Hopkins vs. Duran?

Question

At 160 - take the best Hopkins you can think of vs. the Duran that took on Hagler.

All opinions welcome, but if anyone is going to pick Hopkins by some kind of KO, please give some reason why Hopkins could and Hagler couldn't.

Answer 1

wow it was tough to see pudgy Hands of Stone, with that as much as I hate to go against Duran, I would say B-Hop would win at that weight.

Answer 2

Hopkins would win, by a wide margin decision in my opinion. Its a much more natural weight for him than Duran(a blown up lightweight). I think it would be a wider margin than Haglers win, due to Hopkins being a better defensive tactician.

Answer 3

I'd pick Duran.  While Hopkins is much stronger and faster, Duran's craftier and has that unmatched ring savvy.  And don't forget, he has that "hands of stone" which he could always count even when he moved up in weight and fought bigger guys.  Plus, Duran knew all the tricks - including dirty tricks - of the trade.  If Hopkins doesn't end the fight inside 5 rounds, Duran might get him in eight of escape with a unanimous decision win.

Answer 4

THE MAIN REASON HAGLER DID NOT KO DURAN CUZ HE FOUGHT TOO CAUTIOUS - HEARNS DID KO DURAN - LEONARD MADE HIM SAY NO MAS

HOPKINS IS AS A DIRTY FIGHTER AS DURAN - ALWAYS LOOK AT WHEN A FIGHTER IS MOVING - DURAN WAS A NATURAL 135, HOPKINS A NATURAL 160 - AT 160 DURAN WAS OLDER - HOPKINS BY A CLEAR CUT DECISION