Watching BHOP on ESPN, he said his best career win was Trinidad. Agree?

[ИATAS]

Trinidad was no better than some of Hopkins other middleweight opponents. Winky might be a bad style matchup, that doesnt justify the one-sided nature of that fight though.


Hagler wouldnt get as much credit as he does now, if Hearns didnt go onto get some good wins at middleweight and above. I give hopkins credit for his win over Tito but he has better.

Again, Tito retired for a couple years and fought Winky 4-5 years after the Hopkins KO loss. He was never the same. Never took boxing seriously from that point on.

Hearns also didn't retire after losing to Hagler. If he did, Marvin would still get credit.

[SincereDaGreat]

I agree...I was a HUGE Tito fan and I was hoping he knocked BHOPs head off!!! With him being the underdog mixed in with the 9/11 attack...his emotions had to be at an all time high!!!

[dde91]

Hmmmm, well, you conveniently leave out Hearns wins over Wilfred Benitez, who is an ATG. And Pipino Cuevas, who is a HOF'er.

AND Roberto Duran ontop of that.

Those fights alone, makes him greater than Bernard Hopkins.

loss's don't mean much really, and losing to Jermain Taylor certainly doesn't.

Add other solid wins like;

Virgil Hill
James Schuler
Mark Medal
Fred Hutchings
Randy Shields
etc

Are atleast as good if not better than some of Hopkins better wins' such as Atwon Echols, Keith Holmes, Robert Allen and Howard Eastman

So yeah, I don't see it.

Hopkins- Echols, Holmes, Allen, Eastman, Trinidad(HOFer), undefeated Pavlik-Lipsy-Glen Johnson, Wright(borderline HOFer), Tarver, Pascal, De La Hoya(Hofer), some other ex title holders simon brown, william joppy, and John David Jackson.

Hearns has two ATG's. And fought a Golden Era. but To me Hopkins is the better all around fighter. Easily.

[jrosales13]

Hopkins- Echols, Holmes, Allen, Eastman, Trinidad(HOFer), undefeated Pavlik-Lipsy-Glen Johnson, Wright(borderline HOFer), Tarver, Pascal, De La Hoya(Hofer), some other ex title holders simon brown, william joppy, and John David Jackson.

Hearns has two ATG's. And fought a Golden Era. but To me Hopkins is the better all around fighter. Easily.

Nobody is arguing against that though.

There's a difference between better and greater.

The question was who's greater not better.

[dde91]

Trinidad was no better than some of Hopkins other middleweight opponents. Winky might be a bad style matchup, that doesnt justify the one-sided nature of that fight though.

Hagler wouldnt get as much credit as he does now, if Hearns didnt go onto get some good wins at middleweight and above. I give hopkins credit for his win over Tito but he has better.

Tito retired. And fought only 4 times i think in 7 years after.

[bojangles1987]

It was a masterful performance. And that's the fight that people really started to notice him and all his hard work paid off. So I agree.

Yeah, the performance plus the impact on his career makes that fight his best win.

[bojangles1987]

Hearns is great but almost everytime the odds were against him or the odds were even he didn't come up big. His biggest win to me is Duran which is a significant win because he knocked him out COLD. but other then that he gets knocked out, TKO'd by Leonard, Hagler, then Barkley. The Leonard and Barkley fights he was winning but got caught slipping. Hagler just used his brute strength to tax that ass. So to me Hopkins is better. Hopkins lost to Jones, Taylor twice and Calzaghe. but his Taylor and Calzaghe fights are disputed/CLOSE fights. And i think he beat Taylor 1 out of 2 times. The Calzaghe fight i dont even want to talk about. So i see Hopkins ahead of Hearns but behind other fighters like leonard, Duran, Hagler from that Fab 4. But he should definately get mentioned with them.

Dude, way to minimize Hearns's career. Come on.

Hearns is definitely the greater fighter.

[dde91]

Nobody is arguing against that though.

There's a difference between better and greater.

The question was who's greater not better.

Then Hopkins is the Greater all around fighter.

[ИATAS]

Regardless of Tito retiring, he would always struggle at middleweight. He wouldnt of been unsidputed champion. Beating Joppy doesnt mean he could beat everyone. I thought Eastman beat Joppy, I dont think he could be undisputed champ though.

If hopkins wasn't in the picture there was William Joppy (who he destroyed), Keith Holmes, Eastman, Robert Allen, Antwun Echols. He most certainly would have beat those guys imo.

Hagler would still get credit but not as much. Besides Hearns had done alot more than Tito had and is a far more skilled and versatile fighter.

Again, not comparing Tito's legacy to Hearns legacy, I'm using it as an example.

[ИATAS]

Then Hopkins is the Greater all around fighter.

I think they are saying greater as in his the greater fighter, All Time, as in legacy goes. They are arguing Hearns is legacy is greater than b-hops, based on the names on his resume.