Hopkins will go down as greater than Monzon or Hagler, with it being so recent with all the sceptics the focus is on the negative, all the negatives of Hagler and Monzon's reigns seem forgot and all the focus is now on their positives
I'd also say Hopkins opponents are considered poor because they don't have the greatest records but that was because Hopkins was knocking them off. Vanderpool for instance performs much better than Pavlik or Trinidad against BHOPs winning the first 4 rounds, but won't be remembered as a greater middleweight than them
Originally Posted by Boxed Ears
He's in my top fifty. But, he's under Jones, Pacquiao, Mayweather, ODLH and Holyfield from his own long stretch of time, for me. I know many will dispute a couple or even all of those names, but, frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn. Longevity is great. But longevity alone is not but one piece of the puzzle. I'd be shocked if Marvin Hagler lost, even in the neighbourhood of fairness, to a Jermain Taylor at any stage of his championship career, also. Even a controversial decision, honestly.
And if he were given the same environment as Hopkins, does anyone really think Hagler wouldn't be just as likely to hold that defence record as not? Pfffft. Hopkins is truly excellent and he's done great things but people get very carried away with his late-stage successes against guys who are good but not great, like Pascal and Pavlik. And I don't see him as still relevant on this current scene, so I'm betting the book is essentially closed on his career after his last two. He will probably remain in my top 30-50, somewhere.
I didn't get the joke BE???? WTF, where is it, I just can't see the joke, oh wait it's picking a 39yo Hagler over Jermaine Taylor?? Oh and rating DLH over him, that's a good one