There's a whole lot of misconceptions about both fighters in this thread. Tis the general forum's way though.
i voted for hopkins for a few reasons: - i'm biased because he's my favorite fighter - he's best when he's the underdog - he's has a stylistic advantage against hagler in addition to knowing how to use his height as an advantage - never been knocked out and was only hurt twice in over 20 years! - he's also very underrated and could've been competitive in any era because of his discipline. that said, i voted for hopkins because it's possible, but not likely. hagler was a beast and is the best middlewegiht of all time.
:nono No, Hopkins never had a high workrate, but Hagler was never a fast starter either with the exception of the Hearns fight. Hopkins is the larger, taller fighter at 6'1'' with a 75'' reach compared to Hagler's 5'9'' and 75'', but Hopkins had the better footwork and faster hands. I also think Hagler's come forward style would give Hopkins some success, but with Hagler's legendary pressure and strength, Hopkins would eventually slow down in the middle rounds and resort to his rough house tactics, which in this case I'd favor Hagler in the infighting. Hopkins would be in survival mode in the late rounds. Like I said, it would be close, but Hagler would be the clear winner.