And I hate it when people bring in all these incidental factors to justify an obviously arbitrary opinion. "Accuracy" - as if one man was clearly a more accurate puncher than the other (and as if this is really a decisive factor much of the time). I mean have people sat down watching the two and concluded that one hits their opponent a little bit more square on the chin than the other in comparable situations? It's just bull****.
I'd say on pure skill, it's pretty damn close. Although Prime Marvin was a better fighter, since he combines the technical proficiency of Hopkins with sheer power, aggression and an unbelievable motor.
People who just try to lump Hagler into the `bull `category,obviously haven`t seen Hagler enough ! After Bad Bennie butted MMH`s eyebrow wide open, watch the boxing lesson Hagler gave Briscoe. Watch how MMH schooled Sibson, softened him up and the KO`d him. He had a great jab, could switch on a dime (southpaw/orthodox) and had fluid combinations. He tore into Hearns because thats exactly what he and Goody trained for. He moved pretty good on his feet, and had a higher punch output than Hopkins. I give the edge to Hagler because he was busier and he got it dome more decisively, be it boxing or slugging...
Could I ask for an explanation here please? Not that I'm disagreeing with you, I'm not, but would be interested to hear what you think of Hagler's footwork, and how they match up in this regard. :good The question is also open to anyone else on this thread who has an opinion on this?
Not to burst B Hop`s bubble, but does anyone here think that Jermain Taylor would outhustle Hagler ???
Who do you think had greater accuracy: Joe Calzaghe or James Toney? In certain situations like this one, accuracy is a legitimate factor IMO.
The Jermain Taylor of 2005 would've met a brutal end had he fought the Bernard Hopkins of the late 90s. A brutal end.
Can you imagine what the 2001 version of Hopkins would do to him? Both would've beat him up pretty badly, with Marvin inflicting more damage as he was a more brutal fighter than Bernard.
Straight off the bat I would have said Hopkins personally. But thinking about it Hagler really did have some nifty footwork...it was technically very sound and I think he was more fleet footed than Bernard.
Taylor isn't outhustling anyone..at least not down the stretch where he almost always fades. I think he holds his own with Hagler for a few rounds before getting worn down and picked off...once Marvin had a sniff it would be over pretty shortly.
Not sure that this is a fair barometer. Hopkins was having trouble making 160 by the Taylor fights. The reality is he should have made the jump to light heavy years earlier than he did (or at least a move to 168).