Who is greater,Hopkins or Hagler?

Hopkins for me, had hopkins done what has been doing recently in his late 20's early 30's I might have him slightly behind.

 

Hopkins always getting **** for fighting 'smaller men' but no **** for Halger who's 2nd best win was over a fighter who's prime weight was at LW.

 

Hagler fought the best middles from the 70s and 80s some real tuff cats.. Im not sure hopkins beat that .. Not only that marvin is a better tactician and technically more sound then Hopkins.

 

This is true.

 

I consider them equally great.

Hagler for dominating MW like few fighters ever dominated a division and for his destruction of Hearns. Hopkins for outclassing Trinidad, giving Jones the only somewhat close fight in Jones' prime and forjumping two weightclasses at 41 and dominating Tarver. Two amazing careers.

 

Hagler certainly was not the better tactician and more technically sound. He was a very good boxer but became great because of his chin, toughness, heart, accumulative power. Not so sure Hagler would have done as well at LHW as Hopkins did. I also don't see any version of Hopkins giving away a very winnable fight like Hagler did against Leonard.

 

I think Hagler was a better fighter, and I prefer his body of work.

 

Hagler by all measures. Besides Hagler is a very likable character.

 

I say Hagler, simply because if they were both fighting on the same night, I'd wanna watch Hagler, to me he is just more exciting to watch.
That being said you can't take away from Bernards accomplishments either, they are both atg's. I just prefer Hagler is all.

 

I would have to say Hagler by a hair, based on the entertainment value of his fights and the competitive era he fought in, but only by a hair. Hopkins has had a stellar career and basically flipped the bird at father time and mother nature.
Plus, lets face it, love nard or hate him, his trash talking is second to none

 

Hopkins because he had 20 defenses, schooled Pavlik, and because Hagler was a crude slugger. Not really. Hagler rates higher, although the distance between them isn't that wide.

 

I dunno about 15 rounds being significant. Hagler was no doubt a great distance fighter, but I think Hopkins more so than any other fighter in the past 20 years would have benefitted from 15 rounds. Like Hagler, he's often been considered a slow starter, yet in all of his controversial decisions aside from Calzaghe, he appeared to have solved his opponent at the end of 12.

 

Likable is subjective I guess...I had a soft spot for Hagler, but his clinging to the image that the whole world was always against him and the bitterniss after losing to Leonard ruined his likability for me.

 

b-hop

 

Hagler... In a fight of their primes, he beats Bhop. He wasn`t given credit for how could he could box. You couldn`t hurt him, and he`d make the fight a kind of a fight that would be physically difficult for Hop to endure. Hagler would dictate the pace and if Bhop is old school the Hagler is even more old school. And never mind about the `Bhop can handle southpaws bit`... MMH was a southpaw, who could switch on a dime and was an superb southpaw(sorry Winky) MMH would and could walk through ANYTHING Bhop has to offer, Hagler 15 rd UD. As for historical, I still like Hagler, but Hopkins longevity is making it close. Hagler was champ for 7 yrs and he would have been champ two years earlier if Corro had the guts to fight him. Heck he should have been crowned in `79` but got robbed against Antuofermo... And without a doubt, MMH made for way more of an exciting fight... I think Bhop has some trouble with Briscoe, as well as the `Worm`even Cyclone Hart had TNT in his hook. Hopkins while having a solid chin, could be reached... Mercado had him on the deck twice... I actually give the older version of Bhop causing more problems for MMH,. Because he becam a `cutie` and could survive and do enough to win. Young Bhop, goes after Hagler, bad ending for Bhop...