Hagler wins a SD in a fight that could have went either way but Hagler gets the nod for being a little more active and landing the harder shots.
I like this analysis. Hopkins does everything he can to keep his opponents off balance, and from moving foward. The way to beat Hagler historically wasn't to keep him from moving fowards, it was to be able to fight him in spots, fight off the back foot and move to limit the damage he inflicted. Hopkins is a decent puncher who is able to disguise loaded punches and draw opponents into those shots when he is at his best. But, we are also talking about Hagler, a guy who was able to eat Hearns' and Ray Leonards best shots and keep coming foward. Hopkins has superb footwork, but he isn't at his best unless he can keep the fight toe to toe, or get his opponent moving backwards. All things considered, I still think it would be a close close fight. Hopkins makes great fighters look ordinary by controlling the pace of the fight with clinches and trickery. Slowing Hagler this way? I'd be very interested to see how well it works.
Good stuff by you and fluxstuff. Hagler was a very good boxer puncher (I think many here underestimate him, and see the Hagler of later in his career), with an underrated defense especially in his prime (say 78-82/83), besides having a steel chin. He also had a high punch rate for a middle. I think Hags wins a decision in 4 out of 5 fights. having said that, it's hard to compare the two I think, as I think their competition was very different. I'm obviously a Hagler fan but subjective. I think hagler fought a higher quality of opposition, both coming up and as Champ. Hagler also had the same reach as Bernard, who is 4" taller. not that it matters