Forgeting the thirty-plus years I've followed this sport, the way I study fighters or the way both Hops and Marv are among my personal all-time favorites, I believe that Hagler is far and away OVERRATED today relative to the period when he actually cut a swath through his division.

I've seen two smaller foes climb into Marv's head and throw him off just enough so that all things turned out about equal.

I'd bet the farm that a head-sucker like Hopkins would get Hagler so out of whack in the weeks leading into the match, he'd have Marvin play well into the wrong game - 'Nard's game- by fight time.

Hopkins' reign is underrated. His foes stand just about as tall as the majority of Marv's foes. It's just a common reaction or sound byte to state that his opposition was weak compared to Marv's with not too much backing to it.

Add to all of that Marv was running on fumes at 33 whereas Hopkins is fighting BETTER at 43.

The bigger, taller Hopkins with his reach and technical prowess would be a hard fight for Hagler to win, let alone try to dominate or look good in.

Some like to use the flawed premise that if Roy Jones JR could slick past a "prime" Hopkins, Hagler would also. I fail to understand that sand-founded argument altogther. First, Jones and Hagler share nothing in common style-wise and who can tell me what "prime" means when they state that Bernard was "prime" in '93.

"Prime" is FAR MORE than athletic ability. It is the culmination of experience, savy, innate radar, the development of second nature fluidity of movement and a sharp eye. Each one of those things plays into each other. Hagler got his a little earlier than Hops, chronologically speaking, but Hops got his and when it kicked-in, he was simply marvellous.

IMO, Bernard's kicked-in circa mid-1996 through to 2001 - a period long after Hagler opted to avoid the Nunn's, Grahams and Barkley's. By the time Hopkins had noticeably slowed down, he was still making it close....with bigger men in some cases. He endured because he altered his style brilliantly, staying in the gym and working on defense, technique, duistance and angles. He'd climb into a foe's head, screw with it and convince them to lose by fighting at his speed.

I'd pitch the Hopkins of the Glenn Johnson fight, or the second Allen, second Echols or Trinidad as the guy that would push Hagler to the brink in a hotly-contested split decision. Take it or leave it, Hagler may or may not have won it. If they fought twice, I'd expect it to be a 1-1 proposition with a rubber match being needed.

Disagree with me as you will, it's all good. But anybody that thinks Hagler would stop, manhandle, outslick or route Bernard Hopkins just hasn't been paying attention.

Forgeting the thirty-plus years I've followed this sport, the way I study fighters or the way both Hops and Marv are among my personal all-time favorites, I believe that Hagler is far and away OVERRATED today relative to the period when he actually cut a swath through his division.

I've seen two smaller foes climb into Marv's head and throw him off just enough so that all things turned out about equal.

I'd bet the farm that a head-sucker like Hopkins would get Hagler so out of whack in the weeks leading into the match, he'd have Marvin play well into the wrong game - 'Nard's game- by fight time.

Hopkins' reign is underrated. His foes stand just about as tall as the majority of Marv's foes. It's just a common reaction or sound byte to state that his opposition was weak compared to Marv's with not too much backing to it.

Add to all of that Marv was running on fumes at 33 whereas Hopkins is fighting BETTER at 43.

The bigger, taller Hopkins with his reach and technical prowess would be a hard fight for Hagler to win, let alone try to dominate or look good in.

Some like to use the flawed premise that if Roy Jones JR could slick past a "prime" Hopkins, Hagler would also. I fail to understand that sand-founded argument altogther. First, Jones and Hagler share nothing in common style-wise and who can tell me what "prime" means when they state that Bernard was "prime" in '93.

"Prime" is FAR MORE than athletic ability. It is the culmination of experience, savy, innate radar, the development of second nature fluidity of movement and a sharp eye. Each one of those things plays into each other. Hagler got his a little earlier than Hops, chronologically speaking, but Hops got his and when it kicked-in, he was simply marvellous.

IMO, Bernard's kicked-in circa mid-1996 through to 2001 - a period long after Hagler opted to avoid the Nunn's, Grahams and Barkley's. By the time Hopkins had noticeably slowed down, he was still making it close....with bigger men in some cases. He endured because he altered his style brilliantly, staying in the gym and working on defense, technique, duistance and angles. He'd climb into a foe's head, screw with it and convince them to lose by fighting at his speed.

I'd pitch the Hopkins of the Glenn Johnson fight, or the second Allen, second Echols or Trinidad as the guy that would push Hagler to the brink in a hotly-contested split decision. Take it or leave it, Hagler may or may not have won it. If they fought twice, I'd expect it to be a 1-1 proposition with a rubber match being needed.

Disagree with me as you will, it's all good. But anybody that thinks Hagler would stop, manhandle, outslick or route Bernard Hopkins just hasn't been paying attention.

Mr Rubber Warrior its a pleasure for you to have joined our forum as i have seen your posts on many other forums and know you are tremendously knowledgable. I agree with many of your points but would not agree with some ( which is always good )

Firstly, i dont believe that Hagler running on fumes at 33 wheras Hopkins is still looking very good at 43 detracts from Marvin in anyway shape or form. I mean Wilfred Benitez was a phenomenal fighter but was completely shot by 26 but was he a great fighter? You bet he was.

I totally agree that using Jones' beating of Hopkins does not give any credence to the fact that Marvin could have done. Totally different styles and as we know styles make fights.

I still believe Marvins opponents were generally better. I know he beat Glen Johnson but as Hopkins wasnt the fighter he would become against Jones, neither was Johnson when he fought B-Hop. I would take Roldan and Mugabi to beat your Echols and Johnsons of this world. I also believe that Mugabi wouldve beaten most middlewights that night and he left most of his future career in that ring.

Although Hopkins looked masterful against Pavlik, he tired badly with the constant pressure of Calzaghe. Hagler wouldnt let up and obviously preferred 15 round distances.

I totally agree that Hopkins definately has the ability to beat Hagler and that he certainly could get into Marvins head but i still think Marvins constant pressure would lead to a close but clear 15 rd decision.