Who do you think was the better boxer Hagler or Whittaker

What weight class would this take place in? Would this be Pernell of his last fight (the only fight he weighed over 154 for)? Is Hagler cutting to 154 to fight Whitaker of the Vasquez fight?

Assuming it takes place at 160, whether prime Pernell (who wouldn't fill in at 160) or not, Hagler runs over him.

 

Whitaker. Hagler had a lot more power and whilst he was an extremely good boxer Pernell by nature relied on sheer skill more.

 

Pernell is generally considered to be a ring technician of the highest calibre and Hagler is known for his tremendous toughness and heart.

 

In what categories though?

Hagler was the tougher, far more durable and determined switch hit boxer. Whitaker was the faster, with better defensive and faster reflexed boxer.

 

Oh sorry I misread, Hagler accomplished more and was the better overall fighter due to talent but Whitaker was the smoother operator

 

Hagler was a much better boxer. See him vs. Sibson tear Sibson apart. One of the greatestest boxers I ever saw.

 

Hagler was one of the best middleweights that ever lived. A terrific boxer with serious ( under rated by some clowns here) KO power. Great reach (75"), tough as nails and an all time great chin. In my opinion at 160 the only chink in his armor was a bit of doubt in himself and it showed when he fought conservatively against Vito (1), Duran and then Leonard. That said, again, he was a true monster and at his best holds his own with anyone in that stacked all time division.

Pernell Whitaker may be one of the top ten or fifteen P4P fighters that ever lived. His talent and style and boxing IQ were off the chart. At 130 and 145 he had it all .. he was still a dominant force at 147 and even at 154.

I say Whitaker.

 

Hagler. He had better footwork and positioning.

 

And Sibson was one tough *******! Brilliant performance from Hagler

 

Whitaker.

 

Hagler was all about hard work and perserverance and the will to win and succeed. Pernell had more skills naturally. Won his title earlier, although that loss to Ramirez was a bad decision. The reason Ray could beat Hagler, had a lot to do with rust and timing, yet Marvin would always be susceptible to the boxer who didn't let him land and counter. Marvin was not the most naturally skilled. He was developed. Hearns gave him what he wanted in a great fight, but should have used his jab in that fight. Duran did well in a slower pace, but Hagler eventually found the target. Hagler is the story of a guy who worked hard and developed his skills with experience and guts. That did not always win against the great boxers.

 

Hagler really is a great, all-round boxer.

Whitaker, has a particular specialty in footwork and defensive, upper-body movement; complimented further by noticeable speed and reflexes.

Hagler, for me.

 

Hagler was more skilled in his prime (77-83)