Hagler vs Hopkins who would win?

Hagler for me. B Hop is nice but his a conservative fighter. Hagler got the venom in his belly and would want it more. He was relentless. Hopkins wasnt unless he was fouling the **** out of you.

 

Tough call. They're both versatile fighters who can box and brawl. Hopkins is a little slicker and quicker, despite Hagler having nice parrying ability. Hagler was heavier handed and more proven when it came to brawling, such as when Hagler abandoned his usual boxer-puncher style, going for broke against Hearns, and it worked to perfection. Hopkins is a good, clever infighter who knows all the tricks, legal or illegal.

I also think Hopkins would be better at the mind games. I could never picture Hopkins letting Leonard get to his head like Hagler did.

Hopkins is very experienced against lefties..what is he, 9-0 against them? I lost count. Hagler could box orthodox though.

Hopkins by close decision.

 

Hagler was slowing down by then.

I think it's unfair to use a slowed down Hagler, much like it would be unfair to use the old Hopkins who has to pick his spots so much more and has a crap workrate, as opposed to the Hopkins of the late 90s/early 00s who had a good workrate.

 

Hopkins close decision.

 

I think Hagler wins. Isn't Hagler one of the strongest fighters ever in terms of P4P? I mean the guy was a beast at MW.

But they are two of my all time favorite fighters because they did it the right way.

 

Hopkins' could pull a close win over a 12 round fight.

In a 15-ruond fight, Hagler by TKO.

 

This should've been a poll.

 

Hagler is way too good a pressure fighter for Hopkins. Remember, this is a Hopkins who lost twice to Taylor, when he was slightly past his absolute best. Physically, no, but mentally, when he lost to Taylor he was only about 2 years past it.

If it's the Hopkins in his physical prime, he loses by a TKO around 11. If it's the mentally prime Hopkins, Hagler would win an easy UD, but wouldn't stop him.

 

Hagler. Though Hopkins would've presented many problems as he's been very successful againsy southpaws. Haglers has faster, heavier, more accurate hands and was a better combo puncher. Hagler Ud.

 

That's the thing about Hopkins. Unlike most fighters, his prime years were in his late 30's. While he was great before that, he really didn't became that master boxer until later in his career. But by then, he didn't have the same energy level because of his age. It almost never works that way but that's why you have to respect Hopkins so much. When he wasn't in his physical prime, he became better.

But a young and active fighter can slow Hopkins down. Look at JT as you mentioned. So which Hopkins do you consider "prime" Hopkins? The younger one who was more aggressive and less technical or the master boxer who fought at the tail end of his career and picked his spots and never got hit?

 

Nice question.

I think they both have a fair share of weaknesses and strengths. Against agressive fighters, I think the more defensive Hopkins would fair better. although, if that agressive fighter is relentless, B-Hop wouldn't have the physical abilities to keep up with that pace. However, he is a smart fighter now, so would be able to manipulate one dimensional fighters.

Against more defensive fighters, the early Hopkins would be better, as he had more speed, better reflexes and hit harder. However, he could be outboxed, so I'd expect someone like Carlos Monzon to not lose manyrounds against this version, whereas Jake LaMotta would lose to him.

I think both versions are beatable against the elite middleweights. That's why I don't rate Hopkins highly, because he never had an true peak. He is either physically great or mentally great. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and someone like Hagler would probably beat either.