Is Hopkins is the best 160lbs fighter ever

[Abstraction]

hard to name the best 3.
But Hopkis had the style to make anyone look akward and uncomfortable.

Top 3 easily should include either Hagler, Hopkins, Robinson or Monzon

[Dynamite Kid]

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.

Hagler's loss to Leonard was only controversial, because Hagler cried about it, most of the people ive shown the fight to for the first time have Leonard winning, and thats without any prompting from myself. Ive scored Hagler v Leonard more than once myself and i have tried to give Hagler the benefit of the doubt in the close rounds and i still have Leonard winning.

Hagler did get robbed against Bobby Watts imo. Watts did well for the first 4/5 rounds, but then faded and Hagler was pressing the action all the way to the end whilst Watts was looking for a place to run or hold etc.


I haven't seen his loss to Monroe allthough i here it was debatable also.

[Dynamite Kid]

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.

You make it sound like Hopkins was in his prime when he lost too Taylor. Hagler did not fair to well against Mugabi or Leonard either when he was out of his prime or when he stepped up his level of oposition against Duran.

[them_apples]

styles make fights, I think that Hearns - whome Hagler dusted would beat Hopkins via UD12, however, I see Hopkins beating Hagler UD12.

In terms of greatness I see it Hagler, Hopkins, Monzon...but seeing as Hopkins has been fighting into his 40's and winning it could change.

I just think that Hearns/Duran is slightly better than Trinidad/De La hoya/20 career defenses

[GMitchell]

Hagler is the best, he beat better opposition. Although I have much respect for Hopkins.

[andrewcuff]

Hagler is the man for me at 160. If you watch his earlier fights you see a more technical side to his fights, rather than the brawler you see in the Hearns/Mugabi fights. Just my 2 cents