Bernard Hopkins vs Marvin Hagler both in their primes.Who wins?

Fair enough about the rounds,and maybe a better tactician,but a better boxer?No way.Hagler had superior footwork,a more educated jab and a longer reach.And he may not have been as crafty as Hopkins,but he was very good at slipping punches in his prime.Take the early 80's version against the Mugabi version and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.Plus Hagler was just busier and punched harder.I guess we'll just agree to disagree.:good

 

Fair enough:good

 

Best middleweight ever in my book is Hagler/Hopkins lol. This fight would be crazy.

 

Pascal beat both....

 

Solly cholly.Now way on God's green earth does Pascal beat Marvin Hagler.No way:good

 

If Haglar fought under the 30 hour weigh in rule, he would probably fight at 154. Under the same day weigh in rules he often came in around 157. If Hopkins fought n Haglar's era, he would have been a light heavyweight. Under any reasonable scenario these two never meet. The size difference is enormous. Spinks/Hopkins is a much more realistic fantasy match up.

 

Surely not even a serious question. Hagler would turn B-Hop into his mistress!

 

hopkins weighed that under the 30 hour weigh in rule. P4P Hopkins/Haglar is an intriguing fight to think about, but if they fought under either set of weigh in rules, it is highly unlikely that they would be in the same division.

It's actually kind of a pet peeve of mine that folks make these match ups, and totally disregard the size difference. Hopkins, Taylor, and Pavlik are all ****ing huge compared to most old time middleweights.

 

Hopkins. His defence and depth to his game would be the difference. Hagler would struggle to the land the jab and probably end up walking into Hopkins' straight right most of the time, struggling to get the counters in as well. Hopkins would make the difference in range count and is also technically superior on the inside if it comes to it. Just a finer, more skilled fighter at his best really and would see it out for a comfortable decision.

 

Both great fighters of course, but Hagler is a bit better. Hagler by close decision.

 

Good point. Most people ignore that Hopkins had a prime and a decline like any other fighter. If Hopkins was in his prime at all that night he was coming to the end of it, and it was far from his best performance in any case.

 

That's a good point, but it would be more relevant with the likes of Monzon, Benvenuti, Tiger etc. IMO. Hagler has some considerable physical attributes - chin, strength, genuinely damaging accummulative power (one of few fighters in history to really have that IMO), reach. Even if he is a bit of a midget, he has ways of compensating for it where those other guys don't and might instead just get overwhelmed by modern Middles who are lesser in other respects. Also, Hagler tended to keep in shape better than those guys.

There was also talk of Hopkins moving down to 154 at one point, funnily enough.

 

Well done on being virtually the only person in the thread to actually try and work out an answer.

 

Hagler.