who was more skilled Hopkins or Hagler?

I would compare the two like I would cars just as a more expensive performance car is to a model that most would be able to afford

Hagler's offense is carried out with more authority. from what Ive seen, also thinks faster and more efficient,,,, doesnt start with the combinations until later in a fight, leaving himself less exposed to counters

I just think he had a style that was a little sophisticated for most people (fans) to appreciate early during his reign

Hopkins is the cuter fighter stylistically speaking

 

Hey, when it's not about Leonard or Norris, we can actually get som good posts out of you.

I think Hopkins probably is a bit underrated offensively and Hagler a bit underrated defensively. I suppose that the Hearns fight often come to mind when thinking of Hagler and the Tito fight when thinking of Hopkins, but that can (especially in Hagler's case) be a bit misleading.

One flaw in Hopkin's offense is that he often overreached with that right. But all in all, in his physical prime he came in fast and hard behind one-twos and stayed on top of his opponent while giving away very little. Mercado II is about as good an all-out offensive perfomance as you're gonna get, bar possibly Tyson-Spinks and one or two others.

Hagler was more of the classic in and out variety. He was just so good at stepping in with that piston like jab, often hooking off it but only letting the left go at a clear opportunity, and then out again. A superb boxer-puncher, with emphasis on boxer.

 

Well, you got my opinion earlier. While very, very good, Hagler's footwork is still a bit bouncy and at times he was also prone to leaping in. I e it's not perfectly economical. You can see this in for example Antuofermo I (a fight Hagler clearly won tbf). After about 7 rds the bounce goes out of Hagler's legs, which makes it possible for Antuofermo to catch up with him and turn it into a brawl. Had he managed to box him for a couple of more rds, even those biased judges wouldn't have managed to make it a draw.

Hopkins, on the other hand, has nearly perfect economical footwork while going away. That's why he, even at nearly 40, could stay away from a guy like Tito without tiring.

 

It's actually hard to say actually Pop. What I'm thinking is Hopkins relied on footwork more as part of his defensive set than Hagler who was more inclined to take shots on the gloves as part of his defensive set rather than vacate the premises with the use of quick footwork.

But if we're talking strictly skill with footwork, perhaps Hagler is Hopkins' equal. I just get the notion that Hopkins used his footwrok more than Hagler overall, and so used that skill more than Hagler did. But from a technical standpoint, it's hard to fault either when they used their footwork.

 

that's Hagler's style as a boxer, in and out. Most people think Hopkins was better on defense. I think of Hagler's defense as more subtle who picks them off on his gloves. also moves his head well, and never a stationary target (see Hamsho fight, not the Duran fight)

 

I think Hagler had a nearly faultless defense from a technical standpoint. He didn't have quite the radar and reflexes of some other skilled technicians, but you can't fault his form and technique in any way.