Top three statistical misrepresentations about Hopkins that irk me...

[Easy-E]

I agree, Annie.

Another interesting note.
In many cases, Floyd is considered p4p by default, because after Hopkins lost there was no standout and Floyd was at number 2, yet this same exact think happen when Roy lost and Bhop was sitting at number 2 fighting Robert Allen for the third time just waiting for Roy too lose.
I also dont understand all the newfound hype for Hopkins and placing him at 4 or 5 on the p4p list.
How easliy people forget his back to back losses to Taylor.

[K-DOGG]

Great post K-Dogg, but could you elaborate a bit on why you think Hopkins wasn't in the class of Toney Zale or Mickey Walker as far as middleweights go? I know that the Toy Bulldog was a hell of a fighter and is one of the best p4p fighters ever, but what among his middleweight accomplishments makes him better than Hopkins? Thanks in advance for your take on this.

Well, I'm not gonna lie about one...I am hugely biased about Tony Zale....love him; and he dominated for quite a time at Middlweight and many believe, myself included, that like Joe Louis, had WWII not come along and Zale joined up, we would have seen more of how good or great he really was...but, that's just the way it goes. But, if I were to cite reasons WHY I feel Zale deserves to be ranked higher, it really boils down to the competition he faced and beat: Al Hostak, Fred Apostoli, Georgie Abrams, and, of course, his brutal series with Rocky Graziano.....which would have been akin to Hagler and Hearns fighting a trilogy with Hearns stopping Hagler at least once; it was a brutal series. Hopkins never faced men of that calibre at middlweight IMO.

Now, with Walker, well, maybe I am thinking more from the impressiveness of his pound-for-pound accomplishments, beating top heavyweight and light-heavyweights of the day and all; but his creds at Middle aren't too shabby with names like Tiger Flowers, Tommy Milligan, and a close lost to Harry Greb...not counting their rematch in the alley later on that night.

So, I guess I'd have to put Hopkins close to, if not slightly above Walker at middleweight; but I can't put him above Zale.

[K-DOGG]

For What It's Worth...

I always have trouble placing Hagler...am never satisfied where he ends up, so my list is always in flux; but here it is anyway.

1. Carlos Monzon
2. Ray Robinson
3. Harry Greb
4. Stanley Ketchel
5. Marvin Hagler
6. Robert Fitzsimmons
7. Tony Zale
8. Bernard Hopkins
9. Charlie Burley
10. Mickey Walker


Now, Yogi or SABBATH would be able to give a better list than myself; but I thought I'd go ahead and post how I think they rank "today". As you can see, I unintentionally made it sound like there was a wider gap between Hopkins and Zale than how I feel they really match up. One of the cool things about the Middlweight Divsion is that is has NEVER been short on talent and great fighters.

[Guest]

its because of how you say certain things, even when your right. where your from and what you tend to post can make you look a certain way that would automatically render certain feelings when you post. a topic like this coming from you can further that feeling is my point. Im not saying your ******, or you say things that are ******, but if you make a topic like this, you have to be ready for certain premeditated feelings that are going to be thought about when opening a topic like this.


i mean, just look at the bad karma you gave me with this statement



rather than better clarifying your points, you force me to have the feeling that any disagreement leads to something like this. you clarify and then you insult, your no different from the very people you dislike.

I'm tempted to create a new account and put "New York" as the location. I bet that I won't get ONE person accusing me of having an "agenda".

There are a select group of fighters I probably rag on, SOME of whom happen to be American. (I'd also argue that this factor is one of the reasons why they get - in my eyes - overrated on here). I don't see anyone slating me if I rag on Audley Harrison, Matt Skelton or Scott Gammer, for example.

I'll give an example. The other week I was saying that I thought Taylor was a little green, and that Miranda is still an unknown quantity in world terms. Now I made the second comment without ANY retractions of my nationality. But I made the first and I got all the usual bog standard "anti American" BS. I could post on here all day talking about how I love Toney, Holy and co. (I could also post I love Floyd, but I don't, he's a ****) but I shouldn't have to do that to detract people who want to make insinuations.

While I take your point about the bad K, this was after several pages of attacks that had no bearing on discussion. You're a good guy... in a way. But you often come over as snide, superior and nay-saying. Take for instance in this post how you insist on me having an "agenda". You don't even discuss this as being YOUR OPINION, it's now slipped in slyly to your post as if it's a FACT.

[Guest]

I agree, Annie.

Another interesting note.
In many cases, Floyd is considered p4p by default, because after Hopkins lost there was no standout and Floyd was at number 2, yet this same exact think happen when Roy lost and Bhop was sitting at number 2 fighting Robert Allen for the third time just waiting for Roy too lose.
I also dont understand all the newfound hype for Hopkins and placing him at 4 or 5 on the p4p list.
How easliy people forget his back to back losses to Taylor.

Yeah, the passing of the torch in terms of P4P is a strange system. There's also the (face saving?) nature of a boxer defeating a "P4P" exponent means that they then take on that status, rather than the original rankee being reassessed in light of the defeats. (For an example, many now admit that Sugar Shane didn't live up to his potential, but Wright has a ranking largely on beating him. Please note that I am NOT saying Wright isn't a legitimate P4P fighter, I'm just using this as a hypothetical example).

[Guest]

Annie, you do make some valid points regarding some of the spin around Hopkins; but ultimately, you are wrong IMO. He is an ATG. Maybe not on the level of a Robinson, a Greb, a Walker, a Ketchel, or a Hagler or Zale; but he belongs in the Top 10 IMO.

The twenty defenses DO mean something; it represents consistancey, regardless of whether or not he fought a whole slew of HOF'ers or not. Joe Louis, who is regarded by many as The Best Heavyweight who ever lived, fought his share of "less than great" opposistion, yet because of the fact that he defended that belt of his 25 times, combined with his skill which was apparent to all who saw him, meshed in with a few high-profile fights....he's "the best".

Morrade Hakkar was Hopkins' Johnny Paycheck....every champion has a few.


Regarding De La Hoya, I don't think that fight really means anything substantial and I don't think anyone who knows boxing thinks it does either; but it does mean...something. De La Hoya's place in the pantheon is debateable for a variety of reasons; but he was this generations' Roberto Duran, a former lightweight champion challenging for Middleweight honors. Now, obviously, I'm not comparing De La Hoya to Duran; but no one's comparing Hopkins to Hagler either. Now, I will say the Trinidad bout was extremely significant. Tito had proven himself, with a little help from Oscar's legs, the best Welterweight of his generation and he also wiped out the best at 154, and then kayoed long-time Middleweight pretender/WBA champ Joppy in 4, something not even Hopkins and Taylor could do after the Jop had aged some more. Everyone, wrongfully albeit, thought Trinidad, who was 40-0, was going to bring Bernard's reign to an end....and we all so Hopkins dish out one of the finest boxing exhibitions we've seen in a long time....and it was old-school. That means something because he displayed his skills....as he did for 20 defenses and past his 40th birthday.

In regards to B-Hops schooling of Tarver, that too is impressive. Was it for 15 rounds under oppressive heat? No; but he was ten years older than Robinson and beat Tarver just as handily as Robinson was beating Maxim before the heat got to him. Was his accomplishment more significant that Robinson's? No; but no one'e really saying it is. Robinson was a former welterweight champion challenging a light-heavyweight champ, so natrually it would be harder for him, with the exception of Bernard's age, which cannot be ignored. And, fair or not, Hopkins did what Robinson could not...he beat a lineal Light-Heavyweight Champ.....Jones Jr. didn't do that either.

Is he the best? No; but no one credible is saying he is, however, because of his obvious skill, consistance, and accomplishments, he MUST be recognized as ONE of the best. Top 10 definetly. To not recognize him as such is a travesty to him and history IMO.

Cheers for the post, Dogg. Bit too tired to get into it right now, but I'll read what you say and think on it.

[brownpimp88]

The Trinidad win is a good win, I agree. The DLH win is meaningless, honestly. But I can't give Hopkins props because he never beat a natural top middleweight in his career. He wants to consider himself a great, but all he did was beat average fighters. He had two opportunities to establish his greatness against Roy Jones and against Taylor and he lost those fights. The win over Tarver was good, but everyone knows that if RJJ got to Tarver before Roy went to HW, Roy would have destroyed Tarver...

The same can be said for hagler and monzon actually. Thier top wins were smaller guys.

[GasPed]

The same can be said for hagler and monzon actually. Thier top wins were smaller guys.

Totally agree. Although I rank Hagler above Hopkins, there's no doubt his biggest wins (that gave him the biggest recognition) were against guys who moved up in weight to fight him (Duran, Hearns). If it hadn't been for those wins, well, defeating the likes of Wilfred Scypion or Juan Roldan is no better than beating Carl Daniels or Robert Allen as far as I'm concerned. Worse yet, one of the guys who moved up to fight Hagler actually beat him (SRL).

So overall, although I think Hagler had better opposition and the better career than Hopkins, I don't think you can completely discount Hopkins wins over Trinidad and DLH as if they were meaningless. That, plus his 19 defences against pretty solid opposition, and his victory over Tarver (at age 41!) cement his place as a top 10 MW, IMO.

Keep in mind too, the only guys Hopkins ever lost to were an extremely talented, much younger, bigger man (Taylor, when Hopkins was 40!), and the most amazing fighter the world has ever seen (prime RJJ), and he gave both of them all they could handle for 12.

[Mr. Ryan]

... I quite like the guy. He impressed me last time out, he'll naturally go in the HOF and he's a very good middleweight in a very average era. Get that? Very good. Not All Time Great, possibly not even Great, but very good.

Yet since the decline of Roy Jones and the need to sell copy, the guy seems to have been reconfigured as an ATG by The Ring, and made into something he's probably not.

This thread is not to detract from Bernard, but to separate what I see as major spin on his accomplishments.

Here's the top three examples of spin bull**** that get woven about Hop, and why they irk:



1. The Twenty Successful Defences. Let's not even go into the fact that it was actually 19 (unless we're counting NCs now?) people talk about this like it's an achievement in and of itself that overrides talent, opposition and historical perspective. I mean, defending a belt 20 times IS a good thing, (only seven of them as unified champ, note) but are we SERIOUSLY suggesting that if the likes of Robinson, Greb, Monson and Hagler had to face the likes of Glen Johnson, Morrade Hakkar, Carl Daniels and Robert Allen they'd have been ****ed over? No, of course not (right?) so the point IS...?


2. The "career defining" KO of The Acting Amigo. The guy was WAY outside his weight class, so much so that virtually NO ONE gave him a chance of winning. The size difference between the two was a joke, with Oscar having no power to speak of at the weight and having already been largely exposed as a middleweight in his previous bout. Yet he takes a dive/suffers a paralysing liver shot (delete as applicable) and it's "a leap to immortality" as the Ring memorably had it? Oscar as a middleweight was good marquee value, but brought little to the table. Yeah, he's HOF and all the rest of it, has a great resume, but... HE'S NOT A MIDDLEWEIGHT. So what's the point?



3. "Bernard beat a light heavyweight, even Sugar Ray Robinson didn't do that." SRR fought a light heavy over the fifteen round distance (not twelve) in heat estimated at 104 degrees. He had to retire from exhaustation, despite being ahead on points. In contrast, while I DID admire the performance, Bernard beat a weight-drained, overrated light heavy who forgot to pack his balls. In a decent temperature. So what's the point of mentioning the stat when it's comparatively meaningless? It's like talking about how boxers today are better than the boxers of old because there are more "multi weight champs". Except in the old days there weren't anywhere near as many divisions, or as many belts.



I like Bernard, but I only see him as a very good champ. His assension to legendary status seems to be based largely on manipulating facts and figures and the need for a "great" in this largely talent-challenged boxing era.

Ray Robinson, Greb, Hagler, these guys were great fighters and no one is detracting from them because of Hopkins' performances. Truth is though that I see a lot of greatness in Hopkins as a fighter and as a man in the ring. Hopkins was one of those rare guys who were able to come up without a medal and just do it the old fashioned way.

His 20 defenses were impressive because it is no easy deal to hold a title that long in America. If he held it in Germany or Thailand, then it would be meaningless, but thus is not the case.

To me, his career performance was against Tito, the DLH fight meant nothing to me and I do think that DLH made a conscious effort not to get up because he realized it was meaningless. He was in way over his head against a bigger man he could do nothing about.

The Tarver fight was particularly impressive because he sprung back from 2 losses, went up in weight and absolutely dominated a stronger man. That is always going to be impressive to me.

[The Surgeon]

Totally agree. Although I rank Hagler above Hopkins, there's no doubt his biggest wins (that gave him the biggest recognition) were against guys who moved up in weight to fight him (Duran, Hearns). If it hadn't been for those wins, well, defeating the likes of Wilfred Scypion or Juan Roldan is no better than beating Carl Daniels or Robert Allen as far as I'm concerned. Worse yet, one of the guys who moved up to fight Hagler actually beat him (SRL).

So overall, although I think Hagler had better opposition and the better career than Hopkins, I don't think you can completely discount Hopkins wins over Trinidad and DLH as if they were meaningless. That, plus his 19 defences against pretty solid opposition, and his victory over Tarver (at age 41!) cement his place as a top 10 MW, IMO.

Keep in mind too, the only guys Hopkins ever lost to were an extremely talented, much younger, bigger man (Taylor, when Hopkins was 40!), and the most amazing fighter the world has ever seen (prime RJJ), and he gave both of them all they could handle for 12.

He lost his debut at Light heavy too but yeah i get ur point