who was more skilled Hopkins or Hagler?

For me, to call Hagler a bull is derogatory, and not remotely interesting. It's reductive and ill-informed. When are people ever going to give up on thinking of Hagler only as the guy from the Hearns and the latter stages of the Mugabi fight? The Hagler of the early 80s was not a bull, he was a supreme technician and very, very complete fighter - more complete than Hopkins, IMO, and I'm a Hopkins fan (obviously).

 

Both fighters had excellent footwork in their prime years, both fighters' footwork declined as they passed their respective primes, but yes I would agree that Hopkins' was better.

 

Yes, but that wasn't the context.

To say "Hopkins is much more skilled. Hagler is a better bull" quite clearly implies that Hopkins is superior at all matters concerned with the art and aesthetics of boxing, whereas Hagler is better at brawling like a drunk in a pub car park...

...which is very wrong, as Hagler did many things better than Hopkins, and was supremely skilled as well.

 

Seriously?

So many times in B-Hop's 40+ fights (esp Calzaghe), he simply leapt forward with his head down, threw a few shots, and then clutched for his opponent to hold.

Peak B-Hop never lumbered/staggered forward with his head facing the floor.

If Hop had been facing a fighter of quality, composure and counterpunching poise, he could have been in real trouble with that sort of footwork, luckily for him the likes of Taylor and Calzaghe do not possess that level of class.

If you think I'm talking BS, re-watch those fights and get back to me. I'm sure I've seen Lora making the same point about the older B-Hop.

 

Calm down ffs, no need for this sort of rubbish.

You are oversimplifying and disregarding the very clear implication of that sentence as a whole. To say in the same breath one guy has better skills and the other is a better bull does indeed imply that one fighter has the edge in ALL aspects of boxing skills, whereas the other can only do the brawling aspects better, which is ****ing bollocks.

 

Who is the more skilled between prime Ricky Hatton and prime Jose Napoles?

There is a huge gap in skills between an ATG and a fighter who was very good at fighting within his own style, so to say this:

"Napoles is more skilled, Hatton was a better bull"

is an acceptable answer here.


Who is the more skilled between Marvin Hagler and Bernard Hopkins?

There is not a huge gap in any way between two rounded, complete ATGs, so to say this:

"Hopkins is more skilled, Hagler was a better bull"

is not an acceptable answer here. It is reductive (totally excludes Hagler's skills) and totally unfair.