How much does longevity mean to alltime status?

[JAB5239]

After reading different comments about Bernard Hopkins I was wondering other posters thoughts on the longevity of a fighter at a certain weight. While I've never been a huge fan off Hopkins and have been put off by things he has said in the past, Im very impressed with his longevity in the middleweight division. 14 consecutive years as a Ring magazine top ten middle, 9 of those as the best fighter in the division. That ranks up the with Louis, Robinson, Holmes and other greats. I would rank his competition over that time a B, maybe B+. Not great, but certainly respectable when you consider his longevity and consistency. Where do you rate Hop all time at 160 and how does his longevity there factor in for you?

Quick list of ten not set in stone.

Monzon
Hagler
Greb
Ketchel
Robinson
Hopkins
Burley
Lamotta
Apostoli
H. Williams

[Great John L]

I think longevity is definitely one of the big factors concerning ATG status. It's a testament to the skill and dedication of the fighter. Look at George Foreman. His comeback years after he retired, and coming back to win the title 20 years after having lost it is far mroe impressive than his beatdowns of Frazier and Norton. Same with Ray Robinson and all of his successful comebacks. Even Ali, coming back 3 years after being stripped of a license to win the Heavyweight title 2 more times and beat some of the best ever competition. S while I think some other factors are more important than longevity, it is defintiely soemthing that should be taken into consideration and not lightly regarded or tossed aside.

[JAB5239]

I think longevity is definitely one of the big factors concerning ATG status. It's a testament to the skill and dedication of the fighter. Look at George Foreman. His comeback years after he retired, and coming back to win the title 20 years after having lost it is far mroe impressive than his beatdowns of Frazier and Norton. Same with Ray Robinson and all of his successful comebacks. Even Ali, coming back 3 years after being stripped of a license to win the Heavyweight title 2 more times and beat some of the best ever competition. S while I think some other factors are more important than longevity, it is defintiely soemthing that should be taken into consideration and not lightly regarded or tossed aside.

Where do you think it factors in with Hopkins amongst all time great middleweights, and why and where would you rank him?

[Great John L]

I think Longeivty definitely shines out even mroe when you look at certain fighters. Joe Louis and Hopkins are an example, Hopkins being vison top 10 for fourteen years like you said with 9 years as the best. Unfortunately, I don't have a ready order for my middleweights like I do heavies, so I'm not sure where to rank him.

[Scott9945]

I believe that your level of excellence at your peak defines your career, followed closely by how many top years you had. Somebody like Tyson can make his claim based on his absolute peak. Somebody like Monzon is measured more by how many years he performed at the highest level.

[JAB5239]

I believe that your level of excellence at your peak defines your career, followed closely by how many top years you had. Somebody like Tyson can make his claim based on his absolute peak. Somebody like Monzon is measured more by how many years he performed at the highest level.

So you would rate Hop very highly at middle based on his peak fight with Tito and his overall longevity there. Is that assumption correct my friend?

[bklynboy]

After reading different comments about Bernard Hopkins I was wondering other posters thoughts on the longevity of a fighter at a certain weight. While I've never been a huge fan off Hopkins and have been put off by things he has said in the past, Im very impressed with his longevity in the middleweight division. 14 consecutive years as a Ring magazine top ten middle, 9 of those as the best fighter in the division. That ranks up the with Louis, Robinson, Holmes and other greats. I would rank his competition over that time a B, maybe B+. Not great, but certainly respectable when you consider his longevity and consistency. Where do you rate Hop all time at 160 and how does his longevity there factor in for you?

Quick list of ten not set in stone.

Monzon
Hagler
Greb
Ketchel
Robinson
Hopkins
Burley
Lamotta
Apostoli
H. Williams

I do it on a case by case basis. There are some shooting stars, Ketchel is an example: dead at 24. We have no idea how good he could have become. In Hopkins case I give him a lot of credit for remaining a top contender in his 40s. That's commendable.


But you raise another good point: where do we rate Hopkins? I don't know if I put him in the TOP 10, but I haven't given it enough thought.

Monzon
Hagler
Greb
Robinson
Ketchel (with benefit of the doubt)

are above Hopkins.

Where do we place Hopkins relative to:

Mickey Walker
Jake LaMotta
Marcel Cedan
Emile Griffith
Tiger Flowers

[Scott9945]

So you would rate Hop very highly at middle based on his peak fight with Tito and his overall longevity there. Is that assumption correct my friend?

Yes, I would rate him on the second half of an all time top ten list like you did. Of course with the wins over Tarver and Pavlik his greatness extends beyond middleweight.

[StarshipTrooper]

I don't necessarily factor it in a positive manner: If a fighter doesn't have a prime that's of a reasonable length of time than I count it against him. Someone who's really good for a couple of years but that's it is, to me in anycase, a "flash-in-the-pan" and can't really be considered one of the greats. Once a fighter passes that reasonable length of time I don't consider their longevity at all.

Poet

[Holtol]

Once a boxer gets past his mid 30s I don't think he can prove much more since he is declining physically. In my opinion all he can do is expose other boxers as being hype jobs or show how good he really was at his prime. Or how good some of the boxers were who beat him or gave him tough fights.