who was more skilled Hopkins or Hagler?

I meant best at the weight they fought at the time they fought.

And you do have a point that Hearns really didn't do much at MW.

 

Still, Tito for me. Or Calzaghe.

 

Yes but beating 2 LHW champs, beating Leonard at 162, dominating about 5 160lb top 10 contenders, being perhaps the best ever 154lber, may just indicate he was a little bit tasty at the weight

 

I agree with this. IMO Hopkins is more skilled technically, but Hagler more effective when you take into account physicality, style etc...

I don't see what is too much wrong with that move by Hopkins. His feet are still in a good position to punch, once he has fallen inside and he is well protected as he does it. Duran did a similar thing, although he was much more 'positive' with it and its immediate after effect.

'Calm down, calm down'

 

Duran was always on balance when he rushed in and usually did it after deliberate feints.Hopkins would do stuff like that in his prime, but against Taylor for intstance, was overextending himself and falling in after leads, then quickly correcting it with clinching and good inside positioning more like what Eubank or Marquez do when they try to throw punches while coming forward, or Morales.

Less vulnerable than the mexicans though, who had little to avoid taking punishment after making mistakes like that.Eubank did, but often wasn't sharp enough in one way or another either.The Hopkins Taylor fights are a lot like the more uninspiring Eubank defenses actually.

 

Oh yes. It depends on how prickly one chooses to be about exactly 160. I personally think Hearns was quite clearly better than Tito.

 

I'd go as far as saying he's a league above to be fair, same with Leonard. I think I'd probably pick Duran over Tito and Delahoya at 160.

Then theres the question of how Holmes, Vanderpool, Joppy, Johnson, Echols compare to Minter, Anerfermo, Roldan, Sibson, Hamsho, Mugabi, Briscoe, Munroe, Hart......we have to remember though Hops has his LHW resume too. Some of BHOPs defenses are probably better than given credit for to be fair but Haglers is the better era

 

Perhaps. Could you elaborate?

 

Just in terms of skillset I see him a league above both, most pick him over both at WW, I think its largely the same match up at 160, the version who faced Hagler was a very good version, dare I say not far removed from Montreal (I'll have the Duran Mafia on me for this). At this stage Duran was troubled by movers, defensive counter punchers, but Tito and to a lesser extent DLH would come straight at him

 

Yeah, there's some pounding on the door already, I think.

I think Montreal Duran was clearly better than MW Duran, but I can also quite easily see him beating Tito and DLH at MW. DLH would probably have his best chance if he fought like he did against Tito. I can possibly see him outpointing MW Duran this way.

 

Yes Montreal was better, but the performance of Duran against Hagler is better than anything Tito/DLH. At 160 he had 1 good performance losing to Hopkins, but looked good early. Oscar at this stage of his career was using the shoulder roll, was better defensively but was never quite ellusive enough, but speed wise he could trouble Duran by getting off first. I think we need to look at the Mosley/Vargas performances, which were quite good but close fights, Durans better than both though. Oscar ofcourse does fade down the stretch at this stage too, which is another factor

So come to think of it the Oscar win is probably an underrated 1 for Hopkins in comparison to the Trinidad win

 

Fair enough.

Do love that body shot.

 

Hahahahaha

 

Very close one, but I have to go with Hopkins for the simple reason that he showed better adaptability once his physical abilities declined. Perhaps Hagler could have done something similar had he stayed active longer, but as it is he never showed it.

Hopkins changing from a very aggressive search and destroy fighter to a crafty counter puncher is a great testament to his skill and versatility. Hagler showed himself to be similarily multidimensional for Hearns, but could also look a bit lost at times when forced to lead by a skilled counter puncher (Duran, Leonard).

It's really not much in it, though. Two of the most complete fighters ever.

EDIT: I also like Hopkin's circling of opponents slightly better than Hagler's, actually. Think it's a bit more economical. So I guess that makes it close but clear.

 

Hagler seemed more skilled and had a better advantage with his southpaw style, and his win over Hearns gives him a legacy edge over Hopkins which cannot be surpassed. No matter what you think about either guy the classic fight with Hearns elevated Hagler to godlike status. Elevated both Hagler and Hearns!!!!! That kind of guts and spirit is hard to forget. I give Marvin Hagler the edge in this.