Just a comparison of talents in different generations. Let's say we put Oscar and Bernard in the years 1982 - 1989 in their respective divisions--- Middleweight for a prime Hopkins and Lightweight for a prime Oscar. DO YOU THINK THEY'LL STILL SHINE or THEY'LL BE BEATEN TO A PULP? :rolleyes: hmmmm......

depends..all i know is hopkins would still been good..but not oscar

oscar hardly can last 8 rounds before he starts to fade...he would have never gone 15 rounds..and if he did he would lose a lot of fight when other fighter starts to land more in late rounds (ex:sugar vs dlh 1)

DLH fades late now because he is older he didn't have that problem when he was a kid.

Hopkins could compete in any era

DLH is different. I dont know if he could have competed against the welterweights of the 80's, but at 135 and 140 he could compete with anyone. People really forget how good DLH was at the lighterweights

Delahoya at lightweight never faded. He wouldn't be as good as he is during those years. Hopkins I think can compete during those years and still be within the top of the division. He wouldn't of went undefeated for 11 years though.

agreed dlh at lower weights was good but remember he was downed at those weights..he got up and won..but lets say dlh-pryor..and if pryor would have caught him to the body or chin..things wouldnt have looked good for dlh..but besides that yeah he can do well in those weight...but from 147 on up he started fading no matter what age..and 31 is not even old..tapis doesnt fade and he's old

hopkins s the guy to talk about...him versus any of the top middleweights would have been great

hop vs hagle would have been kick ass..or roy jones vs hagler at MW

DLH went down maybe once or twice because of balance he was never hurt. DLH has an iron chin

I think if an old Alexis Arguello was able to give Pryor problems then DLH who was bigger, stronger, faster and hit harder than Arguello could have beaten Pryor.

By the way folks, please also consider where the name fighters of the 80's would be if we put DLH and BHop there. Year 82 - 89 would still have a threatening Hearns, Duran, Leonard, Hagler in those divisions.

I think DLH would still do good at lightweight and two more divisions above lightweight. Hopkins would have to deal with strong sluggers in his division.

hop vs hagler would have been kick ass..

:eek: I am divided on this one evenly. I can't predict it. Hopkins against his idol. Hopkins will show good defence but Hagler is a monster and it'll be ugly when he gets inside BHop's
defensive stance.

(fictional) HAGLER to HOPKINS: So, ya even try to imitate me up to my ugly mug huh? I'll make you uglier! Eat this!

Hopkins would have been the 2nd best middleweight if he was fighting in the 80s! Hagler was a beast.

bump.......................

hopkins would have done great in any era, in the 80's he would have competed well with duran, hearns, hagler and srl. I can see him winning against 2 or 3 of those guys as well.

Hopkins ruled a **** division, go only a few years before he came onto the scene 88-95, had hopkins fought the majority of his prime years in there he wouldn't of held a belt
Hopkins is a very good fighter who could hang in there against damn near any middleweight BUT he is no great

Hopkins ruled a **** division, go only a few years before he came onto the scene 88-95, had hopkins fought the majority of his prime years in there he wouldn't of held a belt
Hopkins is a very good fighter who could hang in there against damn near any middleweight BUT he is no great

wrong wrong wrong..hopkins is a throw back fighter..and would be good in any era

i agree that he could compete in any era and like i said hang in there against almost any fighter in any era
but he'd lose to any great middleweight

you think he would of been top dog 88 - 93? he would of lost to a half a dozen guys

i agree that he could compete in any era and like i said hang in there against almost any fighter in any era
but he'd lose to any great middleweight

hopkins and hagler would be a 50/50 fight-probaly be a trilogy

wrong wrong wrong..hopkins is a throw back fighter..and would be good in any era

I believe so as well, easily one of the smartest fighters out there. He studies his opponents, analyzes them, and goes to work. I think he would be a good solid fighter, I am not so sure how he would do against Hagler or Hearns. Leonard's best years was as a welter and I think he would whip De La Hoya's ass. He has too much movement and boxing ability.

you think he would of been top dog 88 - 93? he would of lost to a half a dozen guys

not in his prime..hopkins doesnt get hit much

not in his prime..hopkins doesnt get hit much

just in case you dont know..i bumped this thread from 2004

just in case you dont know..i bumped this thread from 2004

oh i know..i read the whole thread

hopkins would be a MW right, so i see him and hagler fighting multiple times since they would be the best at their weight classes.

oscar at WW on the other hand would get outboxed and brutally KOed by Hearns and schooled by Leonard. Duran was past his best but can still beat the golden boy.

DLH went down maybe once or twice because of balance he was never hurt. DLH has an iron chin

I think if an old Alexis Arguello was able to give Pryor problems then DLH who was bigger, stronger, faster and hit harder than Arguello could have beaten Pryor.

oscar BEATING PRYOR??? KEEP PRAYING!!! ARGUELLO WOULD OF BEATEN goldengirl. BENITEZ WOULD OF SCHOOLED HIM, AND DURAN WOULD OF SENT HIM TO THE MORGE.... :boxing: