B- Hop is top 5 at middleweight

I dont know if he is in my top 5 (I dont have one), but he is around there. but if someone came to me and told me they have him number 3, I would not complain

Ranking walker ahead of b-hop cuz of what he did at welterweight is a sad joke, b-hop is elite morons.

Certainly, on a head-to-head basis, Nunn at his best is the best ever.

If a dork like greb beat light heavywieghts and top heavyweight contenders, that just shows his era fuckin sucked ass. Let's look at logic here folks, would ray robinson actually beat ezzard and archie, no. Would tommy hearns and leonard be 175 champ if they had to fight spinks for the belt, no. Would carlos monzon beat foster or heavyweight contenders like quarry and lyle, prolly not. Would hagler beat qawi, spinks or saad, no he wouldnt. That just shows that in the more modern eras, the light heavyweights and heavyweights have become more legit. Greb has a terrible physique, he looks so fuckin weak and from what i read, he gets blatted easily. Would he actually beat hagler or monzon, in ur fuckin dreams. His entire testimony is based on what racists from the 1920's say about him.

There are still many fighters who did enough work at middleweight to be considered great, and you could make an argument that they, rather than some of the already listed, should be included among the twenty above. And so below is a list of some who have the credentials to be considered among the all time great middleweights. Jack Dempsey (the Nonpareil) Billy Papke Les Darcey Fred Apostoli Lloyd Marshall Holman Williams Ceferino Garcia Eddie Booker Georgie Abrams Rocky Graziano Carmen Basilio Carl Olson Joey Archer Joey Giardello Nino Benvenuti Bennie Briscoe Rodrigo Valdez James Toney From my point of view, Bernard Hopkins is in pretty good company to be rated as high as he is. He didn’t fight in an era of great middleweight fighters. No, you won’t find anybody he defeated on the list above, but he did enough to make us realize that he would have been a formidable force in any era, and against anybody.

Bernard Hopkins: His Place in History Recommend this page Printable version By John Hively Now that Bernard “The Executioner” Hopkins has won the light-heavyweight title against Antonio Tarver, and done so impressively at the advanced age of forty-one, perhaps it’s time to access his place in middleweight history, especially now that he is retired. It’s been few weeks since he defeated Tarver, and so we’ve had some time to think about his achievements, digest them, and then savor the moments this great boxer gave us in the ring vis-à-vis the other great middleweights Hopkins won forty-seven bouts, lost four and drew one in a career that spanned eighteen years. At one point, he went undefeated in twenty-six straight fights, and it was during this time that he dominated the division. The Executioner won an alphabet title in 1995 by defeating Sequndo Mercado, a moderately talented boxer. He proceeded to defend that title during the next five years against boxers of various abilities. Antwun Echols, Robert Allen, Glen Johnson and Syd Vanerpool were all capable contenders; the rest were not of the same quality. Some might say that John David Jackson was a quality contender, but in reality, he was worn out and near the end of the line. In 2001, Bernard stepped up his quality of opposition just a tad when he defeated the WBC middleweight champion, Keith Holmes, in a unification fight. Later that year, in perhaps his most impressive performance prior to the Tarver battle, Hopkins utterly dominated the WBA champion, Felix Trinidad, to become the world champion. He proceeded to defend his championship six times against various quality of opposition before losing it on a razor thin decision to Jermain Taylor, who also won the rematch. What hurt Hopkins the most in rating him were the relative infrequency of his fights compared to other all time greats, and the fact that he fought in one of the divisions weakest eras. Below are my twenty greatest middleweights based on how well they did against their contemporaries in the division, as well as how much they were willing to face bigger opponents while still middleweights. Also, I based the ratings on longevity. Boxers who fought in the division for a short time aren’t rated at all because they didn’t stay long enough to establish a middleweight legacy. So guys like Sam Langford, Georges Carpentier, Jimmy Bivins and Ezzard Charles aren’t rated. 1. Harry “The Pittsburg Windmill” Greb – Greb is number one by a wide margin. The late boxing writer Ted Carroll perhaps said it best when he argued that Harry was the greatest fighter pound-for-pound in the history of boxing. He pointed out that the Pittsburg Windmill defeated “’Hall of Fame’ middleweights, world champion light heavyweights and formidable heavyweights.” Carroll was a keen analyst, but he was wrong about one thing; Greb defeated Hall of Fame light heavyweights while still middleweight champion. Hopkins accomplishments are not even in the same ball park. 2. Sugar Ray Robinson – Sugar first invaded the middleweight division in 1943, when he was barely more than a junior welterweight by modern day standards. By 1950, he was solidly in the middleweight division, and his accomplishments are well known. He defeated several Hall of Fame middleweights, something Hopkins may never have done since Trinidad and De La Hoya are likely to enter the Hall because of what they accomplished at lower weights. Hopkins isn’t even close. 3. Mickey “The Toy Bulldog” Walker – As a welterweight champion, Walker won the newspaper decision over the light heavyweight champion, Mike McTigue. After losing the welterweight title (mostly due to problems making weight), the Bulldog won the middleweight championship in 1926, and proceeded to defeat several heavyweight contenders in non-title bouts. In 1931, Mickey vacated the title after beating Bearcat Wright, a six foot six inch, 260 pound heavyweight. What Carroll said of Greb could just as easily be said for Walker. 4. Carlos Monzon –Monzon went undefeated in sixty-seven straight contests. All three of his losses occurred during his first twenty battles. He also defeated Nino Benvenuti, Emile Griffith, Rodrigo Valdez and Bennie Briscoe. These four fighters may have been better than any middleweights that Hopkins ever fought. Plus, Carlos defended the title fourteen times. 5. Marvin “Marvelous” Hagler – Hagler went undefeated through thirty-seven straight fights, and some of his opponents, such as Tommy Hearns, were better than any of those defeated by Hopkins. 6. Stanley Ketchell – His nickname was the Michigan Assassin and deservedly so. At one point, he went through forty-one straight fights undefeated. His total record was fifty-four wins, four losses, and five draws. Two losses came early in his career, one came when he was sucker punched by Billy Papke at the beginning of their second fight, and the other came by knockout after he floored then heavyweight champion Jack Johnson in a title fight. Perhaps his greatest feat was winning the newspaper decision over Sam Langford, whom some rate as one of the greatest light heavyweights of all time. A New Times reporter estimated that Sam outweighed Stanley by “at least fifteen pounds.” The Michigan Assassin was the best middleweight of his day, and by a wide margin, but he was also simultaneously the best light heavyweight of his era, as well. The above are the handful that achieved far more during their careers than did Hopkins. However, the Executioner belongs in the next group, and could easily be rated number six to eleven. So he is in pretty darn good company. Tiger Flowers – Defeated Greb for the title, but at the time Harry was blind in one eye, and he was having problems making weight for both of their title fights. Still, the Tiger defeated many other major middleweights, as well as several light heavyweight contenders. Jake LaMotta beat Robinson and a lot of others. He may have fought in the greatest era of the division. You know the names, guys like Zale, Graziano, Burley, Cerdan, Robinson, Georgie Abrams, Holman Williams and many other all-time greats all fought in the division during this era. Billy Conn – He was never a champion in the division because he never got a shot at the title. Conn just kept beating the guys who claimed they were the champs. Still, he is more remembered for the work he got done as a light heavyweight and as a heavyweight. Bernard Hopkins –Best of a weak era, but at the age of forty-one, he was able to show us just how great he really was by stepping up in class and soundly whipping Antonio Tarver for the light heavyweight title. Marcel Cerdan – World War II interrupted his quest for a world title. As early as 1937, he was a top ten rated welterweight. After the war, he rolled over a series of middleweight contenders before dominating Tony Zale to win the title in 1948. Lost only four of 109 fights and scored 63 stoppages, most of those occurring in the latter half of his career. Tommy Ryan – Stepped up from the welterweight title in 1898 to win the vacant middleweight championship. No one is quite sure when he retired as champion, but it appears he held the title until at least the early part of 1905, but he might still have been champ as late as 1907. Who knows? Ryan lost only three of 109 fights, and one of those was on disqualification. He scored sixty-eight knockouts. His record says it all. Tony Zale – Inconsistent at the beginning of his career, but he developed into one of the greatest fighters of all time in an era featuring great middleweights. Dick Tiger – Inconsistent throughout his career, but loss of the title to Emile Griffith was one of the worst decisions in a middleweight title fight. Like Hopkins, who also lost his middleweight title on a disputed decision, at an advanced age (37 years) Tiger stepped up in weight and won the light heavyweight title. Charley Burley – Never got a shot at the title. Of course, title shots in any division were extinct during WWII, especially after the early part of 1942. So Burley wasted away his best years as a middleweight during the war. He defeated Archie Moore, Billy Soose, Holman Williams and quite a few others. After the war, he began to slide a little, and by 1950, he was gone. Still, he deserved a title shot and never got one. Gene Fullmer – Defeated Robinson, Basilio and many more during a frightfully fertile period in middleweight history during the 1950s and early 1960s. Freddie Steele – Lost only five of 142 bouts. Held an alphabet title during the Great Depression. In the latter part of his career he developed into a tremendous puncher. Teddy Yarosz – Claimed an alphabet title during the Great Depression. Went undefeated in his first sixty fights. Injured his left knee defending his title against Babe Risko and was never the same. Defeated Billy Conn, Archie Moore, Lloyd Marshall, Ken Overlin and many others. Ken Overlin – Held an alphabet championship during the Depression. Lost only three of his final fifty-four fights, and two of those were among the worst decisions in middleweight history. Defeated and drew with Ezzard Charles. Defeated Al Hostak, Cerferino Garcia and many others. Emile Griffith – Won a terrible decision from Tiger for the title, defended it against the talented and much avoided Joey Archer twice. Lost, won and lost it to the talented Nino Benvenuti. That’s not much to place him among the all time greats, but he gets here because he was a major force in the division for many years afterward. If Monzon hadn’t been champion from 1970 to 1977, Griffith might have been able to re-win it. Bob Fitzsimmons –The dominant middleweight of the early 1890s. Defeated heavier opponents and then gave up the title in 1895. He won the heavyweight championship in 1897 weighing 167 pounds.

Name 1 era were the champ's best contenders were real middleweights. The division has always relied on guys from smaller weights moving up. Thats why i think the light heavyweight division is superior, they are real 175ers.

IMO hopkins era was weak.

You haven't got a clue what your talking about. If Hopkins came out trying to stop Graham, he'd get well and truly schooled. Blasphemous. Who in the Taco Wallace said he'd come out trying to stop him? When has Hopkins ever come out recklessly trying to stop someone? You're up shit creek without a paddle.

Look at the names you just spit out. Smell what you're shoveling buddy. Graham coming off a significant layoff gets stopped inside of 6. You haven't got a clue what your talking about. If Hopkins came out trying to stop Bomber, he'd get well and truly schooled.

Graham would have made Hopkins (or anybody) look silly. Sure, Hopkins would have caught up with him due to Graham's lack of stamina, but making short work of Herol Graham?? Your in dreamland. He made Paz look more foolish than Jones did, and was dominating Brewer more decisively than Calzaghe did a few years later (Brewer probably landed about 20 times more punches on Calzaghe). And remember, Brewer did a better job on Echols (robbed blind) than Hopkins managed, ofcourse. Look at the names you just spit out. Smell what you're shoveling buddy. Graham coming off a significant layoff gets stopped inside of 6.

1) he did not slap Eastman around, he didnt throw enough punches in that fight to slap around my wife. 2) As you pointed out he lost to Taylor (twice) and Jones...the two best middleweights he fought he was beaten by...disregard these losses for whatever reason. Prime Michael Nunn vs. Prime Bernard Hopkins-I got Nunn Prime Jones vs. Prime Nard...Jones right! Gerald McClellan vs. Hopkins...Upickem Lamar Parks vs. Hopkins slight lean toward Nard, very slight Toney vs. Hopkins...Toney is a close one. These are just fighters of the last 15 years....maybe I should rethink the question...on paper are Bernard's accomplishments worhty of top 5...maybe they are...was he one of the top 5 best fighters ever to fight in the middleweigfht division...fuck no, not even close. Notice how I didn't say he destroyed Eastman. I believe "slapped him around" is the preferred nomenclature...uh...man. It's not disregarding the losses completely...it's just recognizing that the losses came at more vulnerable parts in Hops career. I don't know how he'd fare against the top middles throughout history in his prime...nobody really does. Hops was a excellent blend of speed, power, timing, smarts, toughness, etc. He was a gym rat and never came into a fight in poor shape. He would *insert lennox lewis terminology* give any top middleweight throughout history a run for their money.

Oh so Herol Graham after a four year layoff would have beaten Bernard Hopkins in 1996? Shut up bitch. Graham would have made Hopkins (or anybody) look silly. Sure, Hopkins would have caught up with him due to Graham's lack of stamina, but making short work of Herol Graham?? Your in dreamland. He made Paz look more foolish than Jones did, and was dominating Brewer more decisively than Calzaghe did a few years later (Brewer probably landed about 20 times more punches on Calzaghe). And remember, Brewer did a better job on Echols (robbed blind) than Hopkins managed, ofcourse.

You lose any credibility with that statement. Oh so Herol Graham after a four year layoff would have beaten Bernard Hopkins in 1996? Shut up bitch.

He is top 5 of all times at middleweight, seriosuly who are u gonna rank above him? graziano, zale, valdez, and a bunch of blown up welterweights like griffith, walker, basilio, lmfao. I love when there are so many hates of b-hop on this site. Dont blame him if the guy from the 30's, 40's and 60's couldnt even make 5 successful title defences. The 1950's consisted of an old out of his prime, blown up welterweight beating the top middleweight challengers, thst funny. B hop beat: trinidad tarver de la hoya john david jackson william joppy simon brown glen johnson keith holmes fitz vanderpool carl daniels robert allen twice dont hate on him cuz he was a consistent fighter. Bernard can hang. Nobody can make Bernard look stupid in the ring. He could hang with all of them.

I think Hopkins would have made short work of guys like Herol Graham in '95/'96 You lose any credibility with that statement.

Since when does fighting aesthetically pleasing fights have anything to do with how great you are? Frankly, I liked watching Nard slap around Howard Eastman and William Joppy. Also, did occur to you that maybe Hopkins couldn't do the same things in the ring --brawl it out for 10 rounds like he did with Echols-- at age 40? How he would have done against the likes of Toney, McClellan, etc is all speculation. It's funny that half of those guys you listed were already past their best or were campaigning at higher weights when Hopkins was early into his championship reign. I think Hopkins would have made short work of guys like Julian JAckson and Herol Graham in '95/'96. How he does he live with Roy Jones in a rematch? who knows...some believe better...some believe the same. Hopkins gets the most shit for: A - fighting in a relatively weak era... B - losing to Jones and Taylor... C - (what used to be) never moving up... I see a lot of negative finger pointing for stuff that is accepted today in regards to other conventionally great middleweights. Hagler lost early on to lesser fighters than a guy like Roy Jones and lost later on to a blown up welterweight. That is lightly treaded upon when assessing his greatness though because everyone knew he was a damned fine fighter. Carlos Monzon never ventured north of his best weight. I'm sure that the fistic fans of the time weren't extremely upset about Monzon beating up on Emile Griffith or Jose Napoles either. Those guys were a couple of hall of famers...much like Tito and De La Hoya. 1) he did not slap Eastman around, he didnt throw enough punches in that fight to slap around my wife. 2) As you pointed out he lost to Taylor (twice) and Jones...the two best middleweights he fought he was beaten by...disregard these losses for whatever reason. Prime Michael Nunn vs. Prime Bernard Hopkins-I got Nunn Prime Jones vs. Prime Nard...Jones right! Gerald McClellan vs. Hopkins...Upickem Lamar Parks vs. Hopkins slight lean toward Nard, very slight Toney vs. Hopkins...Toney is a close one. These are just fighters of the last 15 years....maybe I should rethink the question...on paper are Bernard's accomplishments worhty of top 5...maybe they are...was he one of the top 5 best fighters ever to fight in the middleweigfht division...fuck no, not even close.

I had it a draw...I don't understand how one can win a fight (over the champ no less) when they land 0 significant punches... Even so, it's a L on his record. it was a draw on my scorecard too... taylor gets a lot of gift decisions from the judges though

the first "loss" to taylor is bullshit, taylor never beat Hops in the first fight, the judges did I had it a draw...I don't understand how one can win a fight (over the champ no less) when they land 0 significant punches... Even so, it's a L on his record.

Since when does fighting aesthetically pleasing fights have anything to do with how great you are? Frankly, I liked watching Nard slap around Howard Eastman and William Joppy. Also, did occur to you that maybe Hopkins couldn't do the same things in the ring --brawl it out for 10 rounds like he did with Echols-- at age 40? How he would have done against the likes of Toney, McClellan, etc is all speculation. It's funny that half of those guys you listed were already past their best or were campaigning at higher weights when Hopkins was early into his championship reign. I think Hopkins would have made short work of guys like Julian JAckson and Herol Graham in '95/'96. How he does he live with Roy Jones in a rematch? who knows...some believe better...some believe the same. Hopkins gets the most shit for: A - fighting in a relatively weak era... B - losing to Jones and Taylor... C - (what used to be) never moving up... I see a lot of negative finger pointing for stuff that is accepted today in regards to other conventionally great middleweights. Hagler lost early on to lesser fighters than a guy like Roy Jones and lost later on to a blown up welterweight. That is lightly treaded upon when assessing his greatness though because everyone knew he was a damned fine fighter. Carlos Monzon never ventured north of his best weight. I'm sure that the fistic fans of the time weren't extremely upset about Monzon beating up on Emile Griffith or Jose Napoles either. Those guys were a couple of hall of famers...much like Tito and De La Hoya. the first "loss" to taylor is bullshit, taylor never beat Hops in the first fight, the judges did