Bernard Hopkins top ten of alltime

[RubenSonny]

Yea a list thats an opinion of some fcking writer,look at Bert Sugar and some of the ******ed sht he says.

I just countered your claim that Marciano was underrated by saying pretty much everyone in the history section has him in the top 10, and Sugar has him at number 5 so whats your point? Which boxing historians underrate Marciano? And for the record every Sugar list I've seen is atrocious.

[RubenSonny]

Yea a list thats an opinion of some fcking writers,i will trust Alis word.

What does trusting Alis word mean? How is Marciano being in every top 10 list underrating him (most top 5 including the ****** Bert Sugar)?

Really? Realllly? You're genuinely trying to argue Hopkins is greater than Monzon at 160?

Sooooo you're saying more title defences=greater?

Hopkins has 20 title defences. Ok? Nowwww compare those to Monzon's 14 title defences. Not even ****ing close.

How many HOF middleweight's did Hopkins beat compared to Monzon?

Actually, forget that, how many Top 5 fighters at the time he fought them did Hopkins beat compared to Monzon?

Answer those questions for me please.

An Monzon's middleweight era is 1,000X better than Hopkins Middleweight era.

6 in reality.

[IronDanHamza]

I love how when I bring facts to the table everyone changes the subject. Debate the validity of my points or throw out name calling like a baby. Either way your ignorance is sad and pathetic.

No one has bothered responding because what you are saying is so ****ing moronic.

Still waiting on your answers, though.

[Steak]

realistically, Hopkins wasnt actually the best in the division until he beat Keith Holmes. I dont know off the top of my head how many 'title defenses' he had, but I can tell you right now it is less than Monzon and Hagler.

Hopkins fought in a weak division, plain and simple. and even then he beat a fair amount of top opponents, but no more than Monzon and Hagler. Also, people completely overlook this, but Hagler had been beating ranked guys for quite a while before he finally got a title shot, such as Mike Colbert, Bennie Briscoe, Loucif Hamani, and Bobby Watts. Point is(I say this so often it seems): TITLE DEFENSES ARE EXTREMELY MISLEADING, ESPECIALLY IN AN ERA WHERE THERE ARE OVER 4 TITLE BELTS AND UNDESERVING CHALLENGERS.

people thought Hagler was the best Middleweight ever even as far back as 1982

mind you, this is dead in the middle of his title reign, and even before he fought Duran or Hearns.

point is: Hopkins is not the best middleweight of all time, although you can make a case for him being better than Hagler/Monzon in a p4p sense.

I think history will be quite generous to Hopkins however.

[$coinblatt$]

Monzon held the middleweight title for 7 years and defended it 14 times. How is that better than B-Hop holding a major title for 10 years, winning all 4 titles in that span and defending it 20 times? How is that 10 billion light years greater than Hopkins when its not even on par with B-Hop?

Your a ****ing moron and that is just to start, seriously.

lol what a fucken idiot

[Derranged]

No way Mark. Maybe top 10 mw.

[cupocity303]

I don't know where he is at exactly P4P ATG wise, not including his Middleweight ranking.

All I know in this posters humble opinion, that he is ahead of Roy Jones and they're from the same era.

Debate that.

[studentofthegam]

You're right my friend, none of those guys could ball in todays NFL. But we have to remember the rankings arent based on today they are just simply based on the sport. So in their time they were beasts. They dont drop in status as athletes get better. The old timers dues were paid.

In some cases. In some sports. When you say based on the sport that should include the changes in the sport too. A lot of it is all nostalgia. If you cant get a timeline of fights to watch on a guy how solid can his ranking really be? I cant put Bhop in the top 10 right now but I do have to look at how he matches up with old fighters too. Its like Venus williams would crush the greatest tennis player from any other era and it cant be disregarded. ALi would have blistered Joe Louis. So a H2H fantasy match -up holds as much weight as anything in an opinionated list. To me better is better. Accomplishments and the eye test should be equal parts is all Im saying.

[IronDanHamza]

In some cases. In some sports. When you say based on the sport that should include the changes in the sport too. A lot of it is all nostalgia. If you cant get a timeline of fights to watch on a guy how solid can his ranking really be? I cant put Bhop in the top 10 right now but I do have to look at how he matches up with old fighters too. Its like Venus williams would crush the greatest tennis player from any other era and it cant be disregarded. ALi would have blistered Joe Louis. So a H2H fantasy match -up holds as much weight as anything in an opinionated list. To me better is better. Accomplishments and the eye test should be equal parts is all Im saying.

That's your opinion.

One that many disagree with.

Although if I understand you correctly you are saying it's based on acheivment not who woul win H2H? If so I agree.

And it isn't nostaligia. Carlos Monzon is greater than Hopkins. That is NOT nostalgia. That is factual/clear as day.

[Marcov]

I would say top 5 or 6 middleweights but top 10 all time? Theres too many greats for there to be much room in the top 30 much less top ten.