Where does Hopkins stand?

[GGG Gloveking]

He stands a few inches behind Oscar, holding a rolling pin

[DreamFighter]

what about GGG? At this best he knocked out vacant title winner Lemieux (who never won anything else).

[The Old LefHook]

Ho'kins is no top tenner.

[Anthony342]

Top 15 or 20 perhaps. And being retired, he currently stands as co promoter of Golden Boy. In line behind Oscar De La Hoya.

[Rusty Tromboni]

He reminds me of the OPPOSITE of some of the legendary old timers.

The guys who won because of raw talent and experience as much as real skill.

Sometimes they didn't even have that many fights. But they were more experienced than their challengers, which made them more "skilled".

Maybe Bob Fitzsimmons isn't a fair example, but he comes to mind.

would Bob Fitzsimmons really be a Middleweight fighting Heavyweights if he came of age after 1920?

Would Fitz have fought Louis, Liston, Ali, Holmes? Would he even have won the Light Heavyweight championship? Can we truly, without any doubt, be certain he would have even been a champion at all?

Hopkins was super refined and skilled. But his lack of physical gifts, even in his prime, makes me seriously wonder how long he would have lasted in previous decades. Would he ever have gotten around to developing such hermetically-sealed and efficient defense?

I gotta say I like what I see on film of Hopkins, but I also consider the level of competition. Add to it his theatrics, and I just can't rank him very favorably.

[billeau2]

Hopkins

Hopkins is a real challenge to rank for me. Winky Wright is another one, and before that Archie Moore...Guys who fought across weight classes, were technically very savy, etc... But how do they rank when we want to pin them down into a class?

I think it is a shame that the Jones fight should haunt Hopkins so much... It kind of does though. Did he redeem himself by beating some outstanding fighters? Did he show greatness in dominating fighters? I think Hopkins at his best did have a quality of domination and I don't think he lost those fights to Taylor. Hopkins also fought a lot... To his credit.

I could see him at top ten. Towards the bottom of the list. Because he never really beat an ATG Middle weight at prime. Even if he had looked competative against Jones... I would put Ward ahead of him.

[billeau2]

He reminds me of the OPPOSITE of some of the legendary old timers.

The guys who won because of raw talent and experience as much as real skill.

Sometimes they didn't even have that many fights. But they were more experienced than their challengers, which made them more "skilled".

Maybe Bob Fitzsimmons isn't a fair example, but he comes to mind.

would Bob Fitzsimmons really be a Middleweight fighting Heavyweights if he came of age after 1920?

Would Fitz have fought Louis, Liston, Ali, Holmes? Would he even have won the Light Heavyweight championship? Can we truly, without any doubt, be certain he would have even been a champion at all?

Hopkins was super refined and skilled. But his lack of physical gifts, even in his prime, makes me seriously wonder how long he would have lasted in previous decades. Would he ever have gotten around to developing such hermetically-sealed and efficient defense?

I gotta say I like what I see on film of Hopkins, but I also consider the level of competition. Add to it his theatrics, and I just can't rank him very favorably.

Very insightful Rusty! I agree with a lot of this. Hopkins beat some great fighters but that does not tell us how he would do in a real war of attrition with LaMotta for example, does it? To use a type of logic you employ to good effect: "If Lamotta could be hell on Ray Robinson, how would Hopkins, who did not have the gifts that Robinson had, hold up?"

Against a fighter like Hagler the same could be asked. Hopkins did not have the punch to keep Marvin honest... And Hearn's could not keep Hagler off of him.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Very insightful Rusty! I agree with a lot of this. Hopkins beat some great fighters but that does not tell us how he would do in a real war of attrition with LaMotta for example, does it? To use a type of logic you employ to good effect: "If Lamotta could be hell on Ray Robinson, how would Hopkins, who did not have the gifts that Robinson had, hold up?"

Against a fighter like Hagler the same could be asked. Hopkins did not have the punch to keep Marvin honest... And Hearn's could not keep Hagler off of him.

he kept himself alive against Kovalev.

I could see him spoiling Marvin's night.

I think Robinson struggled w/ LaMotta's persistence, jab and head movement. That's not Hopkins. I would say Maxim is the better comparison: bigger fighter, who can take Ray's punch and go the distance.

Ray ,ost likely does to Hopkins what Jones did to Hopkins: use his speed and timing to mount the offense which slower guys (Trinidad, Pavlik) couldn't. But 'Nard makes him work for it.

[Anthony342]

In the front office of Golden Boy. Outside the ring, now that he's retired.

[OctoberRed]

Hopkins is a real challenge to rank for me. Winky Wright is another one, and before that Archie Moore...Guys who fought across weight classes, were technically very savy, etc... But how do they rank when we want to pin them down into a class?

I think it is a shame that the Jones fight should haunt Hopkins so much... It kind of does though. Did he redeem himself by beating some outstanding fighters? Did he show greatness in dominating fighters? I think Hopkins at his best did have a quality of domination and I don't think he lost those fights to Taylor. Hopkins also fought a lot... To his credit.

I could see him at top ten. Towards the bottom of the list. Because he never really beat an ATG Middle weight at prime. Even if he had looked competative against Jones... I would put Ward ahead of him.

Agreed.