Why Does Hopkins Get Criticism But Hagler Does Not?

[Boom Boom]

Hagler had one of those careers,that got much better in peoples memory after he retired.
At the time a retired Sugar Ray had more endorsement deals then Hagler did.
10 years from now people will be looking at B-hops career and marveling at it.
You may not like his style,that mixed philly crab,Bernards defense stuff,but you cant argue with the results. And an even weirder part of Bernard,is he takes guys hearts. Nobody except Jones ever looked quite right after fighting Bernard. Taylor became a plodding defensive fighter,Trinidad became a balloon,Holmes became an afterthought,so did Tarver,Johnson went from an undefeated prospect of the highest caliber,to a journeyman.
At the time,nobody liked Hagler's style either,he was neither a bully like Duran or Hearns,neither did he have 5 tons of flash like SRL,but he was somewhere in the uninspiring middle. But he was effective.

Definately. Haglers legacy got better as the years went on, and even the Leonard fight became more contraversial in Haglers favor in peoples minds.

As for Bernard, I think that the history books may even rank Hopkins in the to 15 fighters of all time. Bernard has said it himself, he wont be appreciated till hes gone.

[Trainer Monkey]

Hagler had one of those careers,that got much better in peoples memory after he retired.
At the time a retired Sugar Ray had more endorsement deals then Hagler did.
10 years from now people will be looking at B-hops career and marveling at it.
You may not like his style,that mixed philly crab,Bernards defense stuff,but you cant argue with the results. And an even weirder part of Bernard,is he takes guys hearts. Nobody except Jones ever looked quite right after fighting Bernard. Taylor became a plodding defensive fighter,Trinidad became a balloon,Holmes became an afterthought,so did Tarver,Johnson went from an undefeated prospect of the highest caliber,to a journeyman.
At the time,nobody liked Hagler's style either,he was neither a bully like Duran or Hearns,neither did he have 5 tons of flash like SRL,but he was somewhere in the uninspiring middle. But he was effective.

Definately. Haglers legacy got better as the years went on, and even the Leonard fight became more contraversial in Haglers favor in peoples minds.

As for Bernard, I think that the history books may even rank Hopkins in the to 15 fighters of all time. Bernard has said it himself, he wont be appreciated till hes gone.

Hopkins is a technician.
For a fan of seeing an exciting fight,it doesnt inspire much.
If your a student of the game itself,you love watching him work,but if you arent,he seems almost boring.
I mean I can see it totally,I think most more casual fans get stunned when he gets KO's,but what their missing is,he's been breaking a guy slowly round by round. And he's also getting his opponents timing and rhythm down,so he can just deliver a one shot KO like he did to DLH.
Hop just sat on that punch,he was just waiting for it.
Just like Hagler,he doesnt excite the public mind,but he does win.

[Fenster]

Hopkins being BORING hurts him. Fair enough, as Ouma says, it's the latter part of his career, but that's when his most high profile fights occured.

NONE of them are memorable/special (to a non fan). The Tito and Oscar fights (these guys don't come close on all-time great lists to Leonard/Hearns) are not really competitive. Just a dominant performance by Hopkins.

Compare that with Hagler-Hearns.. which will ALWAYS be regarded as one of the greatest/thrilling fights ever. Hagler-Leonard is legendary for the "controversy."

I think you have to take into consideration Roy Jones clearly beat Hopkins at middleweight too.