Tweet
I think longevity rates as a huge factor to ATG rankings. A few other major things like how they come back from losses, which sort of sits in with longevity as no great champion goes on without a loss while facing the best and how they come back shows the heart and spirit of what a true champion they might be.
I think Hopkins is without a doubt close to a top five ATG MW. I don't think you can have him out of the top ten and keep the integrity as an unbiased ranking. He's a definite top ten. It's just where is the question and I think it's up closer to five than ten.
Longevity usually proves one massive thing; that you can beat all styles and all types of champion. The big thing today is not facing guys who are not big names for the top dogs and yet being able to beat everyone in a division over many years proves your mettle and your skill as a fighter able to beat any type of opponent. It will always depend on the era and division of course but when someone usually reigns in a solid era over a decade or so they are going to face all styles.
A great example of this came recently actually and this is one big thing that I think makes it so important to face everyone no matter if they are not meant to win or meant to win easily (thus having the excuse of not having to face such and such a fighter, if that makes sense).
Carl Froch vs Arthur Abraham was a perfect example of what happens when you fight everyone. Froch was nearly unanimous as the guy to get knocked out and be beaten up in a war. Yet, he won nearly every round and dominated the fight. The reason I bring this up though in a longevity argument is that those fights and having such longevity as Hopkins did proves things of that fighter against everyone. In those instances, like Froch/Abraham there are always going to be fights against guys that are much better than they seem and match up against your style well. It's why so few fighters are able to stay at the top of one division for any length of time and thus I think it proves greatness to do so.
There's always going to be that guy that has your number and to beat them is the mark of a great champ. If Abraham had been the long time champ of that division and Froch had just come through the ranks as a top contender, he would have beaten Abraham and beforehand nearly everyone would have said it's not even necessary to have the fight as Froch looks so unskilled and amateurish.
Anyway, longevity is up there with skill shown against top level opposition, dominance of a single division (usually ties in with longevity anyway) etc. Hopkins has proven all the things to be a genuine ATG of the highest level. He dominated a single division beating all the champs and other top fighters over a long period of time. He beat a great level of opposition and all styles and showed incredible skill while doing so. He had a series of career defining victories in that division against HOF level opposition. He came back from losses to regain the championship and to win titles in a higher weight class and has, in my opinion, proven himself the best over 40 fighter ever with some of his greatest wins coming after the age of 40 and still being able to fight at the very, very top of the game without really losing badly as most other over 40s fighters did. He has done all this while also showing that he knows enough to really be difficult to beat at all and get a definitive win over. If he wins this Sat, I think it puts him up there as the greatest 40+ fighter definitely.
Great fighter and a great 160 pound fighter. I think he is the type of fighter that proves it's not nearly as important as people think it is to win titles in lots of divisions. What Hopkins has done is more impressive to me than Oscar's winning of six titles, Mayweather's six and even Pac's eight because of his longevity and the opposition beaten overall. When you then take into account Pac's level of opposition at the lower weights then it becomes a different story.
But, I guess because it is becoming so much more common to win many titles in many divisions quickly, that's now becoming the normal, common thing to do. It's much harder to keep beating everyone in one division, beat all the other champs, prove yourself against all styles at the highest level by becoming the one champ and do it for a long time. That's now the most uncommon thing in boxing which to me, makes it all the more difficult and impressive.
Caballero losing to Litzau recently is another great example of a long time champ just not being able to keep doing it. He had a guy who was a perfect foil to him even though it was meant to be an easy keep busy fight. Very, very few champions are able to do it.
Hopkins' reign at MW is not up there with Monzon's or Hagler's and yet it is still one of the very best ever at that weight and it's difficult to put many over him. I think he belongs above Robinson at 160, who while great, didn't show the consistency, longevity and the peak years as champion who definitively ruled the class as Hopkins did for as long as Hopkins did.
I think Hopkins is without a doubt close to a top five ATG MW. I don't think you can have him out of the top ten and keep the integrity as an unbiased ranking. He's a definite top ten. It's just where is the question and I think it's up closer to five than ten.
Longevity usually proves one massive thing; that you can beat all styles and all types of champion. The big thing today is not facing guys who are not big names for the top dogs and yet being able to beat everyone in a division over many years proves your mettle and your skill as a fighter able to beat any type of opponent. It will always depend on the era and division of course but when someone usually reigns in a solid era over a decade or so they are going to face all styles.
A great example of this came recently actually and this is one big thing that I think makes it so important to face everyone no matter if they are not meant to win or meant to win easily (thus having the excuse of not having to face such and such a fighter, if that makes sense).
Carl Froch vs Arthur Abraham was a perfect example of what happens when you fight everyone. Froch was nearly unanimous as the guy to get knocked out and be beaten up in a war. Yet, he won nearly every round and dominated the fight. The reason I bring this up though in a longevity argument is that those fights and having such longevity as Hopkins did proves things of that fighter against everyone. In those instances, like Froch/Abraham there are always going to be fights against guys that are much better than they seem and match up against your style well. It's why so few fighters are able to stay at the top of one division for any length of time and thus I think it proves greatness to do so.
There's always going to be that guy that has your number and to beat them is the mark of a great champ. If Abraham had been the long time champ of that division and Froch had just come through the ranks as a top contender, he would have beaten Abraham and beforehand nearly everyone would have said it's not even necessary to have the fight as Froch looks so unskilled and amateurish.
Anyway, longevity is up there with skill shown against top level opposition, dominance of a single division (usually ties in with longevity anyway) etc. Hopkins has proven all the things to be a genuine ATG of the highest level. He dominated a single division beating all the champs and other top fighters over a long period of time. He beat a great level of opposition and all styles and showed incredible skill while doing so. He had a series of career defining victories in that division against HOF level opposition. He came back from losses to regain the championship and to win titles in a higher weight class and has, in my opinion, proven himself the best over 40 fighter ever with some of his greatest wins coming after the age of 40 and still being able to fight at the very, very top of the game without really losing badly as most other over 40s fighters did. He has done all this while also showing that he knows enough to really be difficult to beat at all and get a definitive win over. If he wins this Sat, I think it puts him up there as the greatest 40+ fighter definitely.
Great fighter and a great 160 pound fighter. I think he is the type of fighter that proves it's not nearly as important as people think it is to win titles in lots of divisions. What Hopkins has done is more impressive to me than Oscar's winning of six titles, Mayweather's six and even Pac's eight because of his longevity and the opposition beaten overall. When you then take into account Pac's level of opposition at the lower weights then it becomes a different story.
But, I guess because it is becoming so much more common to win many titles in many divisions quickly, that's now becoming the normal, common thing to do. It's much harder to keep beating everyone in one division, beat all the other champs, prove yourself against all styles at the highest level by becoming the one champ and do it for a long time. That's now the most uncommon thing in boxing which to me, makes it all the more difficult and impressive.
Caballero losing to Litzau recently is another great example of a long time champ just not being able to keep doing it. He had a guy who was a perfect foil to him even though it was meant to be an easy keep busy fight. Very, very few champions are able to do it.
Hopkins' reign at MW is not up there with Monzon's or Hagler's and yet it is still one of the very best ever at that weight and it's difficult to put many over him. I think he belongs above Robinson at 160, who while great, didn't show the consistency, longevity and the peak years as champion who definitively ruled the class as Hopkins did for as long as Hopkins did.
Comment