Where does Hopkins stand?

[cple]

As to BH it's not his fault that nobody were able to establish a good name in his division while he is reigning for the last 10 years because he takes on everybody and dismantles them. Styles makes fight . . . and though BH is not known to be an "exciting move forward" fighter he is effective and can tear down opponent systematically.

Again give credit to where and to whom the credit is due . . .

I believe i do give him his proper due by considering him as one of the best middleweights of all-time. Is it that much of a discredit to say that only 7 or so middleweights out of the tens of thousands that have fought all-time are better?

Some say it's unfair to give Hopkins a lower ranking because of his opposition. He doesn't have control over his era, etc. I say if you don't, it's unfair to those who had fought in golden eras.

Would Hopkins have 19 consecutive title defense if he fought the likes of LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, or Briscoe, Griffith, Valdez numerous times in succession? IMO, no. He may have a winning records, but he wouldn't go undefeated.

It's my personal belief that you should factor in level of opposition when determining a fighter's place in history. You may think otherwise, and that's just fine.

[marvdave]

Hagler and Monzon are tops on my list with SRR, but it could be becuase of my age and era I grew up watching..could be a bit biased. Hagler fought wars against the top guys for years before any champ would even give him a shot. Monzon was a destroyer. Hopkins is a credit to Boxing and belongs in the conversation for sure. I can't think of one Middleweight that he wouldn't compete with. Definitely top ten, maybe top five.

Of course I feel Sugar Ray Robinson, Hagler,Monzon are tops. Take your pick 4-10

[cple]

For me, it's got to be Harry Greb. No other middleweight has beaten better competition with such regularity.

[LuKahnLi]

cple

Agreed. Not only was his competition good, but they were usually bigger men. Gene Tunney, George Gibbons and Tommy Loughran were all light heavyweights.

[LuKahnLi]

As to the topic though, I put Hopkins within the top 10 all time. Maybe as high as #5.

[psychopath]

I believe i do give him his proper due by considering him as one of the best middleweights of all-time. Is it that much of a discredit to say that only 7 or so middleweights out of the tens of thousands that have fought all-time are better?

Some say it's unfair to give Hopkins a lower ranking because of his opposition. He doesn't have control over his era, etc. I say if you don't, it's unfair to those who had fought in golden eras.

Would Hopkins have 19 consecutive title defense if he fought the likes of LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, or Briscoe, Griffith, Valdez numerous times in succession? IMO, no. He may have a winning records, but he wouldn't go undefeated.

It's my personal belief that you should factor in level of opposition when determining a fighter's place in history. You may think otherwise, and that's just fine.

No problem Bro with such well explained arguement . . . I don't see any reason for me to contradict that . . . as I have posted in my original post here . . . I was saying that there could be an endless arguement on where BH should stand on that list . . . but it could easily be said that he belongs to the top 5 . . . he is not the greatest of all middle weights but he surely belongs to the list.

[wmute]

I have to agree with cple.

Hopkins is top ten, not top 5. If he fights and beats Roy Jones, then yes.

if he fights and beats roy jones it won't mean a lot, bcos a 36yo (at least) Roy Jones at 168 will not be a great fighter

oh... well, unless he proves us (and father time) wrong, by destroying tarver, which I do not foresee.

(note I think roy jones was the greatest fighter of the 90s, and I rate him real high on a historicla basis, too
but I really think his style is not going to be good in his late 30s)

[wmute]

can you all stop raving about hopkins 20 defenses?
do you know that joe louis (whose record is nard's current target), marvin hagler and carlos monzon fought for THE unified title and not for random belts.

Hopkins has 6 or 7, depending if you start counting from k holmes or tito.

please stop this BS!

by the way he is number 6 for me, and I think is a great fighter

[Sir_Jose]

Hopkins has 19 defense. Its the era he fights in that makes it impossible to unify and when you do unify you can hold on to them unless you fight nothing but madatories. Don King would not let Hopkins anywhere near Joppy or Holmes until Hopkins signed with King.

No problem Bro with such well explained arguement . . . I don't see any reason for me to contradict that . . . as I have posted in my original post here . . . I was saying that there could be an endless arguement on where BH should stand on that list . . . but it could easily be said that he belongs to the top 5 . . . he is not the greatest of all middle weights but he surely belongs to the list.

Ok I feel the same way. Its obvious no one is gonna have there opnion of him changed.

[Verbl_Kint]

I would put B-Hop in the top 5 simply because he can still knock great fighters out at a ripe old age of 39.