who was more skilled Hopkins or Hagler?

The quote is not disrespectful at all. It is an observation based on both fighters careers. YOu have lost something in translation ..

 

I never said it was, so it must be you that has lost something in translation.

 

You used a point I made to try and sidestep criticism someone else had with one of your posts. In any language or culture that's dodging. Defend your point on your own merit (or lack) .. I think this translates !

 

No i never, i called out a poster for potentially using double standards. He claimed PowerPuncher's comment was disrespectful, i disagreed. You made a similar comment, so i highlighted that if he thought PowerPuncher's comment was disrespectful then clearly yours must be as well. I do not think your comment or PowerPuncher's comments are disresepctful, they're fine woth me, i was calling for the usage of double standards to be cut out.

So as far as your little jabs at me go, they're unwarranted, ill informed, and to be blunt, embarrassing.

 

Hopkins easy

 

Hagler had better infighting skills than Hopkins....
Hagler´s jab better than B-Hop.... Hagler's ability from the outside is very good
Hopkins has the more sound defense, ....but....Hagler has the better offense !

Who has the better footwork ??
And combinations ??


It´s close in my opinion....

 

I will take Hagler.

Hagler was a better counter puncher. He could switch from the Orthodox to Southpaw during combinations and back with ease and great effectiveness.

He could fight going backward looking like Robinson (vs. Briscoe) , come forward with more agression than Lamotta (vs. Hearns), or do a combination of both, (Duran, Leonard, Mugabi). His stamina and workrate could be raised to a level higher than his opponent when he felt the need. He had one of the best middleweight jabs because of the power and angle it came with. His combination punching usually produced KO's.

Hagler had very subtle defensives skills. In his pretitle days he moved nicely around to ring, great head movement, and excellent parrying skills. He could pivot, get angles, and counter.

Hagler is not just on of the most complete middleweights, but fighter in General.

Hopkins made one or two dimentional fighters look bad. He is a throwback to complete boxing. He was able to move around Tito's bombs. Trinidad who was never able to adapt put his all into his power and was out foxed. Other than this fight, I am not sure I can point to a fight where Hopkins was in with a fighter with similar skill that he put on a wide range of fighting skill.

Everyone before the Trinidad fight were close to being cans, and after with the exception of a few very good fighters that he lost to.

Hopkins is a great technician. Hagler is an All-time great technician.

 

Has Popkins made this into a 4 page argument off my off the cuff remark This coming from the 'man' who admitted to pm'ing other posters complaining about me

No as Teeto said I never said Hagler was simply a bull, I said he is a more effective as a bull, more effective. I was alluding to the fact Hagler has physical attributes Hopkins even in his prime can't match this level, he puts combinations together. Hopkins is pretty good in this respect in his prime himself but Hagler is better. No version of Hopkins is stalking Hearns as effectively as Hagler and Hopkins wouldn't have the same success against Hearns, I also don't think he stalks Leonard with as much success

Why do I think Hopkins is more skilled? Defense, footwork, counter punching, use of angles and ring smarts and the ability to put in performances way past his prime once his physical attributes have faded. Hagler was more reliant on his physical abilities in my view

I can't imagine Hopkins having a close fight with Mugabi or Antufermo at any stage of his career.

And no Popkins Ricky Hatton is not a better bull than Napoles, because Napoles will stalk an elite fighter far more effectively and put his combinations together far more effectively

 

I'm on an early night tonight because i'n up ridiculously early tomorrow for a saturday, but seen as though PowerPuncher has re-opened this case file i'll take this opportunity to ask Popkins to finally respond to posts 45 through 49.

 

This content is protected

 

Hagler´s opposition wasn´t really much better. Slightly at best.

 

I'd like to see you draw up a case for that

 

Which is the best fighter Hopkins has beat, you think? Certainly no Hearns; are Tito and DLH the two best of his victims? Tarver?

 

Too much effort. Use the search function. I stated that opinion a few times in the past and backed it up too, I think. Anyway, my main argument is that the Fab-4 era is over-glorified - similar to the 70s hws or the 20s by some - and while it was a good time for boxing, qulity-wise it wasn´t really better than any era before or after.

 

Dpends what you mean by best. The best at mw? The best p4p? The best at lhw? I think the one relevant here is mw, that would be Tito. Coming of an impressive KO win over the second best mw at the time. That´s actually better than Hearns did at mw.