I'm sure it's been done multiple times before, but let's do it again. I think the response will be 50-50...simply because this is a 50-50 type of fight. I go with Bernard Hopkins, and not because I'm "just shilling for my favourites" (because I'm equally a fan of Hagler), but because I think that Bernard was more gifted overall than Hagler was. Hagler would have a slight edge in power. YES...slight. Hagler was no one punch knockout artist...regardless of the reputation from the Hearns war and his destruction of guys like Caveman Lee. Hagler was a solid puncher but got his KOs from accumulation. Hopkins is also a solid puncher. Hagler would have a slight edge in chin. YES...slight. Hagler's chin is made of the hardest material known to man. I say this in all seriousness. Hagler, IMO had the best chin P4P in history (honorable mention to Oliver McCall)...but Hopkins has never been stopped and never been close to being stopped. Hopkins chin has been proven over time and even at Light heavy against a puncher like Tarver or even a Pavlik. Stamina is a wash. Hopkins is smarter, more elusive, taller, rangier and naturally bigger. Hagler may have the workrate edge....but hopkins has the ring generalship edge and can turn on the workrate when he wants to. Anyway....due to power and chins...no man gets stopped or even close to getting stopped. Hopkins nullifies Haglers workrate with his elusiveness and ring generalship. 7 rounds to 5 for Hopkins. 8-7 over 15.
I like Hagler by decision. Marvin was a pressure fighter, but a great boxer as well. His pressure wasn't predicated on work rate alone. He could come forward either with pure aggression or jab his way in. Most importantly he could switch hit. I don't think Hopkins has enough mobility to be able to dictate the pace and exchanges enough to his liking. I'll take Hagler 7-5.
Hagler...very close, & very unconvincing. It's a tight fight, right down to the final round. Hagler would assert himself more in the eyes of the judges, & that would be as good a reason as any to give it to him. Hopkins in Hagler's place against the 1983 Duran would've been interesting.
It's gonna be close. Two great counter punchers. But I think Hopkins wins the circumspect low/moderate output affair which is both men's natural game. Hagler would have to press aggressively, like he did against Hearns, IMO. Though if he's as wild as he was against Hearns, Hopkins nullifies him. It all depends on Hopkins being willing to actually let his hands go, especially in the first half of the fight. But I don't think Hagler had quite the hand speed to deter that. Basically I think the Hopkins who beat Tito wins a competitive decision over 15, 7/10.
I think Hopkins' size, ranginess and strength would give Hagler fits but it wouldn't be enough. Hagler's boxing, great jab, versatility, workrate and underrated quickness would be a little too much for 'Nard. It might not be pretty but it would be fascinating to watch.
I like Marvin in a close one, mainly because I love his southpaw jab against Bernard... Bernard would not be able to control the tempo the way he likes, he'd have to take more risks in order to negate that jab, and that means exchanges... that is a good thing for Hagler, who had a better offensive arsenal and punching power... good, close fight with some real dirty stuff going on (Hopkins best moments would come when he gets under Marvin's skin... Hagler sometimes would lose his cool and his focus, temporarily, when opponents got dirty... think Hamsho the first time and the first Antuofermo fight) I just think Marvin has more offensive tools to work with
