Hopkins: greatest ever

[Perfect Plex]

Well Moore insisted he was born in 1916 and there is no way to verify the truth. No matter who one chooses, it has to come down to a two man race between these two guys. Maybe Im getting caught up in the moment, but without those two KD's Hopkins dominated the guy he was universally recognized as the best at 175. Even the Old Mongoose can't claim that. Just my opinion, but its much easier to sit on the throne than it is to regain it. And that is no insult to Archie.

But I remember reading, and Archie would always make jokes when asked about his age, and would say ****** things. That would just at times basically cofirm it.

Most belive Moore just used to say it, just so he could fight longer. I remember one writer saying he was 50 against Clay.

[JAB5239]

But I remember reading, and Archie would always make jokes when asked about his age, and would say ****** things. That would just at times basically cofirm it.

Most belive Moore just used to say it, just so he could fight longer. I remember one writer saying he was 50 against Clay.

I've found dates of 1912, 1913 and 1916 for Archie so far, with none being definitive. One thing I did find interesting in his Wikipedia profile is that he was in trouble as a you and put into a reformatory till 1934. 18 years is the age of a legal adult putting his date of birth at 1916 if we were to follow these assumptions and going by his release. I am by all mean open to other possibilities though as it was common for fighter to lie about there age back than, as well as shoddy record keeping dates of birth. Im interested in anything you may find.

[Joeyzagz]

Foreman was 48 when he got robbed against Briggs. Briggs became a heavyweight champion 9 years after that fight.

1. Foreman
2. Moore
3. Jack Johnson
4. Bhopp

[JAB5239]

Foreman was 48 when he got robbed against Briggs. Briggs became a heavyweight champion 9 years after that fight.

1. Foreman
2. Moore
3. Jack Johnson
4. Bhopp

Foreman wasnt fighting at the same level as Nard. Briggs really wasn't that good, and lets not forget Foreman SHOULD have lost to Schults 3 years earlier. Neither were top in their division.

I can accept arguments for Moore, but it is my opinion Hopkins is better. As I already said though, I may be getting caught up in the moment.

Johnson doesn't come close. He lost his title at 37 and never had a meaningful fight after that. Great fighter, but he doesn't belong in this conversation.

[led]

I don't think after tonight that it is any longer debatable who the greatest fighter ever is at such an advanced age. I've heard Walcotts name thrown about, but usually it Foreman and even more so Archie Moore. After tonight I believe its it moot argument that can only favor Bernard. I've never really been a fan but credit is due. Would anyone argue someone other than Hopkins as the most competitive fighter at an advanced age?

i actually really hate hopkins. but i cant deny that he is belongs to the upper echelon of boxing greats.

[Obama]

Foreman wasnt fighting at the same level as Nard. Briggs really wasn't that good, and lets not forget Foreman SHOULD have lost to Schults 3 years earlier. Neither were top in their division.

I can accept arguments for Moore, but it is my opinion Hopkins is better. As I already said though, I may be getting caught up in the moment.

Johnson doesn't come close. He lost his title at 37 and never had a meaningful fight after that. Great fighter, but he doesn't belong in this conversation.

I rate Tom Cowler & Jack Thompson. As should...anyone.

Johnson beat Thompson in 1923, 8 years after he lost the title. So that makes him about 45 as well.

[JAB5239]

I rate Tom Cowler & Jack Thompson. As should...anyone.

Johnson beat Thompson in 1923, 8 years after he lost the title. So that makes him about 45 as well.

With all due respect, and I know nothing of either of these fighters except they were losing more than winning at the time of the Johnson fights, how is that comparable to Hopkins or Moore? Not trying to be facetious, I just can't see it and don't know enough to make this judgment.

[Obama]

With all due respect, and I know nothing of either of these fighters except they were losing more than winning at the time of the Johnson fights, how is that comparable to Hopkins or Moore? Not trying to be facetious, I just can't see it and don't know enough to make this judgment.

Kinda matters who they were losing to dude.

[JAB5239]

Kinda matters who they were losing to dude.

Again, I have to disagree. Should we give Hopkins credit for the Jones win because he had lost to some good fighters, or should we see it for what it really was?

[sonnyboyx2]

Hopkins was masterful last night and was Robbed