I wouldn't go so far as to say one was really more skilled than the other. They were both complete fighters who were a bit better in certain areas than the other.
yes i would agree. i think Hagler was a great all-arounder and had the better jab while Hopkins was cuter with his counters and perhaps craftier.
Yeah, Hagler certainly had the better jab, and I'd say he was the superior combination puncher too. Hopkins has the more sound defense, and probably an edge in footwork and overall ring control I think.
Hard to say. In offense it's Hagler in D it's Hopkins. Hagler: jab, combos, body shots, head movement (close), more effective while trading inside Hopkins: counter shots, accuracy, footwork, parrying (close), blocking, trap-setting, pace-setting, neutralizing, more effective on clinches
Hagler going in, Hopkins going out...different styles...Hopkins was more of a late bloomer and peaked at light-heavy...as Middleweights Hagler beats him IMO
I can't even understand this. You might as well have said "Wonk wonk wonk wonk wonk." It would've made just as much sense to me.
I think Hagler has a better jab, better fundamentals, and is the all-round superior fighter, though not by much. Hopkins has better defence and perhaps slightly better footwork. They are closely matched, but I view Hagler as the more effective fighter, all things considered. Hagler is very complete, he could do just about anything.
He did make an interesting point, i don't recall agreeing, but i'd like to hear his argument as Hopkins is clearly the most complete technician of our time, and therefore if there is any element of subjectivity to this debate then PP's point is of interest to me. And Hagler is the better bull.