-
-
He certainly has a case for it!!Comment
-
No I don't which is why I brought their names up. They quite simply fought in a better era of middleweights and had wins over better names although they also lost many fights and weren't as dominant.
Hopkins had some career-defining wins over Tarver and Pavlik above 160 lbs.
At middleweight his greatest win was over Tito Trinidad.
Jake LaMotta beat Ray Robinson, Marcel Cerdan, Fritzie Zivic, Holman Williams, all hall of famers.
**** Tiger beat Gene Fullmer, Joey Giardello, Nino Benvenuti and others.
Zale also beat a couple of hall of famers at middleweight.
Hopkins can only claim to have beaten two hall of famers who weren't at their best weight (DLH and Trinidad).Comment
-
Sugar Ray Robinson... Bhop.... Sugar Ray Robinson.... Bhop...
Why are we asking this question?Comment
-
Hopkins' most notable fight were against blown-ups...that's my takeComment
-
the weight issue is redundent imo... if you wanna get into that, Hagler's best wins were people not at their best weight also (and one of his losses)
LaMotta also lost to Ray Robinson 5 times, and Cerdan was injured when LaMotta beat him and died before the rematch could take place... in fact i'd rate Cerdan above LaMotta in the all-time middleweight rankings
admittedly my knowledge on the other two is basic at best
the point is, Hopkins fought everyone he could and beat virtually all of them... he may be missing the one win at 160 with the sparkle of say Halger's win over Hearns, but his resume is very strong nonethelessComment
-
I've argued with some people who don't believe that Hopkins belongs in any top middleweight list. They say Hopkins hasn't beaten great names at the weight and it's true.
But neither did Hagler really, aside from Duran and Hearns, and you could say that the two best names that Hagler beat were above their best weight like Trinidad and De La Hoya were.
That's why you have to look at how dominant they were, how good the era was that they fought in, what losses they had, longevity...
I would say that Hagler's biggest wins (Hearns and Duran) are greater than Hopkins' (Trinidad and DLH) and the other top opposition he fought (the contenders and title holders) were better than those that Hopkins fought.
Hopkins was a title holder for a long time and had many defenses, but he was the undisputed champion for only a few years while Hagler reigned as the only champion for 7 years with 12 defenses.
Hopkins' longevity in the sport is almost unmatched, but as a middleweight he was a top fighter for around 10 years as was Hagler.
Both had a couple of losses, Hagler had two controversial ones early in his career and against Leonard at the end of it, young Hopkins lost a decision to Jones and two controversial ones against Taylor when he was older but still good.Comment
-
I was once a big fan of Hopkins, then he just disappointed me one time too many in his borring fights. A few years later i finally saw past his boring style and seen past his borring boxing skills and really saw him fighting very smart. Yes, he is a great one no doubt. But, his reign at middleweight wasn't the best title reign ever, and him losing to Taylor really shows at lest to me how weak "some" or "most" of his title defences were. Boxing historians used to say Hopkins middleweight era was weak. And i think Taylor beating Hopkins proves this. Hopkins should not have lost to Taylor, not when the fights were close and all Hopkins had to do was punch more to win -yes, sounds easier then done.Comment
-
I agree with this.
LaMotta's many losses "disqualify" him from being ranked in the top 5 although some of those losses were controversial, many people at the time thought he actually won two or three of those fights with Robinson which is why they fought each other so many times.Comment
Tweet
Comment