Hagler is said to have had heavy hands. GG gets good leverage on his shots. I don't know. I'd need to see them hit a punchmeter lol... Monzon's right hand was powerful too.
My boxing is fine. You need to brush up on your boxing knowledge though. This forum is filled with some real imbeciles when it comes to boxing knowledge. Golovkin's resume is really soft. What part of my previous response did you take issue with? Throw out an opinion on the topic that shows you have some knowledge of the topic, otherwise you are simply trolling.
Sure thing. You said Well: Sonny Williams, Dornell Wigfall, Sugar Ray Seales, Jimmy Owens, Johnny Baldwin, Bobby Watts, Willie Monroe all say that you're wrong. Hagler at Golovkin's point in his career not only had fewer KO's against worse opposition, but he also had losses. Hagler hadn't even fought for a world title yet, and would not, until his 50th fight. GGG is already a triple belt champion. He has been a WC since his 19th fight. Let's not even bother talking about Hopkins, who has never been a puncher of note and was taken the distance 11 times at the 36 fight mark, sometimes even by professional losers like Randy Smith (24-23-1) ... and I guess it's better not to mention that BHop had also lost twice by that point in his career, whereas GGG has yet to be beaten. Golovkin's resume is better by a country mile than either Hagler or BHop at their 36 fight point. Educate yourself.
Popkins needed to to turn oscar winning perf in his Allen fight, just not to lose his title. He then laboured to decision wins vs Andrew Council, Echols, Vanderpool, Holmes, Joppy, Allen, Eastman. Hardly a murderer's row. What Gennady would have done to these clowns? He then lost twice to Jermaine Taylor, a guy who never had a single defining win at middle, and went on to get Ko'd by half of the middle and super middle division.
On the surface you would say GGG but Hagler hit harder than many assume. GGG hasn't really got one punch knockout power, he tends to wreck his opponents by breaking them down. Hagler had the full array of punches plus he was a switch hitter, he like GGG gradually broke opponents down. I'd go with GGG but there isn't as much in it as people think.
That's not a bad breakdown. Here's the thing. I reckon both Hagler and GGG could punch harder than they actually do. But they have a similarity in that they are both fine boxers, and there's more to boxing than sheer power and swinging for the fences. Swinging all out leaves you open for the counter. It sets you off balance. Haymakers are predictable, and can be anticipated. As Jack Dempsey said "throw that punch straight into the slop bucket". I would argue that Golovkin does have 1 punch KO power, going by the Geale, Ishida, Macklin and Rubio fights. Kell Brook was saved by his great chin, but it took Gena only one shot to break his face. If you look at Golovkin he has an incredibly thick torso (Hagler was himself particularly thick, mind you) and thick forearms. So he's already got a great base to punch off of.
Mugabi could seriously bang. He was a specimen. But thanks to Hagler, he was ruined midway of what might have been a fine career.
There are a couple of people saying Golovkin has more leverage behind his punches. How wrong can you possibly be? Hagler usually sprung with his feet into his KO punches, typically from longer-mid range or it'll be a from a big combination. Golovkin's punches are from mid range and they're painful, clubbing punches.