Bernard Hopkins is the greatest middleweight in history

[Guest]

Again

I love the arrogance of that. Like who you're talking to is so intellectually limited they couldn't grasp your concept so you stress the "again"?

Hopkins dominated the middlewieght division for ten straight years, breaking the record for defenses. That puts him in some very exclusive company, and shows how consistant he was.

That seriously means so little to me. Anyone can have longevity against inferior competition.

The hallowed 20 defences of his title? What people fail to mention is that he only won 19 of them... the other was a no contest that one judge had him losing up to that point.

Those 20 bouts (with 17 opponents) were stretched out at a rate of two per year. Ray Robinson fought more men in his last two years than the whole of the decade for Hopkins. Okay, I appreciate that fighters were a lot more active back in the day, but it just highlights how meaningless it is to cite Hopkins's supposed greatness by how long he's managed to not get the belts taken from him.

Make a poll.

It would be overwhlemingly in favor of Hopking being a top ten, with top 5 coming in 2nd.

There's a reason why that's the popular opinion

Yeah... people are ******.

Not to be harsh, but I'm only interested in the opinion of 20% of the people on this site. The same people that vote for Vitali as the best heavy that annoys you so much (continually) are the same people that will vote for Hopkins as the best middle of all time.

"popular" opinion has zero interest for me, particularly when that opinion is being enforced by a media that isn't omnipresent for me. Informed opinion is what I'm interested in. So a poll wouldn't change my mind in the least.

[Bozo_no no]

That seriously means so little to me. Anyone can have longevity against inferior competition.

The hallowed 20 defences of his title? What people fail to mention is that he only won 19 of them... the other was a no contest that one judge had him losing up to that point.

Those 20 bouts (with 17 opponents) were stretched out at a rate of two per year. Ray Robinson fought more men in his last two years than the whole of the decade for Hopkins. Okay, I appreciate that fighters were a lot more active back in the day, but it just highlights how meaningless it is to cite Hopkins's supposed greatness by how long he's managed to not get the belts taken from him.

Why don't you go ahead and name me some of the other fighters with that kind of longevity that held a title for ten years and made a record number of defenses that wasn't an all time great fighter.

Also, guys fought more often pre 1970, that's nothing to be held agasitn fighters after that.

Joe Louis' record of title defense was based on some poor competition.

Hagler and Monzon fought their share of poor opposition.

When you've elected to stay and dominate one of the most historiclly renowned divisions in boxing, you're limited to the level of opposition available. Hopkins dominated for ten years and broke the record set by Monzon.

This is all in response to your comment that he's "lucky to be considered top 15 all time".

And lol at you talking about arrogence.

You go on to act like your judgment of who's opinion is and isn't worthy of your attention is pretty ****y.

It's not just the people on this site who'd call Hopkins a top ten all time middleweight, it's the VAST majority of writers, press, boxing pundits. Burt Sugar, Gil Clancey, Marvin Hagler himself, the list goes on.

[Guest]

Also, guys fought more often pre 1970, that's nothing to be held agasitn fighters after that.

I think you'll find I did already refer to that in my post.

But it works both ways - while you can't detract from fighters for not fighting much today (unless they're called Vitali, it seems...) you can't use that as an excuse for them, either. It's an not an either-or, you can't throw out statements about him being great because he held on to the belt for ten years when all he's got to do is take an average of two bouts per year.

This is all in response to your comment that he's "lucky to be considered top 15 all time".

And lol at you talking about arrogence.

You go on to act like your judgment of who's opinion is and isn't worthy of your attention is pretty ****y.

It's not just the people on this site who'd call Hopkins a top ten all time middleweight, it's the VAST majority of writers, press, boxing pundits. Burt Sugar, Gil Clancey, Marvin Hagler himself, the list goes on.

You see, this is where I get to what I said earlier about "omnipresent media".

I once had someone on this site claim that if you don't like Hop or RJJ, then you're "anti-American" or "only a Brit would say that". But the simple fact of the matter is, our media in terms of Roy (whose fights are pricey) and B-Hop is pretty much limited to seeing the fights themselves. We don't get the media proclaiming he's a great.

Seriously, I'd like to have this discussion in five, ten years time. Then we can see how magazines like The Ring (which, while seemingly impartial, have to base their sales on boxing still being popular, thus convincing people that the current era is better than it is... see "Castillo-Coralles I was arguably the best fight of all time") come to rerate it.

I can picture Bert Sugar in a crack house somewhere, laughing in that gravelly voice of his while he lights up another cigar. "Say Bert" says Hagler, "this Hopkins cat. Do you really mean what you say about him?"

Sugar roars with laughter and down a Jack Daniels in one. "Hell no, but the pay's good if I do."

Hagler looks relived. "Thank God for that. I thought it was just me ****tin' people about him."

[Parody]

what you people think.

bad karma, how can u say Hopkins is ahead of Sugar Ray Robinson..n u also said hes better than Marvin Hagler..? Come on!!... Bitchnard Bitchkins is in the Top 10 but number 1 is just 2 much...if he beats taylor in the rematch and give roy jones a rematch ill have him in the top 5 greatest middleweights

[kbpoetree]

bad karma, how can u say Hopkins is ahead of Sugar Ray Robinson..n u also said hes better than Marvin Hagler..? Come on!!... Bitchnard Bitchkins is in the Top 10 but number 1 is just 2 much...if he beats taylor in the rematch and give roy jones a rematch ill have him in the top 5 greatest middleweights

he tried given roy a rematch, roy was scared and dodged him for years..while neither one of em were fighting anyone..i think they should fight again and call it the "retirements of the legends"

[Bozo_no no]

I think you'll find I did already refer to that in my post.

But it works both ways - while you can't detract from fighters for not fighting much today (unless they're called Vitali, it seems...) you can't use that as an excuse for them, either. It's an not an either-or, you can't throw out statements about him being great because he held on to the belt for ten years when all he's got to do is take an average of two bouts per year.

This is a cop out.

He fought on average for his era, and if you'd care to look back at the days for Ray Robinson and Harry Greb etc, not all of the fights they took were defenses of the title, because they fought so often agaisnt police officers etc.

Hopkins broke the record for Middleweight defenses, and that includes previous champions who fought more often.

This is a flawed attempt at detracting from a remarkable accomplishment spread over a substantial period of time.

And Again (you seem to like it when I use that word) I'm waiting for you to name the other fighters who've held a title and dominated for that long that aren't all time great fighters. How's about just one?

Seriously, I'd like to have this discussion in five, ten years time. Then we can see how magazines like The Ring (which, while seemingly impartial, have to base their sales on boxing still being popular, thus convincing people that the current era is better than it is... see "Castillo-Coralles I was arguably the best fight of all time") come to rerate it.

I can picture Bert Sugar in a crack house somewhere, laughing in that gravelly voice of his while he lights up another cigar. "Say Bert" says Hagler, "this Hopkins cat. Do you really mean what you say about him?"

Sugar roars with laughter and down a Jack Daniels in one. "Hell no, but the pay's good if I do."

Hagler looks relived. "Thank God for that. I thought it was just me ****tin' people about him."

Where you're from, I believe they'd call this poppy****.

What the hell are you getting at with that? Try giving it a re-read. Burt Sugar and Marvin Hagler hanging out at a crack house???

[Guest]

And Again (you seem to like it when I use that word) I'm waiting for you to name the other fighters who've held a title and dominated for that long that aren't all time great fighters. How's about just one?

I haven't bothered with this because it's based on no form of logic I can perceive. Hopkins's achievements can't be measured on the basis of other fighters. Just because others that have done the same are greats doesn't automatically ensure that he is. That's like me saying everyone who lives in my street has a ten foot **** so I must be packing. It's logic by association.

All I'm saying is, having watched boxing for 20+ years, I look at what Hopkins does in the ring, and - regardless of titles, defences, longevity, opponents - I believe that he would be considered roughly mediocre in a previous age. Whether Bert Sugar or Larry ****ing Merchant disagrees, I don't care. I can absorb what they're saying, and respect their credentials, but it doesn't mean I have to accept their views as fact every time.

Where you're from, I believe they'd call this poppy****.

What the hell are you getting at with that? Try giving it a re-read. Burt Sugar and Marvin Hagler hanging out at a crack house???

I was just writing a little story for you, didn't you like it? Hagler doesn't hang out there, he's just popping in to see Bert. Bert's there sticking $100 bills in lap dancer's dresses pissing himself going "I love this titty bar".


We can carry on for a bit if you want, but you're going to win by stamina, taking me into the later rounds - it's just gone 1am where I live and I'm getting knackered.

[Bozo_no no]

regardless of titles, defences, longevity, opponents

This is where you lose me.

To me, there's no "regardless of his 10 year period of dominating the middleweight division while breaking the record of title defenses".

That is an unparalled acheivment in any era, and speaks for itself.

You don't dominate the middelweight division for 10 straight years without losing more than a handfull of rounds and break a record set by Monzon by not being a great fighter.

We can agree to disagree now.

I don't think there's anything left to say. We're obviosuly not changing eachother's minds.

[kbpoetree]

This is where you lose me.

To me, there's no "regardless of his 10 year period of dominating the middleweight division while breaking the record of title defenses".

That is an unparalled acheivment in any era, and speaks for itself.

You don't dominate the middelweight division for 10 straight years without losing more than a handfull of rounds and break a record set by Monzon by not being a great fighter.

We can agree to disagree now.

I don't think there's anything left to say. We're obviosuly not changing eachother's minds.

yeah its kinda like sayen Michael Johnson ****** in the 400m dash that he aint the greatest to run the 400m come on now, he's the champ, one of the greatest and when he retires it will b spoken of...hops only prob is the media doesnt like him cause he didnt let them play him like a puppet.

[Guest]

This is where you lose me.

To me, there's no "regardless of his 10 year period of dominating the middleweight division while breaking the record of title defenses".

That is an unparalled acheivment in any era, and speaks for itself.

You don't dominate the middelweight division for 10 straight years without losing more than a handfull of rounds and break a record set by Monzon by not being a great fighter.

We can agree to disagree now.

I don't think there's anything left to say. We're obviosuly not changing eachother's minds.

I see what you're saying... his achievements are his greatness. Whereas what I'm getting at (and doing badly at putting across, but it's 1:20am now) is that I view fighters by their ability, rather than what they've done on paper. To this end, I'd probably have RJJ above Hopkins, even though Hopkins has taken far more risks than Roy (though hasn't everybody?)


Fair play though, it's time to call it a day. Good fun having a debate with you though, Bozo, nice that it didn't once have to resort to any of this "flame" crap that's on the site a lot these days. Peace.