Originally Posted by Sweet Science
I think most people are picking Hagler to win because they like the way he fought, his crowd pleasing style, sheer guts etc. Whereas, most think Hopkins was boring and more technical, not at all exciting to watch. Our subconscious would be less likely to pick out the subtle genius of Hopkins, as opposed to the overltly skilled menace that was Hagler
Lets say Shane Mosley never fought Vernon Forrest, and we were all debating the possible outcome of a mythical match between Sugar Shane and The Viper, most people would natuarlly assume Mosley would easily win. The fact is an unremarkable/unexciting yet fundamentally sound fighter can sometimes overcome a prodigous superstar, simply because they do everything consistently well. We need to look at the sum of parts.
I pick the wily Hopkins by very close decision.
Even though I'm a huge Hagler fan I enjoyed reading this post as I believe there is an element of truth in it, not often mentioned. Personally because I'm such a huge Hagler fan, I can't objectively pick a winner. Certainly if they could have fought, I would been routing for Hagler every second of the way. But that certainly isn't going to influence what takes place in the ring. They are different fighters but what they did, they both did well.