguided fools who couldn't see the quiet beating, I'm a myopic Leonard fanboy in the eyes of some.

I rate hagler very highly and am seemingly in a minority of people who think hagler monzon (my favourite fighter of the 70's as a kid) is a Pickem. I just think Hopkins at his best... and let's say that's circa the trinidad fight where he'd matured as a fighter but still had an engine... Is, stylistically a good match up against marv. If all that makes me a Hopkins fanboy, I'm a Hopkins fanboy.

That's a fair assessment - Hopkins was a marvel in that fight. I realise I'm in a minority in believing Hagler eviscerates him. That isn't a fanboy opinion either.

Pryor man. What a fighter. Have you seen the amateur fight with Hearns?

I have yes, hearns as a lightweight... It was Like watching a stick insect fight with a bee.

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Ah, so you have to have an agenda to think Hopkins has a chance.

It's the poster not the fighter they support that defines objectivity haz. Seems like you think anyone who disagrees with you lacks objectivity.

I get labelled the Leonard fan, when actually I was a Pryor and nelson fan in the. 80's and was rooting for duran in Montreal. I've always like an underdog and was cheering for him in the hagler fight. But because I'm one of the 50% of misguided fools who couldn't see the quiet beating, I'm a myopic Leonard fanboy in the eyes of some.

I rate hagler very highly and am seemingly in a minority of people who think hagler monzon (my favourite fighter of the 70's as a kid) is a Pickem. I just think Hopkins at his best... and let's say that's circa the trinidad fight where he'd matured as a fighter but still had an engine... Is, stylistically a good match up against marv. If all that makes me a Hopkins fanboy, I'm a Hopkins fanboy.

That's a fair assessment - Hopkins was a marvel in that fight. I realise I'm in a minority in believing Hagler eviscerates him. That isn't a fanboy opinion either.

Pryor man. What a fighter. Have you seen the amateur fight with Hearns?

I have yes, hearns as a lightweight... It was Like watching a stick insect fight with a bee.

Better than most pro fights these days. Would have made for a wonderful rematch once Hearns found his power as a pro.

My take on Hager v Duran/Leonard is that Marvin's personality nearly cost him..

Marvin always felt inferior as a boxer to those two If not as a fighter....He always thought people viewed him as a fearsome slugger that could box a bit and resented it...

So he tried to be clever and outwit two clever,cunning guys and didn't use his advantages...

Duran and Leonard were too savvy to be outwitted and Hagler nearly lost both fights..Poor Marv always thought he had something to prove and he didn't...

Should have stormed out a la Hearns against Leonard...Sure Leonard may have expected it but dealing with it is something else...

One of the best all round fighters I've seen Marvin but only "good" at everything..

Leonard certainly did a psyche job on him of Ali proportions.

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Ah, so you have to have an agenda to think Hopkins has a chance.

It's the poster not the fighter they support that defines objectivity haz. Seems like you think anyone who disagrees with you lacks objectivity.

I get labelled the Leonard fan, when actually I was a Pryor and nelson fan in the. 80's and was rooting for duran in Montreal. I've always like an underdog and was cheering for him in the hagler fight. But because I'm one of the 50% of misguided fools who couldn't see the quiet beating, I'm a myopic Leonard fanboy in the eyes of some.

I rate hagler very highly and am seemingly in a minority of people who think hagler monzon (my favourite fighter of the 70's as a kid) is a Pickem. I just think Hopkins at his best... and let's say that's circa the trinidad fight where he'd matured as a fighter but still had an engine... Is, stylistically a good match up against marv. If all that makes me a Hopkins fanboy, I'm a Hopkins fanboy.

That's a fair assessment - Hopkins was a marvel in that fight. I realise I'm in a minority in believing Hagler eviscerates him. That isn't a fanboy opinion either.

Pryor man. What a fighter. Have you seen the amateur fight with Hearns?

I have yes, hearns as a lightweight... It was Like watching a stick insect fight with a bee.

Better than most pro fights these days. Would have made for a wonderful rematch once Hearns found his power as a pro.

Wasn't suggesting a stick insect and a bee wasn't  an entertaining battle. I'd fancy hearns once he filled out a bit and added some leverage to his shots but it would be fun while it lasted.

I'd pick Jones by shut out over Marv....Hoppo is harder to pick..

The Nunn that beat Tate would beat Hagler comfortably too...and your Graham would have had a good chance If he didn't bottle it...

Hagler was a great fighter but it was poor era he dominated...