Hopkins's jab doesn't need to be considered in this fight. If you have been watching his fights against southpaws, you'll have noticed that he doesn't box them. His jab was used about 6 times in his fights with Tarver, Wright, and Calzaghe. These type of things need to be looked upon in fantasy fights as much as anything else when it comes to certain strengths and weaknesses. Hopkins doesn't use his jab against southpaws.
Can you post any links to fights where Archie Moore rolled around on the floor from light taps to a foulproof cup ? You are posting fiction to support your argument. Hopkins was 43 also when he beat Pavlik. Adversity makes him react poorly, not age. Hagler would have made Hopkins go into his shell. Your right there is no 'definitive' right or wrong, but you have to look at their losses to make a guess. Hopkins quit in the Calzaghe fight
Id take Hagler for a decision. Hagler's workrate, accuracy and power would give Hopkins more trouble than he can deal with. The first half of the fight would be very close with Hopkins probably slightly outthinking Hagler but Hagler's persistance would pay off
Whenever Hagler's southpaw, which would more than likely be often, Hopkins isn't going to box him behind the jab.
Agreed. Hopkins' main objective strategically is taking away the southpaw's jab. He will attempt use his own left mainly to parry/block the right jab of a left hander...pretty good at it too.
I get what you mean my question was poorly worded ,what I meant was what would be the result of him not using his jab ? Would it adversely affect the result for Hopkins?
Personally I don't think so. Hagler had a better jab, and the best punch tp go over the top of a southpaw for a orthodox fighter is the straight right hand. Hopkins would have more success not going jab for jab with Hagler.
Yep, Duran had success with this - quick round hand counters, and I think Hopkins would also. I think, ultimately, Hagler's jab would dominate though. Just a ridiculously consistent punch.