View Single Post
Old 11-24-2012, 04:03 PM   #51
East Side Guru
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,243
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post
the difference for me is that most long reigning champions have a lot of filler competition with some great wins thrown in the mix.

louis has baer, walcott, conn, schmeling, etc.
Baer was terribly unskilled, Conn was 167 lbs when he faced Louis. Smaller than most MWs today. That you even name those fighters shows that there isn't that much to find. Still I rate Louis' reign tremedously.

hagler's reign has sibson, antefurmo, hamsho, and mugabi. add in hearns and duran and it's damn solid.
Don't think Sibson, Antefurmo and Hamsho looked like that much. Don't see how they would stand a notch above Joppy, Holmes and Echols for example. Hearns and Duran more or less equals Tito and DLH in my book. The difference is that neither Tito or DLH took Hopkins the distance Personally, I can't see Hopkins looking that bad against a past-prime, blown up former LW.

The Duran win doesn't elevate his standing in my eyes. It rather asks the question how he would do if he met more skilled boxers, which he really didn't face that many of.

Mugabi clearly was a dangerous opponent, though. Perhaps better than anyone of the above. But as I said, there isn't much in it. We're really splittting hairs here.

and the best middle he fought, jones, clearly beat him.
True, but Jones was phenom, though. And Hopkins gave him one of his best fights when still in his physical prime. Sure beats losing to Willie Monroe.

i guess i also just rate robinson's reign and his era much higher than you; difference of opinion and all
Think that era is very overrated. And Robinson is overrated as a MW. Not as a p4p fighter, though. He was something else, after all.
Bokaj is offline  Top
Reply With Quote