Is Hopkins Really an All Time Great

Hopkins is way more of an all time great then Calzaghe. He couldn't even really beat a shot version of Hopkins. He would have got his ass handed to him if Hopkins was in his hey day! That was obvious to everybody though! I'm definitely not sold on Calzaghe being an ATG but you do have to admit he beat more fighters in his weight class that were in their prime and "real" threats to beat him than Hopkins did. I thought he easily won the fight because B-hop just wouldnt punch and kept running. But I agree whole heartedly that Hopkins in his hey day beats and probably KO's Calzaghe.

IMO Hopkins is a LEGEND! Definitely in the top 5 MW of all time...20 title defenses at MW...moved up to LHW at 40 & captured the LINEAL belt...still in the p4p discussions... never been DECISIVELY beaten (minus the in-experienced Jones fight)...1st ballot Hall of Famer...All-Time Great NO QUESTION!!

what an idot !! Is that better than an ipod? :confused:

I'll buy the old excuse for everything but the 1st Taylor fight. If he was that old he wouldn't have come on the way he did in the 8th and almost KO JT. I think he used the wrong strategy in that one. Dont get me wrong I think he is a great fighter and he has got some stellar accomplishments but I am just not on the ATG side just yet. Thats true.

Yes, you can make an argument that he is. I don't know if he's in Hagler's class, but like I said. You can argue that.

I hate to use this excuse but its just the truth. The reason he didn't Echols Calzaghe or Taylor is because he was old, he was 40 and 43 when he faught them. Hopkins doesn't have the stamina anymore to have that kind of workrate. But Calzaghe and Taylor still deserve credit for their wins. He was 35 when he faught Echols. I'll buy the old excuse for everything but the 1st Taylor fight. If he was that old he wouldn't have come on the way he did in the 8th and almost KO JT. I think he used the wrong strategy in that one. Dont get me wrong I think he is a great fighter and he has got some stellar accomplishments but I am just not on the ATG side just yet.

I have seen his older fights and what not. The Echols fights were pretty good. I'm just saying he didn't fight like that against the quaility fighters that he faced. If he fought Taylor or Calzaghe the way he fought Echols or RJJ I believe he would have beat both. I'm just on the fence a little with him being an ATG. I hate to use this excuse but its just the truth. The reason he didn't Echols Calzaghe or Taylor is because he was old, he was 40 and 43 when he faught them. Hopkins doesn't have the stamina anymore to have that kind of workrate. But Calzaghe and Taylor still deserve credit for their wins. He was 35 when he faught Echols.

If that is your problem with Hopkins then you should go watch his older fights when he could still throw more than 30 punches a round. Age got to him but he knew how to deal with it by pacing himself. It's not really an option to stand & trade with someone like Calzaghe or even Taylor at age 43. I do think he could've beaten Taylor but against Calzaghe he was too far gone. I wouldn't bring up Sugar Ray Leonard as a great middleweight either. His best work was done in the lower weight divisions aside from the split decision win over Hagler. Your right about Sugar Ray too. I was using him as an all time great vs a all time MW. I mis spoke on that one.

For some reason in boxing, your only as good as your last fight. When you lose, your legacy and greatness is automatically put into question. Is it fair? No. Make all the excuses and "but..." statements you want...Hopkins dominated the a division for 10 years and 82 days. I remember Pedro Fernandez once said, "I don't care if he beat up 20 grandmothers, thats still impressive." 20 defenses is impressive no matter who he was fighting. And Bernard's opposition was solid for the most part. He should get credit for taking tough challenges such as a 25 yr. old Jermain Taylor and top p4p fighters like Winky and Joe at 40 + years old. Taylor was like 15 years younger when he beat Hopkins, he should win. Hopkins almost won that one. Bernard is an ATG for his longevity, 20 defenses, work ethic and his old school skills.

If that is your problem with Hopkins then you should go watch his older fights when he could still throw more than 30 punches a round. I wouldn't bring up Sugar Ray Leonard as a great middleweight either. His best work was done in the lower weight divisions aside from the split decision win over Hagler. I have seen his older fights and what not. The Echols fights were pretty good. I'm just saying he didn't fight like that against the quaility fighters that he faced. If he fought Taylor or Calzaghe the way he fought Echols or RJJ I believe he would have beat both. I'm just on the fence a little with him being an ATG.

yeah definitely, sure there are other All Time Greats that are better, but that doesn't affect Hopkins' position as an ATG

If that is your problem with Hopkins then you should go watch his older fights when he could still throw more than 30 punches a round. Age got to him but he knew how to deal with it by pacing himself. It's not really an option to stand & trade with someone like Calzaghe or even Taylor at age 43. I do think he could've beaten Taylor but against Calzaghe he was too far gone. I wouldn't bring up Sugar Ray Leonard as a great middleweight either. His best work was done in the lower weight divisions aside from the split decision win over Hagler.

Hopkins is arguably not as good as some of the ATGs you mention, but I think it is arguably. He absolutely would have been a credible opponent for any of them, and I'm quite sure able to beat them on his day too. I'm not saying he's better neccessarily, just that he's comfortably good enough to have mixed it with these guys. My opinion is that the Haglers, Leonards etc of this world were probably not as good as we now imagine them to be. Were they some of the greatest boxers of all time? Of course they were, but were they the unbeatable, superhuman monsters of the popular imagination? No, of course they aren't. When we assess boxing we are far too ready to dole out legend status here, ATG there, and as time passes this is all we remember of a fighter, we place them on a plateau so high that we imagine nothing can touch them. We forget that at the end of the day they are just men fighting in a ring, and forget that that ring has no respect for status, legendary or not. In the ring you see only men. We saw this in the recent Calzaghe Hopkins fight, with fans on both sides predicting easy wins for their 'great' fighter. In reality we saw a close contest between two evenly matched fighters. Once the hype dies down, this is what we nearly always see when two good fighters step into the ring, and we would do well to remember it. Hopkins record alone justifies his status as a great, no-one else reigned so long or defended so many times at MW. He has boxed at elite level well into his 40s without looking shot and that is something even the greats you mentioned were not able to do. Ultimately, comparisons with the past are not the measure we should judge a fighter by, we should judge them on their own terms, on what they do during their careers. By that measure Hopkins is easily an ATG, as are Calzaghe and Jones JR for that matter. I feel lucky to have seen these fighters fight and look forward to the day they are discussed in exactly the way Hagler, Hearns, leonard et al are now. You make some very good points. I do give Hopkins mad props for fighting as well as he has being that he is over 40. I guess when I look at the other ATG's I look at guys who took risks and were willing to take punishment to give it and what not. I dont see B-hop as one of those guys. No one is unbeatable surely but if you leave it all in the ring every time you fight then that is all one can ask of you and you of yourself. I think if he just punches more and sits down on his punches against Taylor, Calzaghe and even tarver, that he would have got the KO. If that were the case I would easily rate him up their with the rest. Maybe as time goes by and I watch past fights of his my opinion will sway more to putting him in that catergory. Who knows?

what an idot !! lmfao!!.......

Great post. You are correct, Clubber Lang, Hopkins is not really an all time great. what an idot !!

Of course his and all-time great, are you kidding me ?

All right I haven't posted in years to be honest but since I leave for Iraq in a few days and I have no TV to watch I am bored as hell, so I am posting. My question is that I really don't see B-hop as a truly great MW like Hagler, Leonard, etc... I just don't see how he can be considering the fact that he never beat a true middleweight in their prime that was great or even above average. Tito wasn't a true MW. Oscar surely wasn't. Winky isn't even a MW now let alone a 170lber as when they fought. And more importantly when b-hop finally did fight someone his size that was good he lost quite easily. He never came close to beating Taylor or Calzaghe imop because he didn't do enough and was scared to get hit seemingly. He easily lost to RJJ when both were close to their primes & RJJ had a hurt hand. He beat Tarver which was a dominant performance but Tarver sucks and he never beat anyone besides an over the hill RJJ. A lot of it is a victim of timing I think. Just like Lennox Lewis, their was nobody to fight that was great that was in their prime still. Maybe if he would have dominated his lesser opponents the way RJJ did then I would feel different. At then end of the day he will never be close to the true greats at MW or any other weight class. Hopkins is arguably not as good as some of the ATGs you mention, but I think it is arguably. He absolutely would have been a credible opponent for any of them, and I'm quite sure able to beat them on his day too. I'm not saying he's better neccessarily, just that he's comfortably good enough to have mixed it with these guys. My opinion is that the Haglers, Leonards etc of this world were probably not as good as we now imagine them to be. Were they some of the greatest boxers of all time? Of course they were, but were they the unbeatable, superhuman monsters of the popular imagination? No, of course they aren't. When we assess boxing we are far too ready to dole out legend status here, ATG there, and as time passes this is all we remember of a fighter, we place them on a plateau so high that we imagine nothing can touch them. We forget that at the end of the day they are just men fighting in a ring, and forget that that ring has no respect for status, legendary or not. In the ring you see only men. We saw this in the recent Calzaghe Hopkins fight, with fans on both sides predicting easy wins for their 'great' fighter. In reality we saw a close contest between two evenly matched fighters. Once the hype dies down, this is what we nearly always see when two good fighters step into the ring, and we would do well to remember it. Hopkins record alone justifies his status as a great, no-one else reigned so long or defended so many times at MW. He has boxed at elite level well into his 40s without looking shot and that is something even the greats you mentioned were not able to do. Ultimately, comparisons with the past are not the measure we should judge a fighter by, we should judge them on their own terms, on what they do during their careers. By that measure Hopkins is easily an ATG, as are Calzaghe and Jones JR for that matter. I feel lucky to have seen these fighters fight and look forward to the day they are discussed in exactly the way Hagler, Hearns, leonard et al are now. ________ Edsel Ford Ii History