- Longest reigning middleweight
- First to ko ODLH
- Have a quality resume


But how big is he in the history of boxing..? What is his place in the ATG, and how do you see his legacy?

i rather have my kid watch him instead of jones and judah to get good fundamentals so pretty high

Whats up with the same type of threads. I'm sure a Mike Tyson one is coming soon.

I don't make ATG lists p4p, but he ranks 5 at Middleweight on mine.

1. Hagler
2. Greb
3. Monzon
4. Ketchel (sp)
5. Hopkins

Some discount his MW run cuz there weren't a lot of names, but you can't be champ that long without doin sumthin right. He unified the division, only truly lost once, never ducked anybody, and added the LHW title at the tail end of his career. He's a legend.

I don't make ATG lists p4p, but he ranks 5 at Middleweight on mine.

1. Hagler
2. Greb
3. Monzon
4. Ketchel (sp)
5. Hopkins

Looking at your list, I think B-Hop could have beaten Hagler, Monzon, and Ketchel. I think Greb's awkward style would have given him trouble though as Greb is one of the few guys I would say was a better angle puncher than Hopkins.

Top 5 middleweight of all time

i have him 4th

probably a top 50 post-1900 boxer too.... although i've never even attempted to make a list

Looking at your list, I think B-Hop could have beaten Hagler, Monzon, and Ketchel. I think Greb's awkward style would have given him trouble though as Greb is one of the few guys I would say was a better angle puncher than Hopkins.

Exactly. Haglers straight forward approach would be perfect for an older more defencive Hopkins. Throwing just enough pr round to disrupt Haglers rhytm and steal the rounds.

harry greb was ****, those old school guys just brawled

top 10 MW, level of comp in his title defenses is average imo, has faced the best and always been competitive even when he loses.

imo he would not beat hagler or monzon

You can't really have a top 5 in order.

Imo. Hopkins top in top 2 along with Hagler and Monzon, any order.

I'm not sure, but someone said he was the only boxer to hold all championship belts, The Ring belt and another belt at the same time

...the best middleweight of all-time. yeah i said it. its true. deal with it haters...

He's definitely one of the best of all time.

harry greb was ****, those old school guys just brawled

Gene Tunney, one of the most technical boxers of any era was beaten by Greb. In fact Greb was the only man to ever beat him. Lmao, yeah he must have been ****. One only has to have a slight grasp of boxing history to recognize all the great fighters Greb fought in his career, and how great he was. Obviously you don't have that grasp and are reaching with that ridiculous and unfounded insinuation.

Hopkins gets a bad rap for his run of defenses at Middleweight, but you shouldn't slight the man because his era wasn't as great as some of the other's. You have to take into consideration the way in which Hopkins dispatched them all, and he did that quite handily.

At Middleweight:

He set the record for Middleweight titles defenses.

He unified his division, something that had not been done since Hagler in 1987.

After Middleweight:

He shocked everybody by jumping up 2 weightclasses to school Tarver and become the undisputed Light Heavyweight Champion of the World.

He went on a Tarver/Wright/Calzaghe/Pavlik string after the age of 41, winning 3 out of 4 of those fights.

Not to mention that nearly every one of his losses came by way of a narrow, razor thin, disputed split decision. He's never been beaten convincingly.

He's a top 5 Middleweight ATG for sure, and a top 50 ATG for sure in my book.

Maybe I'm a bit bias, because he's my hometown guy and all. But I honestly feel blessed to have been watching him fight since '96. I feel like I've witnessed history.

I think his Middleweight run is pretty good. He beat solid guys, some regraded prospects who he ruined, and also had key defining wins there. It's certainly respectable and not weak at all.

He exposed Pavlik and the bum CALSLAPPY and is a legend simply for what he is doing at his age!

I think his Middleweight run is pretty good. He beat solid guys, some regraded prospects who he ruined, and also had key defining wins there. It's certainly respectable and not weak at all.

I don't think his division was "weak" either, but for some reason, this seems to be the general consensus among Hopkins' detractors. Though they have lightened up on the man since the Pavlik fight, but we'll see how long that lasts.

I remember everybody here showing him tremendous respect post-Tarver as well. That lasted about 6 months.

I don't think i have heard anyone say the MW division was "Weak".

He beat some of the best boxers there are

Someone said Hopkins was the only boxer to be undisputed champion, hold the Ring belt and a few other belts at any one time for any division.

Can someone clarify this and which belts were these?

harry greb was ****, those old school guys just brawled

I have Hagler right up there with the best Im not gonna bother with a list. but you are obviously are full of ****, are biased, and have no idea what some of these old school fighters were capable of!!!

He's definitely up there. He has the distinction of being the first true World Middleweight Champion since Marvelous Marvin. He's the greatest over-40 fighter of all time. He's a defensive genius who possesses a brilliant mix of orthodox and unorthodox style defense. His resume contains some of the best of the era. He defended the Middleweight title for 10 years and 20 defenses. I'd put him at either #2-#4.

Someone said Hopkins was the only boxer to be undisputed champion, hold the Ring belt and a few other belts at any one time for any division.

Can someone clarify this and which belts were these?

He's the first man to ever hold the 4 recognized World Titles: IBF, WBA, WBC, and WBO at the same time along with The Ring Middleweight Championship. Since he held all the pieces to the puzzle, the title he held was from the exact bloodline of the belt that Carlos Monzon held before the title was divided by the sanctioning bodies (That Marvelous Marvin Hagler would reunify before the creation of the WBO).

Some discount his MW run cuz there weren't a lot of names, but you can't be champ that long without doin sumthin right. He unified the division, only truly lost once, never ducked anybody, and added the LHW title at the tail end of his career. He's a legend.

thats right bernard could have held his own with any of the great fighters of any era thats how great he is just a old throw back type of fighter very very underrated defense and great skills from bernard hopkins

b-hop is the truth. he always defy the odds. all of his losses with the exception of the jones one were narrow thin split decisions that could have went his way and in my eyes he hasnt loss since jones. i aint never trying to hear of a fighter got whipped cuz he old cuz b-hop is an example if u take care of your body and avoid getting hit as much as possible you could have longevity in the sport. of all the 160 pound champions that i have seen he is on top of my list. if nobody knocks bernard hopkins out soon he gonna mess around still win championships in his 50s lol and really enhance his legacy further.

I believe Carlos Monzon would beat him, and a fight against Hagler would be 50-50. All in all, an exceptional fighter that deserves his all-time great status.

Hopkins would box circles around Hagler in my opinion. He'd probably have him busted up pretty good by the 12th too.