What's more impressive Pacquiao's offense or Bernard Hopkins defense?

[$tate of Mind]

What's more impressive in your opinion, Pacquiao's offensive ability or Hopkins defensive prowess?

[BrometheusBob.]

Well Pacquiao has shutout several opponents based almost entirely on offensive work, but BHops is 50 and still fighting relatively fresh and has his faculties together. Neither dazzled in their last fight, but as far as their respective better years go, it is a tough call imho. But I suspect NSB will favor bhop.

[hhs661]

Hops defense to be honest. He's 50 & still able to be one of the best at whatever division he fights in. This making him be arguably the 2nd best fighter of this era

[Beercules]

Lead with your head and throw a looping right hand all day baby.

[Shpacman]

What's more impressive in your opinion, Pacquiao's offensive ability or Hopkins defensive prowess?

Of course and without a doubt Pac offence.
Those who voted for Bihop defence forgot that Pac is a small fighter even for lightwelterweights and he cleaned the whole welterweight division when he came to it.

[MRBOOMER]

there both equally great in there own ways.

[W1LL]

B-Hop's defence. Didn't need no PEDs.

[PAC-BOY]

[Shpacman]

We could compare BHop defence to Pac offense only if BHop succesfully campaigned at cruserweight.
Also we can't treat defence according to fighter's longetivity. Yes, fighter's longetivity depends on the ammount of taken damage. But BHop not only prevents opponents from landing, he also barely lands himself. Great defence is "hit and don't get hit". And Bhop defence is "don't hit and don't get hit".

[Shpacman]

Seriously, those who vote for BHop defence literally don't know a **** about boxing and should be banned from commenting here.