Originally Posted by Surf-Bat
In my opinion? Considerably. By a mile.
I doubt it. I have watched his entire career and he's shown me nothing that would indicate that he was as good a fighter as Marshall. He fought in a comparatively laughable division.
Really? Beating down a 72-fight veteran like Archie Moore, who has the weight advantage btw, knocking him down 4 times and almost stopping him shouldn't factor into this debate? You consider that "poor reasoning"? You might wanna look at your own reasoning here, cuz it's kinda odd
What victories on Hopkins' resume make you believe that he would have a shot at beating the 59-8 (46 KOs) Archie Moore who fought Burley? Maybe I'm shortsighted, but I see absolutely nothing on his ledger that would support such a claim.
That is precisely what I am saying. He could beat the Hogues and possibly Wade. That's about it. The others were more seasoned against FAR better opposition. Hopkins has nothing to show them that they haven't seen a thousand times. He was a skilled fighter in a comparatively sad division. To compare him to those guys is silly to me. BHop ruled for as long as he did because the MW division was a sad shell of its former glory. Anyone who thinks he rules for over a decade and with 20-plus title defenses in any other era is delusional.
He would be competitive to a degree. But he definitely comes up short. Just my 2 cents
and this sums it all up, exactly as I always state...
the ERA, Comp and Longeivity in it...
their Sealed, they did it, the Bhops & RJones' have to be veiwed in this light, always, - and beginning with what weight division they would actually be fighting at!!!