I'll take Hopkins over Hagler. I think Hopkins would be too quick and slick, and would take a competitive decision.

Mayweather/Hearns is a tougher one, and you have to keep in mind that we're going prime vs prime and Hearns had his prime at WW and MW, and Floyd was peak at super-featherweight to light-welterweight. That being said, at WW I'll still take Floyd.

What I find funny is the people who think beating Floyd is just simply a matter of throwing a bunch of straight punches and jabs. Then when guys fight Floyd and have a low punch output they say "Jeez if he just threw more jabs/punches he would have won!" Doesn't it seem weird that the key to beating Mayweather is so simple, yet no one has managed to do it for 17 years?

Floyd is a master defensive technician and counter puncher. Guys go in with the intention to throw a ton of punches, but start second guessing themselves and can't set right when they're eating lightning fast lead right hands and left hooks. I gaurentee you, Hearns has his offense severely stunted by Floyd, and he eats a lot of flush shots.

I know people will bring up that he outboxed Leonard, but Mayweather is better than Leonard in just about every catagory, and also has a different style.