Is Hopkins is the best 160lbs fighter ever

styles make fights, I think that Hearns - whome Hagler dusted would beat Hopkins via UD12, however, I see Hopkins beating Hagler UD12. In terms of greatness I see it Hagler, Hopkins, Monzon...but seeing as Hopkins has been fighting into his 40's and winning it could change. I just think that Hearns/Duran is slightly better than Trinidad/De La hoya/20 career defenses

I was once a big fan of Hopkins, then he just disappointed me one time too many in his borring fights. A few years later i finally saw past his boring style and seen past his borring boxing skills and really saw him fighting very smart. Yes, he is a great one no doubt. But, his reign at middleweight wasn't the best title reign ever, and him losing to Taylor really shows at lest to me how weak "some" or "most" of his title defences were. Boxing historians used to say Hopkins middleweight era was weak. And i think Taylor beating Hopkins proves this. Hopkins should not have lost to Taylor, not when the fights were close and all Hopkins had to do was punch more to win -yes, sounds easier then done. You make it sound like Hopkins was in his prime when he lost too Taylor. Hagler did not fair to well against Mugabi or Leonard either when he was out of his prime or when he stepped up his level of oposition against Duran.

I've argued with some people who don't believe that Hopkins belongs in any top middleweight list. They say Hopkins hasn't beaten great names at the weight and it's true. But neither did Hagler really, aside from Duran and Hearns, and you could say that the two best names that Hagler beat were above their best weight like Trinidad and De La Hoya were. That's why you have to look at how dominant they were, how good the era was that they fought in, what losses they had, longevity... I would say that Hagler's biggest wins (Hearns and Duran) are greater than Hopkins' (Trinidad and DLH) and the other top opposition he fought (the contenders and title holders) were better than those that Hopkins fought. Hopkins was a title holder for a long time and had many defenses, but he was the undisputed champion for only a few years while Hagler reigned as the only champion for 7 years with 12 defenses. Hopkins' longevity in the sport is almost unmatched, but as a middleweight he was a top fighter for around 10 years as was Hagler. Both had a couple of losses, Hagler had two controversial ones early in his career and against Leonard at the end of it, young Hopkins lost a decision to Jones and two controversial ones against Taylor when he was older but still good. Hagler's loss to Leonard was only controversial, because Hagler cried about it, most of the people ive shown the fight to for the first time have Leonard winning, and thats without any prompting from myself. Ive scored Hagler v Leonard more than once myself and i have tried to give Hagler the benefit of the doubt in the close rounds and i still have Leonard winning. Hagler did get robbed against Bobby Watts imo. Watts did well for the first 4/5 rounds, but then faded and Hagler was pressing the action all the way to the end whilst Watts was looking for a place to run or hold etc. I haven't seen his loss to Monroe allthough i here it was debatable also.

hard to name the best 3. But Hopkis had the style to make anyone look akward and uncomfortable. Top 3 easily should include either Hagler, Hopkins, Robinson or Monzon

the weight issue is redundent imo... if you wanna get into that, Hagler's best wins were people not at their best weight also (and one of his losses) LaMotta also lost to Ray Robinson 5 times, and Cerdan was injured when LaMotta beat him and died before the rematch could take place... in fact i'd rate Cerdan above LaMotta in the all-time middleweight rankings admittedly my knowledge on the other two is basic at best the point is, Hopkins fought everyone he could and beat virtually all of them... he may be missing the one win at 160 with the sparkle of say Halger's win over Hearns, but his resume is very strong nonetheless I agree with this. LaMotta's many losses "disqualify" him from being ranked in the top 5 although some of those losses were controversial, many people at the time thought he actually won two or three of those fights with Robinson which is why they fought each other so many times.

Not hardcore i just dont think people dont appreciate how good he is/was. I was once a big fan of Hopkins, then he just disappointed me one time too many in his borring fights. A few years later i finally saw past his boring style and seen past his borring boxing skills and really saw him fighting very smart. Yes, he is a great one no doubt. But, his reign at middleweight wasn't the best title reign ever, and him losing to Taylor really shows at lest to me how weak "some" or "most" of his title defences were. Boxing historians used to say Hopkins middleweight era was weak. And i think Taylor beating Hopkins proves this. Hopkins should not have lost to Taylor, not when the fights were close and all Hopkins had to do was punch more to win -yes, sounds easier then done.

No I don't which is why I brought their names up. They quite simply fought in a better era of middleweights and had wins over better names although they also lost many fights and weren't as dominant. Hopkins had some career-defining wins over Tarver and Pavlik above 160 lbs. At middleweight his greatest win was over Tito Trinidad. Jake LaMotta beat Ray Robinson, Marcel Cerdan, Fritzie Zivic, Holman Williams, all hall of famers. Dick Tiger beat Gene Fullmer, Joey Giardello, Nino Benvenuti and others. Zale also beat a couple of hall of famers at middleweight. Hopkins can only claim to have beaten two hall of famers who weren't at their best weight (DLH and Trinidad). I've argued with some people who don't believe that Hopkins belongs in any top middleweight list. They say Hopkins hasn't beaten great names at the weight and it's true. But neither did Hagler really, aside from Duran and Hearns, and you could say that the two best names that Hagler beat were above their best weight like Trinidad and De La Hoya were. That's why you have to look at how dominant they were, how good the era was that they fought in, what losses they had, longevity... I would say that Hagler's biggest wins (Hearns and Duran) are greater than Hopkins' (Trinidad and DLH) and the other top opposition he fought (the contenders and title holders) were better than those that Hopkins fought. Hopkins was a title holder for a long time and had many defenses, but he was the undisputed champion for only a few years while Hagler reigned as the only champion for 7 years with 12 defenses. Hopkins' longevity in the sport is almost unmatched, but as a middleweight he was a top fighter for around 10 years as was Hagler. Both had a couple of losses, Hagler had two controversial ones early in his career and against Leonard at the end of it, young Hopkins lost a decision to Jones and two controversial ones against Taylor when he was older but still good.

Hopkins' most notable fight were against blown-ups...that's my take Thats a crappy excuse to downgrade someones win, If Pacman loses to Hatton I can see me hearing that for the next 10 years.

No I don't which is why I brought their names up. They quite simply fought in a better era of middleweights and had wins over better names although they also lost many fights and weren't as dominant. Hopkins had some career-defining wins over Tarver and Pavlik above 160 lbs. At middleweight his greatest win was over Tito Trinidad. Jake LaMotta beat Ray Robinson, Marcel Cerdan, Fritzie Zivic, Holman Williams, all hall of famers. Dick Tiger beat Gene Fullmer, Joey Giardello, Nino Benvenuti and others. Zale also beat a couple of hall of famers at middleweight. Hopkins can only claim to have beaten two hall of famers who weren't at their best weight (DLH and Trinidad). the weight issue is redundent imo... if you wanna get into that, Hagler's best wins were people not at their best weight also (and one of his losses) LaMotta also lost to Ray Robinson 5 times, and Cerdan was injured when LaMotta beat him and died before the rematch could take place... in fact i'd rate Cerdan above LaMotta in the all-time middleweight rankings admittedly my knowledge on the other two is basic at best the point is, Hopkins fought everyone he could and beat virtually all of them... he may be missing the one win at 160 with the sparkle of say Halger's win over Hearns, but his resume is very strong nonetheless

Hopkins' most notable fight were against blown-ups...that's my take

Sugar Ray Robinson... Bhop.... Sugar Ray Robinson.... Bhop... Why are we asking this question?

do you believe they're better than him? (at 160) No I don't which is why I brought their names up. They quite simply fought in a better era of middleweights and had wins over better names although they also lost many fights and weren't as dominant. Hopkins had some career-defining wins over Tarver and Pavlik above 160 lbs. At middleweight his greatest win was over Tito Trinidad. Jake LaMotta beat Ray Robinson, Marcel Cerdan, Fritzie Zivic, Holman Williams, all hall of famers. Dick Tiger beat Gene Fullmer, Joey Giardello, Nino Benvenuti and others. Zale also beat a couple of hall of famers at middleweight. Hopkins can only claim to have beaten two hall of famers who weren't at their best weight (DLH and Trinidad).

He certainly has a case for it!!

Even former middleweight champions such as LaMotta, Zale, Tiger, Walker have beaten better names than Hopkins has at MW. do you believe they're better than him? (at 160)

Hagler wasn't exactly a crowd pleaser either, he became a more aggressive fighter because he thought that he would be robbed of the decision if he went the distance. When someone wasn't in his class he went out there and proved it decisively by a knockout, for example against William Lee: "When someone wasn't in his class he went out there and proved it decisively by a knockout " That was nearly all the guys he fought, Hagler used to box then he used to open up and close the show when he saw a slight weakness in his opponents. Hagler beat the crap out of Obell in the first fight and he was standing their trading with Vito in the latter rounds of their first fight, he went after Minter for the opening bell, and he was beating on Hamsho and Roldan once he got to grips with them. He knocked Obell flat on his back in the rematch with a right hook i think it was.

Not hardcore i just dont think people dont appreciate how good he is/was. I think people have started to appreciate him more because of his recent win over Pavlik. Some of his fans that rank him very highly as a middleweight tend to forget though that despite his record of title defenses (mostly for the IBF title), his middleweight resume looks rather weak next to the other great middleweights. Even former middleweight champions such as LaMotta, Zale, Tiger, Walker have beaten better names than Hopkins has at MW.

Clearly you a hardcore Hopkin fan. Not hardcore i just dont think people dont appreciate how good he is/was.

That is another reason why Hagler would not of beaten Hopkins, because Hopkins was not a crowd pleaser he would make it dirty and ruff (Joppy,Holmes,Allen,Eastman,Vanderpool,J D Jackson. Hopkins priority was winning not entertaining along the way. Hagler wasn't exactly a crowd pleaser either, he became a more aggressive fighter because he thought that he would be robbed of the decision if he went the distance. When someone wasn't in his class he went out there and proved it decisively by a knockout, for example against William Lee:

It does work when you consider he won the Pavlik fight, because it was a slow pace and he lost the Taylor,Calzaghe fights, because of his lack or workrate. Clearly you a hardcore Hopkin fan.

How young was Taylor? The old excuse with Hopkins doesn't work much as he has success at lh. It does work when you consider he won the Pavlik fight, because it was a slow pace and he lost the Calzaghe fight, because of his lack or workrate.