Where does Hopkins stand?

[psychopath]

Top Five

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? 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[rsl]

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.

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]

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]

I have to agree with cple.

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

[cple]

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]

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? 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 . . .