View Full Version : Where does Hopkins stand?


bubba1
09-19-2004, 05:18 AM
Among the other great middleweights in the history of the games based upon tonight's win?

Sir_Jose
09-19-2004, 05:24 AM
Top 4 all time

Greb
Hagler
Monzon
Hopkins


he was top 4 before tonight anyway

you cant argue with winning. The guy has ruled the division for 10 years and has made 19 defenses

Ranger2408
09-19-2004, 06:36 AM
Top 4 all time

Greb
Hagler
Monzon
Hopkins


he was top 4 before tonight anyway

you cant argue with winning. The guy has ruled the division for 10 years and has made 19 defenses You think Greb is better than Hagler?
You cannot really say hopkins has fought any strong opposition, he has fought in a very weak division 19 defences against medicocre opponents does not make him great. tito and de ha hoya were about the best, and they were blown up fighters from lower weight classes.

jack_the_rippuh
09-19-2004, 11:30 AM
What about Sugar Ray Robinson?

Cleary23
09-19-2004, 01:25 PM
Hopkins is defiently in the TOP 5 best middleweights of all time.

mic573
09-19-2004, 04:07 PM
He's one of the great middleweights of all time.

Sir_Jose
09-19-2004, 04:31 PM
You think Greb is better than Hagler?
You cannot really say hopkins has fought any strong opposition, he has fought in a very weak division 19 defences against medicocre opponents does not make him great. tito and de ha hoya were about the best, and they were blown up fighters from lower weight classes.


I didn't rank them in any real order I just put there names out there.

If I had to I'd probably go
1. Hagler
2. Greb
3. Hopkins
4. Monzon

He fought the best available to him and thats all you can ask.You can say the same thing for Hagler his best win came over Tommy Hearns a welterweight.

What about Sugar Ray Robinson?

Robinson is a top 10 middleweight, but he was already on the downside by the time he went up to 160. Robinson did most of his great work at 147.

Epie2
09-20-2004, 03:38 AM
Dominating a fighter who is not a natural middleweight does not really make Hopkins greater than the great middleweight champions of past decades.

cple
09-20-2004, 06:44 PM
Dominating a fighter who is not a natural middleweight does not really make Hopkins greater than the great middleweight champions of past decades.

Some of the best opponents Hagler faced (Hearns, Leonard) and Monzon faced (Benvenuti, Griffith, Napoles) were not natural middleweights. Still, Hopkins i don't think Hopkins is in the top 5.

Here's how i personally see it:

1. Harry Greb
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Carlos Monzon
4. Marvin Hagler
5. Stanley Ketchel
6. Jake LaMotta

...are ahead of Hopkins. It could be debated that he's on par with Cerdan, Zale, and Walker.

I mainly put an emphasis on level of opposition. Hopkins' has been mediocre with the exception of DLH and Trinidad.

Sir_Jose
09-20-2004, 06:51 PM
Lamotta and Ketchel...come on now

stop hating

psychopath
09-20-2004, 08:23 PM
There can be a never ending debate on where Hopkins stands on the greatest middle weight list . . . a medicore comparing him to the quality of opponents? :D people can always say that . . . but after ruling the division for at least 10 years? I'd say he has done enough to be in the top. Great fighters always makes opponents look bad and sissy . . . and that's how good BH is. He has imposed his will against the best that his division can offer in this era.

baliw_nga
09-21-2004, 10:47 PM
Hopkins should be in the top 5 middleweights of all time. Ruling His division for more than ten years and successfully defending His title for almost twenty times and still going, are feats worthy of a lofty position in the all time greats. We can always argue that He doesnt have the best opposition during his time but thats the best his division could offer and even if He has some formidable opposition at middleweight, I dont think that Hopkins would just fold up, He would surely give a hell of a fight like He always do and might probably end up winning even against the other great fighters.

rsl
09-22-2004, 02:18 AM
I think if he came in the era of the Haglers, Hearns, Leonards, and Duran he would be w/ the Mugabi's of the world, you have to remember Hopkins faced the best and the p4p best of his era and that is Roy Jones Jr. everybody made the excuse of Hopkins was quite young against Jones, well Roy Jones is about 4 yrs. younger than Bernard Hopkins and if anybody saw that fight? Roy fought w/ one hand halfway in that fight and beat him decisively, although Bernard in my mind didn't embarass himself considering who was in front of him, anybody else would've folded up. Yes Hopkins is way underrated but labeling him one of the best of all-time is a bunch of baloney. Hopkins is at best a very good fighter!

baliw_nga
09-22-2004, 02:51 AM
I want to make myself clear, I dont really like Hopkins and I actually pick ODH to beat him, but I have to give Hopkins credit for successfully defending his Middleweight belts against all the worthy challengers of his time. Retaining your belts for more than ten years is quite an accomplishment.

psychopath
09-22-2004, 08:12 PM
I think if he came in the era of the Haglers, Hearns, Leonards, and Duran he would be w/ the Mugabi's of the world, you have to remember Hopkins faced the best and the p4p best of his era and that is Roy Jones Jr. everybody made the excuse of Hopkins was quite young against Jones, well Roy Jones is about 4 yrs. younger than Bernard Hopkins and if anybody saw that fight? Roy fought w/ one hand halfway in that fight and beat him decisively, although Bernard in my mind didn't embarass himself considering who was in front of him, anybody else would've folded up. Yes Hopkins is way underrated but labeling him one of the best of all-time is a bunch of baloney. Hopkins is at best a very good fighter!


Maybe you just hate the guy . . . defending the division title for 20 times in a span of almost ten years doesn't impress you? The mere fact that he already holds the record for the longest reign and highest number of succesful title defenses . . . means the guy is not an ordinary or average very good fighter even with that lost to RJJ.

It maybe unjustifiable to put him as the number one on the list but easily it can be said that he belongs to the TOP FIVE greatest of all time middle weights. Now I don't see that as baloney. :D

rsl
09-23-2004, 01:14 AM
Maybe you just hate the guy . . . defending the division title for 20 times in a span of almost ten years doesn't impress you? The mere fact that he already holds the record for the longest reign and highest number of succesful title defenses . . . means the guy is not an ordinary or average very good fighter even with that lost to RJJ.

It maybe unjustifiable to put him as the number one on the list but easily it can be said that he belongs to the TOP FIVE greatest of all time middle weights. Now I don't see that as baloney. :D Dude first of I don't "hate the guy" in fact I've given him props all throughout his career and you make the point of him having defended his title 20 times, well I think if Hagler, Leonard, Hearns, Monzon, Robinson, and so on.... I think just these 5 I mentioned could've done the same if not more if they fought the garbage ass fighters Hopkins fought , plus you also think he belongs in the top 5 of all-time(WHAT THE F**K ARE YOU SMOKING). For him to belong in the top 5, do you even think he can beat any of the REAL GREAT fighters I mentioned earlier. Dude he'd give some of those fighters some good work but Hops has no way in hell of beating them!

baliw_nga
09-23-2004, 01:31 AM
you also think he belongs in the top 5 of all-time(WHAT THE F**K ARE YOU SMOKING). For him to belong in the top 5, do you even think he can beat any of the REAL GREAT fighters I mentioned earlier. Dude he'd give some of those fighters some good work but Hops has no way in hell of beating them![/QUOTE]

What made you think that Hopkins couldnt beat Leonard, Hagler, Hearns? Hearns and Leonard are not even Middleweights, they are natural welterweights. There's no way for us to determine for sure whether He could beat them or not since they belong in different era. We can only gauge the fighter based on his performance during his career and Hopkins, notwithstanding the level of opposition fared better than Hearns and Leonard in most statistics.

SonnyG8R
09-23-2004, 01:44 AM
I have to agree with cple.

Hopkins is top ten, not top 5. If he fights and beats Roy Jones, then yes.

cple
09-23-2004, 03:51 PM
Lamotta and Ketchel...come on now

stop hating

Though i won't argue to adamantly if someone ranks Hopkins over both LaMotta and Ketchel, i think they deserve a higher ranking.

LaMotta beat some damn fine or at least dangerous fighters in Bell, Zivic, Satterfield, Cerdan, and Dauthuille. Oh yeah, he also beat the living **** out of the greatest fighter to ever live, Sugar Ray Robinson. However, it must also be said that Ray also beat the living **** out of Jake.

Still, their fights were so close that some argue that their series should be split 3-3 instead of the 5-1 slate in favor of Ray.

Ketchel is a bit more sketchy. On film, he is nothing special. He's sloppy, wild, and down right amatuerish. However, he had incredible stamina and punching power that sustained throughout a fight, even if it was 20+ rounds.

He beat Billy Papke, a legit all-time great lt. heavy in Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, and drew with possibly the greatest of all-time in Sam Langford.

Once again, i wouldn't argue if you have Hopkins over LaMotta or Ketchel. I simply emphasis level of opposition.

psychopath
09-23-2004, 09:37 PM
Dude first of I don't "hate the guy" in fact I've given him props all throughout his career and you make the point of him having defended his title 20 times, well I think if Hagler, Leonard, Hearns, Monzon, Robinson, and so on.... I think just these 5 I mentioned could've done the same if not more if they fought the garbage ass fighters Hopkins fought , plus you also think he belongs in the top 5 of all-time(WHAT THE F**K ARE YOU SMOKING). For him to belong in the top 5, do you even think he can beat any of the REAL GREAT fighters I mentioned earlier. Dude he'd give some of those fighters some good work but Hops has no way in hell of beating them!



Hey dude . . . I should be the one asking you that! What have you been smoking? :D We are talking of middle weights here and all the fighters you have mentioned with the exception of HAGLER is not a legitimate middle weight. No way in hell BH can beat them? Oh yeah . . . you can say that because that's pure HYPOTHETICAL . . .the truth is there's no way for us know and get a factual results because that will never happen. Leonard, Hearns, Duran and HAGLER were all exceptional DOMINANT fighters but never stayed in one division especially in the middle weight division to test their myths. And if you really KNOW and understand this sport you will never say that" there's no way in hell" a fighter's gonna beat another. Wake UP brother and separate the FACTS from the HYPES. Did anybody gave TARVER any chance to win against RJJ? Did anybody gave Manny Pacquiao a chance against BARRERA? The FACT is anything can happen inside that ring.

As to BH it's not his fault that nobody were able to establish a good name in his division while he is reigning for the last 10 years because he takes on everybody and dismantles them. Styles makes fight . . . and though BH is not known to be an "exciting move forward" fighter he is effective and can tear down opponent systematically.

Again give credit to where and to whom the credit is due . . .

cple
09-23-2004, 10:07 PM
As to BH it's not his fault that nobody were able to establish a good name in his division while he is reigning for the last 10 years because he takes on everybody and dismantles them. Styles makes fight . . . and though BH is not known to be an "exciting move forward" fighter he is effective and can tear down opponent systematically.

Again give credit to where and to whom the credit is due . . .

I believe i do give him his proper due by considering him as one of the best middleweights of all-time. Is it that much of a discredit to say that only 7 or so middleweights out of the tens of thousands that have fought all-time are better?

Some say it's unfair to give Hopkins a lower ranking because of his opposition. He doesn't have control over his era, etc. I say if you don't, it's unfair to those who had fought in golden eras.

Would Hopkins have 19 consecutive title defense if he fought the likes of LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, or Briscoe, Griffith, Valdez numerous times in succession? IMO, no. He may have a winning records, but he wouldn't go undefeated.

It's my personal belief that you should factor in level of opposition when determining a fighter's place in history. You may think otherwise, and that's just fine.

marvdave
09-24-2004, 01:26 PM
Hagler and Monzon are tops on my list with SRR, but it could be becuase of my age and era I grew up watching..could be a bit biased. Hagler fought wars against the top guys for years before any champ would even give him a shot. Monzon was a destroyer. Hopkins is a credit to Boxing and belongs in the conversation for sure. I can't think of one Middleweight that he wouldn't compete with. Definitely top ten, maybe top five.

Of course I feel Sugar Ray Robinson, Hagler,Monzon are tops. Take your pick 4-10

cple
09-24-2004, 06:40 PM
For me, it's got to be Harry Greb. No other middleweight has beaten better competition with such regularity.

LuKahnLi
09-24-2004, 06:50 PM
cple

Agreed. Not only was his competition good, but they were usually bigger men. Gene Tunney, George Gibbons and Tommy Loughran were all light heavyweights.

LuKahnLi
09-24-2004, 06:51 PM
As to the topic though, I put Hopkins within the top 10 all time. Maybe as high as #5.

psychopath
09-24-2004, 10:29 PM
I believe i do give him his proper due by considering him as one of the best middleweights of all-time. Is it that much of a discredit to say that only 7 or so middleweights out of the tens of thousands that have fought all-time are better?

Some say it's unfair to give Hopkins a lower ranking because of his opposition. He doesn't have control over his era, etc. I say if you don't, it's unfair to those who had fought in golden eras.

Would Hopkins have 19 consecutive title defense if he fought the likes of LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, or Briscoe, Griffith, Valdez numerous times in succession? IMO, no. He may have a winning records, but he wouldn't go undefeated.

It's my personal belief that you should factor in level of opposition when determining a fighter's place in history. You may think otherwise, and that's just fine.


No problem Bro with such well explained arguement . . . I don't see any reason for me to contradict that . . . as I have posted in my original post here . . . I was saying that there could be an endless arguement on where BH should stand on that list . . . but it could easily be said that he belongs to the top 5 . . . he is not the greatest of all middle weights but he surely belongs to the list. ;)

wmute
09-25-2004, 01:18 AM
I have to agree with cple.

Hopkins is top ten, not top 5. If he fights and beats Roy Jones, then yes.

if he fights and beats roy jones it won't mean a lot, bcos a 36yo (at least) Roy Jones at 168 will not be a great fighter

oh... well, unless he proves us (and father time) wrong, by destroying tarver, which I do not foresee.

(note I think roy jones was the greatest fighter of the 90s, and I rate him real high on a historicla basis, too
but I really think his style is not going to be good in his late 30s)

wmute
09-25-2004, 01:28 AM
can you all stop raving about hopkins 20 defenses?
do you know that joe louis (whose record is nard's current target), marvin hagler and carlos monzon fought for THE unified title and not for random belts.

Hopkins has 6 or 7, depending if you start counting from k holmes or tito.

please stop this BS!

by the way he is number 6 for me, and I think is a great fighter

Sir_Jose
09-25-2004, 05:21 PM
Hopkins has 19 defense. Its the era he fights in that makes it impossible to unify and when you do unify you can hold on to them unless you fight nothing but madatories. Don King would not let Hopkins anywhere near Joppy or Holmes until Hopkins signed with King.


No problem Bro with such well explained arguement . . . I don't see any reason for me to contradict that . . . as I have posted in my original post here . . . I was saying that there could be an endless arguement on where BH should stand on that list . . . but it could easily be said that he belongs to the top 5 . . . he is not the greatest of all middle weights but he surely belongs to the list.

Ok I feel the same way. Its obvious no one is gonna have there opnion of him changed.

Verbl_Kint
09-25-2004, 06:03 PM
I would put B-Hop in the top 5 simply because he can still knock great fighters out at a ripe old age of 39.

nezahualcoyotl
09-25-2004, 07:42 PM
B-Hop is a *****...he doesn't go up in weight he jsut fights lil guys.

leroy
10-05-2004, 09:13 AM
Les Darcy name should be thrown in with the lists of all time great fighters. He was a young Australian who had beaten the best men at his weight when he was just in his teens and these were tough, mature fighters who represented a serious threat to any defending champion. He died tragically so young at 21. He was one of the strongest middleweight fighters ever bull necked, muscular, well disciplined, sturdy, qucik learner and he licked the best American opposition while he was still 19, there was much potential to become on of the elite.

LuKahnLi
10-05-2004, 12:39 PM
B-Hop is a *****...he doesn't go up in weight he jsut fights lil guys.

Hopkins is 40. Why should he move up?

psychopath
10-05-2004, 09:44 PM
B-Hop is a *****...he doesn't go up in weight he jsut fights lil guys.


You just hate the guy brother . . . he just fights li'l guys? That's a DAMN STUPID OPINION . . . he'll fight anybody who comes in into his DOMAIN and that's the Middle Weight Division. He doesn't move up in weight? :D For what? The guy knows where he stand . . . he is realistic and he knows his limitations. He knows he is not SUPERMAN just like what Roy Jones is trying to prove . . . now do you see the disastrous result? Jones just lost by two consecutive K.O.s . . . if BH is a ***** then do you think De La Hoya is better or Greater? :rolleyes:

cple
10-05-2004, 10:08 PM
A figher can prove his greatness at one particular weight class. IMO, there is no need to move up or down in weight as long as he has 1.) fought/beat quality opposition 2.) dominated the division. Those are the two qualities that make up greatness in my mind, with an stronger emphasis on quality of opposition.

With that said, i do think a fighter moving up in weight class and having success does elevate greatness.

Compare a fighter that has dominated one division to a fighter that has dominated two division. Now, one would clearly give the nod to the two division fighter. As far as comparing DLH-Hopkins, though Oscar fought in numerous weight divisions, he didn't dominate or rule one particular division. I weigh Hopkins' continued dominance of one division more than DLH's smaller but still great achievements in numerous weight classes.

phallus
10-06-2004, 12:57 AM
Hey, hey, no one can talk **** about Ketchel, he proved himself in his very short, tough life. Ketchel was probably the
only all time great who never had an amateur career or any kind of coaching. He learned how to fight at 14, fighting grown men for food as a hobo in the 1890's, turned pro at sixteen, by 23 he was the middleweight champ, AND, he knocked out "Philadephia " Jack O'Brien ( the then light heavyweight champ ) twice and was never credited with the dual championship.

techn9ne
10-06-2004, 04:55 AM
lamotta was tough, not good

dont forget about bob fitzsimmons too

cple
10-06-2004, 08:12 PM
lamotta was tough, not good



LaMotta wasn't good? I suppose Sugar Ray Robinson wasn't any good either since Jake gave him absolute hell in every single one of their fights.

phallus
10-06-2004, 11:50 PM
cple, man, i just read your post about Harry " the human windmill " Greb, and it warms my black heart to see someone giving Greb the respect he deserves. He's the only man to beat Gene Tunney, and not only did he beat him, he put him in hospital for a week

wmute
10-10-2004, 12:09 AM
Hopkins has 19 defense. Its the era he fights in that makes it impossible to unify and when you do unify you can hold on to them unless you fight nothing but madatories. Don King would not let Hopkins anywhere near Joppy or Holmes until Hopkins signed with King.

so what? take a look at hagler's record and take a look at how long HE was not let anywhere near the champ (monzon and following).

their defenses have a different value.

GxBrak
11-01-2004, 11:11 AM
i really dont think that that factor has much to do with it when looking at the larger picture

realtim
11-04-2004, 09:21 AM
Hopkins wont get appreciated until he retires and we look back on his career. Give the guy a break. When all of the great middleweights die he will be up there chatting to Greb, La Motta, Zale, Cerdan, Hagler, Darcy, Ketchel, Fitzsimmons, Walker all the great middleweights hes on there level not necessarily above or below but he's on the level. Not in tnat order. Throw names i might have missed out on in the list. Please dont mention RJJ on the list.

GxBrak
11-04-2004, 11:56 AM
yeah, i think its just a matter of time after a fighter retires that he's remembered fondly or as "one of the greatest"

restless_438
11-07-2004, 05:31 AM
he's at least top 5 for sure

jayrichardse
01-31-2005, 01:11 AM
he stands on the coward side

dmar
06-27-2005, 09:52 PM
Among the other great middleweights in the history of the games based upon tonight's win?
hopkins is an all time great..in a great division..robinson greb monzon ketchell cerdan walker lamotta hagler are some i rate over hopkins..in the top 12 or so..and thats not a shame by any means..hes a great in a division of greats .

Detroit Cobra
06-28-2005, 12:04 PM
Hopkins is definitely an all-time great at middleweight. I don't know about the top one ever... Hagler was better, IMO, but Hop could be right up there. He could be thrown into an argument with anybody, pfp, in the middleweight division.