Defining Greatness!

[Poet682006]

Ring historians already consider Hopkins an all-time great. Some have him ranked as high as 4 along with the likes of Hagler and Monzon.

Poet

[Easton Assassin]

Ring historians already consider Hopkins an all-time great. Some have him ranked as high as 4 along with the likes of Hagler and Monzon.

Poet

I think hopkins is definatly a HOF fighter and a respectable middleweight champ, but i disagree with Ring Historians for one simple reason. It's their job to comment on greatness, and with a lack of greatness comes a lowering of expectations when your job is to be a proclaimer of greatness!

I could argue all day the merits and shortcommings of Hopkins or any other boxer alive, but the truth is Everyone has their own opinion of what defines greatness. For some winning alone is enough, others need more to bestow such titles upon a fighter. I personaly think Hopkins would have been little more than an IRAN Barkley in the 80's, but i'm sure other would say he would dominate.

In the end it's pure perception, and im ok with that!

[Poet682006]

I think hopkins is definatly a HOF fighter and a respectable middleweight champ, but i disagree with Ring Historians for one simple reason. It's their job to comment on greatness, and with a lack of greatness comes a lowering of expectations when your job is to be a proclaimer of greatness!

I could argue all day the merits and shortcommings of Hopkins or any other boxer alive, but the truth is Everyone has their own opinion of what defines greatness. For some winning alone is enough, others need more to bestow such titles upon a fighter. I personaly think Hopkins would have been little more than an IRAN Barkley in the 80's, but i'm sure other would say he would dominate.

In the end it's pure perception, and im ok with that!

Dominate? No. The division was too good and too deep for that. BUT! He could have held his own against Hagler and likely would have decisioned McCallum: The two best Middleweights of the time.

Poet

[Easton Assassin]

Dominate? No. The division was too good and too deep for that. BUT! He could have held his own against Hagler and likely would have decisioned McCallum: The two best Middleweights of the time.

Poet

Maybe, Maccalum had a style That Hopkins could exploit. Hagler on the other hand was far too relentless. The only reason Leonard could run like he did was Haglers age at that point, but prime Hagler just ****in smothered everyone! Hopkins would have been hard preesed to maintain the pace Hagler would have set. Again, just my opinion.

[BmoreBrawler]

Life is nothing more than a series of choices and consequences produced by those choices. If you have lived long enough to be posting on this board you should already know this well. When faced with a choice it is human nature to choose in a fashion that seems in our own best self interest, but there are times when doing so would cause great harm to others. This is when the irony of life begins to show itself for the ugly little bastard it really is. In those instances we define ourselves as human beings.

Now I know your saying WTF right now. Your wondering how you accidentaly got from a boxing forum to a philasophical new age *** site. Relax, I'm getting there. Many here know my disdain for boxers like Floyd Mayweather, Roy Jones, and Bernard Hopkins to name a few. Instead of randomly defending every little post concerning these guys,, I have decided to summarize why that sentiment exists.

There is more to greatness than ability. There are intangibles that define greatness to a point where ability, or God given talent takes a back seat to the genuine greatness that encompasses the person as a whole. Ali had it, and so did Sugar Ray Robinson. Others have had it aswell to one degree or another. Their names are etched in our memories. Names like Micheal Jordan, Lance Armstrong, Wayne Gretszky, and many many others. In the sport of boxing it is much Harder to achieve that peak we define as greatness. Many excel, Many more fail miserably and go on to other things, but one thing remains. The truly great leave no doubt as to their place in history.

Why did Gatti have the following he did? He gave what he had-all of it. That in and of itself is a greatness and he will be rewarded for that as he should be. He has the admiration of those he preformed for, and he will be remembered kindly even though he will never be considered a great in the sport, but make no mistake-he was great in his own way!

This leads to the gist of this thread. Jones, Hopkins, and More recently Mayweather all have one thing in common. Their greatness is disputed as vehemently by detractors as it is heralded by supporters. Some say Hopkins is an all time great, Others just great, and still other claim he was a fraud that benefited from a division left by the two biggest fighters of the time(Jones and Toney). By comparison, How many will argue that Marvin Hagler was not an all time great? I have never seen anyone deny Haglers greatness- there is a reason for that!

Roy Jones was touted as Jesus Christ reborn. Every time a Tomato can fell the chants of GOAT would begin. As with Hopkins The detracted gritted their teeth and claimed one day there would be justice, and it came to pass that the detractors found vindication in the back to back KO's Jones recieved not long after running out of tomato cans! Were the Fans of Jones wrong in their assessment of his greatness? Time will tell!

Now we have Floyd Mayweather. I will not argue his resume, or the fact that i feel he is more untested than either Jones or Hopkins where when they Held the title of best in the sport. What I will say is that the upcomming fight should answer many question about his legitamacy. Should he beat Hatton convincingly his stock will rise in my opinion, but should he lose convinvingly i will feel justified in my opinion of his ability to achieve greatness.


Mayweather has made it a point to project himself in a manor that does anything but define greatness. To this point, He has literally defied every tenet that defines greatness. Yes, He is still unbeaten, but does that mean anything in and of itself? Winning doesn't define greatness if the quality of the opposition is in question.

Floyd Mayweather is a solid Boxer. He has great natural ability and a decent resume, but how many other would be greats were in a similar position only to watch it slip away and in the end look very ordinary in the process? Remember that the next time you think the Ghost of ALi or Robinson has returned in the form of Floyd Mayweather!

This should be stickied. Good post man.

[SkillspayBills]

If Ricky hatton wins the fight I will put a Ricky hatton themed sig and avatar until he loses a fight, and if he retires undefeated I will never take it off, ok?

By the way great article, any boxing fan should realize talent doesn't define greatness, level of opposition does, Jones and Hopkins both beat hall of famers. Matter of fact so has Floyd, by the time they retire there will be no debate and they will be remembered as greats.

[Wiley Hyena]

Mayweather v. Hagler? lol I'm not talking about an actual fantasy match, even though that thought brings another bout of laughter. I'm talking about who will be remembered as being a greater fighter. The fact is that unless Mayweather changes something in a hurry, he will be remembered as a fine and polished defensive boxer that fought against very ordinary competition, nothing more. They won't be showing re-runs of Mayweather fights on ESPN Classic, let's just put it that way.

[El Dominicano]

Life is nothing more than a series of choices and consequences produced by those choices. If you have lived long enough to be posting on this board you should already know this well. When faced with a choice it is human nature to choose in a fashion that seems in our own best self interest, but there are times when doing so would cause great harm to others. This is when the irony of life begins to show itself for the ugly little bastard it really is. In those instances we define ourselves as human beings.

Now I know your saying WTF right now. Your wondering how you accidentaly got from a boxing forum to a philasophical new age *** site. Relax, I'm getting there. Many here know my disdain for boxers like Floyd Mayweather, Roy Jones, and Bernard Hopkins to name a few. Instead of randomly defending every little post concerning these guys,, I have decided to summarize why that sentiment exists.

There is more to greatness than ability. There are intangibles that define greatness to a point where ability, or God given talent takes a back seat to the genuine greatness that encompasses the person as a whole. Ali had it, and so did Sugar Ray Robinson. Others have had it aswell to one degree or another. Their names are etched in our memories. Names like Micheal Jordan, Lance Armstrong, Wayne Gretszky, and many many others. In the sport of boxing it is much Harder to achieve that peak we define as greatness. Many excel, Many more fail miserably and go on to other things, but one thing remains. The truly great leave no doubt as to their place in history.

Why did Gatti have the following he did? He gave what he had-all of it. That in and of itself is a greatness and he will be rewarded for that as he should be. He has the admiration of those he preformed for, and he will be remembered kindly even though he will never be considered a great in the sport, but make no mistake-he was great in his own way!

This leads to the gist of this thread. Jones, Hopkins, and More recently Mayweather all have one thing in common. Their greatness is disputed as vehemently by detractors as it is heralded by supporters. Some say Hopkins is an all time great, Others just great, and still other claim he was a fraud that benefited from a division left by the two biggest fighters of the time(Jones and Toney). By comparison, How many will argue that Marvin Hagler was not an all time great? I have never seen anyone deny Haglers greatness- there is a reason for that!

Roy Jones was touted as Jesus Christ reborn. Every time a Tomato can fell the chants of GOAT would begin. As with Hopkins The detracted gritted their teeth and claimed one day there would be justice, and it came to pass that the detractors found vindication in the back to back KO's Jones recieved not long after running out of tomato cans! Were the Fans of Jones wrong in their assessment of his greatness? Time will tell!

Now we have Floyd Mayweather. I will not argue his resume, or the fact that i feel he is more untested than either Jones or Hopkins where when they Held the title of best in the sport. What I will say is that the upcomming fight should answer many question about his legitamacy. Should he beat Hatton convincingly his stock will rise in my opinion, but should he lose convinvingly i will feel justified in my opinion of his ability to achieve greatness.


Mayweather has made it a point to project himself in a manor that does anything but define greatness. To this point, He has literally defied every tenet that defines greatness. Yes, He is still unbeaten, but does that mean anything in and of itself? Winning doesn't define greatness if the quality of the opposition is in question.

Floyd Mayweather is a solid Boxer. He has great natural ability and a decent resume, but how many other would be greats were in a similar position only to watch it slip away and in the end look very ordinary in the process? Remember that the next time you think the Ghost of ALi or Robinson has returned in the form of Floyd Mayweather!

I can agree with more untested then B-Hop but to say more untested then RJJ! RJJ beat B-Hop who was not yet in his prime and a weight drained James Toney! Must I repeat myself??? Thats all RJJ ever did ohhh!!! and yes the rest he fought were bums that he showboated against. Your gonna tell me RJJ faced harder opponents the PBF!! You crazy!!

[rambov]

None taken, but you are wrong on a few points.

First i said Gatti's fame is based solely on his heart and warriors spirit, not his Talent level. More to the point, The value of my post is inconsequential as you say, but that doesn't mean it should not be restated as much as it takes to remind people of the points made. Do you think i wrote that post to withstand the test of time? If so, i did much better than i set out to do lol.

Anyway. It is opinionated, and based on perception. I'm not sure why you feel a need to minimalise the statement, but hey, thats your perogative!

And I have been a fan as long as you have. I don't remember people calling Hagler out for weak competition, but i could have missed that. Seems to me that the newer crop just doesn't have the will to take the hard road for the sake of the challenge and the worth of the accomplishment. Seems to me, The money is the only motivator left in the sport. We have went from warriors to accountant- That is why a Gatti who lacks much Talent captures the hearts of fans that Mayweather never will!!!

Gatti gave what he had---All of it!

Well we agree to disagree my friend. The newer crop vs the older crop has always been the arguement here on this thread. What I want to know is has it ever occured to anyone that boxers (or athletes on the whole) have evolved? That they may be stronger and more talented than their forefathers?
Has defense gotten better?

Really what would happen if Hagler was in the ring with Bernard. Who would win?

[Poet682006]

Well we agree to disagree my friend. The newer crop vs the older crop has always been the arguement here on this thread. What I want to know is has it ever occured to anyone that boxers (or athletes on the whole) have evolved? That they may be stronger and more talented than their forefathers?
Has defense gotten better?

Really what would happen if Hagler was in the ring with Bernard. Who would win?

You're misreading Darwin. Evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years. Man hasn't evolved in 8,000 years of civilization and here you're talking about boxers evolving in just a few short decades.

Poet