Who's greater - Hagler or Hopkins?

MW vs MW its clearly Hagler but career wise i think Nard edges it by a chest hair.

I think Hagler would have lost to Spinks if he moved up and lost to McCallum if he fought on after Leonard.

 

I do too. But in no way is fighting Spinks the same as Hop fighting Tarver, especially coming off 2 losses ,, not even in the same league .. No shame in dominating in one division for me

 

Probably not , but Hop does have those wins and Marvin doesn't which is why i think his overall body of work is slightly greater.

 

I think Hopkins was greater if were talking about career accomplishments here. The way that Hopkins jumped up in weight and outfought bigger, younger men at such an advanced age would be unfathomable if he hadn’t done it.

 

I think Hagler. Very different careers. Prime years Marvin, he wiped out everyone and took on everyone and beat everyone up to Ray. Hopkins lost to Jones and Taylor, and then did the Mayweather kind of handpicking for styles. Knowing who to fight and who not to. But prime years Marvin was just more dominant.

 

Hagler, aint close either

 

Do you not think? I think a case can be made for either fighter. Hagler came perilously close to being exposed by an ageing and fleshy Duran and did lose to a former welterweight who had had one fight in 5 years.

At 15 years older than Hagler had been for Leonard, ie the entire duration of Haglers career, BHop was giving LHW champ Kovalev a lot of problems. I think boxing was a lot weaker when BHop was competing when well into his 40s than it had been in Hagler's pomp but to move up so much in weight and fight younger men deserves some credit. If you didnt know much about their careers and got all your info from boxrec, Hopkins clearly has a willingness to take on bigger and younger opposition which Hagler's CV cannot boast.

And if that cant convince you, bear in mind that the only other poster sharing your opinion is Red Rooster. Do you really want that as your epitaph?

 

Hagler, and it's not even close for me. Hagler took on all comers, beat the best MW's of his era, ruling the MW division with an iron fist. Hopkins had a long steady career with some good quality wins, but his era was nowhere near as tough as Hagler's.

 

Hagler by a country mile. You could see the considerable gap in caliber. X would never make it during Hags era. he could probably do well against figthers like James Kinchen and McCallum

 

At first I would have said Hopkins because he had some success at 175. But after looking at it more closely, Hagler. Here's why. Hopkins's resume at 160 is all about longevity and not as much quality. The close to prime version lost twice to Jermaine Taylor. No way close to prime Marvin loses twice to Taylor. And at 175, Bernard has some decent, but nothing special wins and his record there is mediocre. Someone previously mentioned Spinks. If Bernard had fought in the Saad, Spinks , Qawi era he would have been pummeled more than once. Bernard is a terrific fighter but is lucky to have fought in the divisions he fought in when he did.

 

Hagler, top 4 middle, Hopkins barely top 10.

 

A 40 year old who had had 20 defences was close to prime?

 

The first 4 yes, but Hopkins ? Not for me.

 

I go with Hopkins, he get's my vote just by sheer longevity. Also Hagler's loss to Leonard is a big stain. If Hopkins was in there he would have beaten Leonard.