Originally Posted by Bokaj
Think there's very little, if anything, between Hagler's and Hopkins' reigns. Was Hearns really a better MW than Tito? Doubtful. He never blew out a top MW contender like Tito blew out Joppy as I recall. Was Duran a better MW than DLH? Also doubtful. There's at best room for nitpicking between their reigns.
I'd say the same about Monzon's more or less, although I know that one less well. But great names as Griffith and Napoles are they didn't really do much at MW either, did they? And weren't they aging as well?
Robinson's main wins were over LaMotta. Then we have an aging Graziano. After that he swapped wins and losses against the top MWs he met. Can't see this as a better MW record than Hopkins going unbeaten for 12 years at MW, cleaning out the division in the process.
1)true, but p4p they are both ahead of oscar and tito. none of them did much at mw at cept for tito's win over joppy. but yeah, small and relatively old scalps
2) with Robinson i have to disagree a bit...he's got wins over lamotta, basillio, fullmer, olsen, graziano, and a host of top contenders. that's 5 hall of famers right there, whose best work was done at middleweight. hopkins really doesn't have ANY wins at middle over great middleweights. robinson did split some of those fights but when you fight triliogies with elite fighters, it makes sense
3)hopkins cleaned out the division but taking out tito, his best wins may be against glen johnson, holmes and howard eastman. the division was weak and like wlad now, he's unfortunately suffering a bit for it