Who's greater - Hagler or Hopkins?

I don't think anyone should downplay BHop's win over Tito. That was boxing 101. Not running actually masterclass in boxing against a very good/great fighter.

 

No doubt and Rummy did a great piece on those fights in Rummy's Corner .. It was awesome

 

I love Rummy's corner

 

I'm sure you have but if not check out his top 5 Hagler wins

 

Hagler at middleweight clearly in my view.

Hopkins closes the gap by what he did above middleweight but I'd still say Hagler.

 

Not even close for me. Marvelous Marvin

 

Hagler for sure. Hopkins' series of wins is long but underwhelming. Hagler actually beat two guys with tremendous reputation in Duran and Hearns and (imho) Leonard.

 

Who the **** are these guys?

 

How can you include Leonard, Duran and Hearns on Hagler's list but not Del a Hoya and Trinidad on Del a Hoyas? And if your including fights own scorecards you can add Calzhage and Pascal.
Winky? Pavlik? Tarver?
And he beat a very far past it Jones in the rematch.

There's some great fighters there. Better than the majority of the names you listed for Hagler

 

I'd shade it for Hopkins because he scaled the weights with excellent success before age caught up with him. He absolutely schooled the best light heavyweight in the world as a solid underdog as soon as he moved up and then again beat the top dog some 5 years later. In his forties.

 

At middleweight Hagler is the greater fighter. Overall, it is a closer call as Hopkins fought until the age 50 and beat good fighters in his 40s at lightheavyweight

 

Hagler is the greater of the two and also wins the hypothetical match up by UD IMO.
Similar amount of fights overall but Marvs were all done by the time he was 34.

 

As Middleweights, I think there's daylight between them and Hagler clearly ranks higher. But I do think Hopkins' exploits at 175 make it perilously close and he has a claim to rating higher overall. He had almost a whole career by some fighters' standards after being turfed out of Middleweight by Taylor and was still good enough to outscore top ten-ranked fighters almost a decade later. The guys he beat as a Light-Heavyweight (Tarver, a bloated Wright, Pavlik, Pascal, Cloud, Shumenov etc.) aren't that spectacular looking, but are still no worse than a lot of Hagler's championship wins, save Hearns, Duran and perhaps Sibson (Hagler of course has a body of work before winning the title which was damn good in its own right).

Hopkins was humbled a few times more than Hagler, but the majority of those came with mitigating circumstances with regards to his age and the fact that he was better-suited to 160 than 175. That's not to give him a free pass for Calzaghe, Dawson etc., but more to highlight that there's no real disgrace in those results. I guess it boils down to whether you prefer Hagler's superior, more dominant and high-class peak or Hopkins' more measured consistency spanning a much longer timeframe. I'm gonna sit on the fence for a while before I give a clear answer on this....

 

He didn't whip Duran or Leonard

 

I think this sums it up real well.