Hagler v Hopkins

This is a pretty important point when matching up these two. Hagler's workrate was impressive. And he was accurate with it. Down the stretch it would be one of the differences.

 

X 2, Hagler will never fully figure out the puzzle that is Hopkins IMO. Good hard close fight with ring smarts being the difference for mine.

 

Hopkins also had a good workrate himself during his prime. Watch the Johnson fight he threw anything from 60-100 punches a round for the whole fight. Though I must admit it would not be a good idea for Hopkins to stand and trade but he was capable of raising his workrate when needed in his prime. Hopkins was also very accurate with it as well, though could get wild sometimes.

 

I am guessing that is aimed at me. But you seem to have completely taken by argument out of context. I never stated Hagler could not beat anyone who went up and won a light heavyweight title.

I am simply trying to suggest that strength wise Hopkins would not be overwhelmed by Hagler as he has shown through out his career that he is physically very strong himself and used the example that he was able to deal with a full blown light heavyweight to emphasise that fact.

So your example using Hearns who despite being a big framed fighter was never known for his physical strength completely misses the point of my original argument.