Originally posted by pso_junior
Some say it's unfair to give Hopkins a lower ranking because of his opposition. He doesn't have control over his era, etc. I say if you don't, it's unfair to those who had fought in golden eras.
Would Hopkins have 19 consecutive title defense if he fought the likes of LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, or Briscoe, Griffith, Valdez numerous times in succession? IMO, no. He may have a winning records, but he wouldn't go undefeated.
It's my personal belief that you should factor in level of opposition when determining a fighter's place in history. You may think otherwise, and that's just fine.
Comment