who was more skilled Hopkins or Hagler?

I think Hagler was a more rounded fighter but Hopkins has more tricks up his sleeve.

Hard call.

 

Hagler, no contest.

 

Hopkins has handpicked many guys and won some and lost some, but Hagler was dominant in a good era of middleweights. Marvin Hagler was more skilled. Hopkins was good and consistent.

 

Talent: Hagler (not to say Hopkins was without talent)
Ring IQ: Hopkins (not to say Hagler's was low at all)
Cumulative boxing skill sets: Very close.

Overall effectiveness (taking the above three into consideration): I give it to Hagler by a smidge.

 

This is perhaps the worst thread in which to bring up that win, and the worst win to bring up as an example in this thread. :huh

I love Hagler, and especially love Hagler-Hearns...but compared to the bulk of his body of work, that **** had very little to do with skill. :yep

 

Hagler Fought better Competion!!Bokjai your assert Hagler needed to fight longer Minter, Sugar Ray Seales plus Hagler had smoother Style.. EVERYTHING Hamsho,Cyclone Hart,Beast Mugabi,Antufernmo Look at Marvins RECORD.. compare Anyone with Bad Bennie Briscoe,this isnt even close Holmes, cant even remember their names Hagler in a LANDSLIDE!!!!:happy

 

Defensively it's a tossup, but offensively it's Hagler without question. Neither is lacking is skills, but Hagler has no real weaknesses IMO. He was the ultimate fighter.

 

Jab: Hagler
Straight Right/Left: Hopkins
Body Punching: Hopkins
Hooks: Hagler
Combinations: Hagler
Footwork: Hopkins
Defense: Even
Rough-housing: Hopkins
Cutting off the ring: Even
Counter-punching: Hagler
Mid-range combat: Hagler
Out-boxing: Hopkins
Punch accuracy: Hagler
Ring Generalship: Hagler (though Hopkins has done a good job of picking the right fights to appear to have the edge here)

I'd probably go with Hagler overall, but it's close. Hopkins' ability to scrap is the only thing that makes me pause. Much better at scrapping than Marvin, who had to usually win 'honestly' if he was to win, which is a bit of a drawback...

 

I'd probably say Hopkins in this aspect. He was a specialized search and destroyer in his physical prime, while Hagler was much more comfortable boxing his opponent. Hagler showed against Hearns that he could turn hunter when needed, of course, but in other fights he seemed less comfortable chasing the other guy.

 

Would have been a fascination fight for sure.

 

Hagler's advantages: Better jab, smoother combination punching, switch-hitter (and effective from both stances). Better accuracy with his punches.

Hopkins; advantages: Smoother transition from outside to inside, Cagier in terms of interspersing fouls with legal punching techniques. A bit harder to tag with a flush shot.

I'd give the edge to Hagler, because the margin between him and Hopkins is quite narrow in most of the areas I gave to Hopkins- especially defensive ability. They both had/have a ton of skills.

 

Hagler just wasn't that great really.