Marvin Hagler vs. Bernard Hopkins (picture) who wins?

Better chinned Hagler to much pressure and power

I would favor Hagler..... Hopkins is known for his craft but Hagler could be pretty crafty as well.... I also think Hagler would give Hopkins looks he's never seen before.... Just one example switching up his (Hagler) stance while also delivering a strike at the same time.... I don't think B-Hop could provide too much Hagler hasn't already seen.... Don't feel as comfortable saying the same vice versa.....

Straight right hand and clinch. Rinse and repeat.

With the amount if time Hopkins would flop around in the floor claiming fouls, this fight would legit take 2 hours :lol1: I'd watch it just because of that. Hopkins would've find a way to make it an ugly fight.

I take B-Hop. Too tactical. Hagler was a monster and a beast but B-hop would have found a way to frustrate him, and foul him. Hagler could foul amazingly as well believe it or not. Particularly accurate with the right thumb.

At least he never blamed a loss on his TIGHT SHOES :lol1: I was confused as I thought you were talking about Hop or Hagler. Then I realised. :lol1: Hagler could've blamed a loss on tight shoes and gotten away with it, you seen the size of that guys feet. He must have had to get stuff custom made.

Hagler, too much of a man, warrior. Hopkins is a poosy coward actress. At least he never blamed a loss on his TIGHT SHOES :lol1:

Nice jab by Hopkins, only missed by a few feet. :lol1: :lol1:

Like this one better. http://i1087.photobucket.com/albums/j470/laselva787/1332108932-picsay.jpg Nice jab by Hopkins, only missed by a few feet.

lateral movement? Using his big reach advantage? Their reaches are identical almost. Hagler had long ass gorilla arms and is an under-rated physical freak.

Like this one better. http://i1087.photobucket.com/albums/j470/laselva787/1332108932-picsay.jpg

lol hopkins overall resume shyts on hagler's. Hopkins is bigger stronger and faster than hagler. Hagler's workrate might give him trouble but eventually hopkins would smother hagler and use his superior technique and win a close but comfortable decision lmfao.........

Hagler obviously ranks higher his resume is better that doesn't mean hopkins isn't an all time great MW lol Hopkins overall resume shyts on Hagler's. Hopkins is bigger stronger and faster than Hagler. Hagler's workrate might give him trouble but eventually Hopkins would smother Hagler and use his superior technique and win a close but comfortable decision

he has the longer reach. Their reach is measured the same on boxrec but the body frame makes all the difference. You have a 6'1 guy with a 75" reach against a 5'9 guy with a 75" reach and trust me you'll see a big difference in the ring. I've seen this a number of times in fights when two guys supposedly have the same reach but in the ring it's quite clear one guy has an advantage. That advantage is a matter of timing,not neccessarily reach.Many short armed fighters could outjab their longer armed opponents. Being first is important in this matter.

he has the longer reach. Their reach is measured the same on boxrec but the body frame makes all the difference. You have a 6'1 guy with a 75" reach against a 5'9 guy with a 75" reach and trust me you'll see a big difference in the ring. I've seen this a number of times in fights when two guys supposedly have the same reach but in the ring it's quite clear one guy has an advantage. That advantage is a matter of timing,not neccessarily reach.Many short armed fighters could outjab their longer armed opponents. Being first is important in this matter.

You must be young. look up hopkins vs glen johnson sir. young nard was a beast. Mr Wolf, you may be a beast, going by your name, but Hopkins being a beast was only an illusion created by his teeth.

he has the longer reach. Their reach is measured the same on boxrec but the body frame makes all the difference. You have a 6'1 guy with a 75" reach against a 5'9 guy with a 75" reach and trust me you'll see a big difference in the ring. I've seen this a number of times in fights when two guys supposedly have the same reach but in the ring it's quite clear one guy has an advantage. The old way of measuring reach" doesn't tell the real story because the shoulder width is included. It's fingertip to fingertip. The correct story is given by measuring arm length. And i don't have their measures. Regardless, there's no way that Hagler would allow himself to lose to a guy like Hopkins. In his prime he was unbeatable against almost anybody, and that "almost" certainly wouldnt include Hopkins.

I'd lean towards Hopkins. Hopkins would have done a lot of "leaning" himself if he'd fought Hagler. During his title reign Hagler just didn't know how to lose and I'd have bet solid money that he'd beat Hopkins.

I think Nard would have found a way to win. And I'll go ahead and state it...........I think he would have fought the entire fight in the trenches like he did early in his career.........and might have low blowed Hagler so many times he would have no more. I literally think Hopkins would break Hagler. The same Hopkins that elected to continue fighting against Echols despite dislocating his shoulder and given a free pass. That's a lie which was suggested by the commentator and which Hopkins later said nothing to disprove. He didn't have a dislocated shoulder, didn't fall on his shoulder and n case you don't know, the ring is well padded with top quality rubber underpadding. \He was playing the "old soldier" in the usual Hopkins style. idn't you notice that he hardly used it for the rest of that round to keep up the illusion of injury, resumed using it a round later and was bashing away with it from then on.....??

What a silly question. Hagler of course.