Why is Bernard Hopkins ranked so highly?

[Jack]

In most all-time middleweight lists he comes between 3-5, which is something I just don't get. Not only is he vastly overrated technically, which puts him down the list H2H, his resume is awful. He didn't beat a great 160lber, and his best wins are probably Trinidad and Tarver.

His resume doesn't rank highly at middleweight. And he'd get beaten by a lot of fighters there, too.

Luckily for him, he has victims like De La Hoya, Winky, Tito, Johnson and Tarver. I hope people over here realise how shallow these victories are.

I rank him around 15 at middleweight. If you disagree, please inform me on why. Without the usual bullshit age argument, too.

[hitman6616]

Originally Posted by Jack

In most all-time middleweight lists he comes between 3-5, which is something I just don't get. Not only is he vastly overrated technically, which puts him down the list H2H, his resume is awful. He didn't beat a great 160lber, and his best wins are probably Trinidad and Tarver.

His resume doesn't rank highly at middleweight. And he'd get beaten by a lot of fighters there, too.

Luckily for him, he has victims like De La Hoya, Winky, Tito, Johnson and Tarver. I hope people over here realise how shallow these victories are.

I rank him around 15 at middleweight. If you disagree, please inform me on why. Without the usual bullshit age argument, too.

sheer volume goes a long way. he beat the best possible middleweights as well. As Champ he beat alot of half descent guys like Lipsey,Jackson,Johnson,Echols,and Eastman.

he also beat a few good Solid fights like Holmes and Vanderpool durring his reign.

you cant discount his wins over De La Hoya and Trinidad just due to sise either. cause Hagler's biggist name wins were Hearns and Duran(who according to your logic were just too small for him) and he had a total of 20 defences of the title....thats saying something man.

as far as Wright and Tarver goes he wasnt a middleweight so we cant pay attention to all that.

so tell me who the 14 middleweight champs who were better champions and I'll show you the flaws in your arguement

[Sweet Pea]

In his prime, he was not overrated technically or head to head at all, provide details on why you think otherwise. I rate him at #5, though you could rate him lower, but I think it's his dominance that puts him as high as he is, combined with his skills, over his resume. Similar to a Calzaghe, but better resume-wise.

While some of his wins were not top MW's due to the fact that they didn't fight enough at the weight to prove themselves, they were guys who adjusted to the weight and were great fighters at other weights(aside from Oscar, who had no business at MW). Your argument is that his opponents didn't prove themselves at that particular weight, therefore are not good wins overall, which isn't true. It's like not counting Whitaker's win over Nelson just because he didn't fight often at LW, despite the fact that they were the same size and Nelson was a top 4 ATG just 5 pounds below. They were still very good opponents. Someone like Trinidad was a more dangerous opponent than most of top MW's, even though his best was at lower weights. Same with Winky.

People could make similar arguments for guys like Hagler fighting Leonard, Hearns, and Duran not rating higher at MW than lesser fighters due to their runs at the weight not being as good. Anyone knows that's totally bogus though, those were great wins regardless. Same with Monzon fighting guys like Griffith and Napoles. Their overall resumes are better though.

Still, his resume is not as good as a guy like Dick Tiger, but his dominance and consistency, as well as his head to head ability, are what puts him among the best.

[Robbi]

Originally Posted by Jack

In most all-time middleweight lists he comes between 3-5, which is something I just don't get. Not only is he vastly overrated technically, which puts him down the list H2H, his resume is awful. He didn't beat a great 160lber, and his best wins are probably Trinidad and Tarver.

His resume doesn't rank highly at middleweight. And he'd get beaten by a lot of fighters there, too.

Luckily for him, he has victims like De La Hoya, Winky, Tito, Johnson and Tarver. I hope people over here realise how shallow these victories are.

I rank him around 15 at middleweight. If you disagree, please inform me on why. Without the usual bullshit age argument, too.

I'll ask you this. Have a look at Hagler's record, Holmes', and Louis', and come back and tell me the same please. Because if you don't, I'll accuse you of double standards.

I have never been someone to knock a fighters accomplishments and quality of opponents to an absurd degree. Some people look through the magnifying glass to much, and simply critisize to extreme lengths.

You'll find that most long reigning champions have around 70-80% of their reign littered with journeymen and number one contenders. Fighters that are decent; good challengers.

[hitman6616]

so glad the majority of people on the classic forum know what there talking about

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by bravecubs

Boxing has most books rating him from 2-5!!! thats about right,hes great throwback !! look at the guys hes beat Echols,Allen, Mercado, hes a modern athlete, not some hype job oldtimer!! Zale,LaMotta,Burley >Their old names, come on Sweet Pea you know Dick Tiger wasnt anything !!! I know Isaw beat some 3rd names. Nobodies!!! Guys hype jobs!!! Come on Sweet Pea . Gene Fullmer,Ellsworth (spider) Webb,look at the name gene (ace)Armstrong( some honkyTom name) Giardello( sounds like some Italian caNDY).Cerdan,Ken Overlin, Give me a break!!!

I didn't understand. So you think Tiger and other "old timers" are overrated hype-jobs?

[sweet_scientist]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

I didn't understand. So you think Tiger and other "old timers" are overrated hype-jobs?

Sarcasm for sure. BC is old school.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

Sarcasm for sure. BC is old school.

I was thinking the same thing, he usually loves talking about those guys. I've just never seen him be sarcastic before.

[sweet_scientist]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

I was thinking the same thing, he usually loves talking about those guys. I've just never seen him be sarcastic before.

Didn't take long did it? Probably took a trip to the general forum. That should get him in the mood.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by Robbi

I'll ask you this. Have a look at Hagler's record, Holmes', and Louis', and come back and tell me the same please. Because if you don't, I'll accuse you of double standards.

Their records aren't overly impressive, either. However, I rate them all higher than Hopkins, as I think they do better against other greats. As far as resume goes, it's pretty even, sure. The difference being that Hagler does better against other great middleweights and the same for the two heavies against fighters of the same quality.

Originally Posted by Robbi

You'll find that most long reigning champions have around 70-80% of their reign littered with journeymen and number one contenders. Fighters that are decent; good challengers.

Certainly. But for a boxer to be consistently ranked in he top 5, do you not think he needs a win over at least one really top class fighter? I don't think Hopkins has that.

At the weight Hopkins fought them at, who is the fighter who ranks the highest in that division, all-time. Ignore P4P lists or their prime weight. Where is Oscar at 160lbs? Where is Winky at light heavy (Or 168, if you want)? Tito at 160? Johnson at 160? These people rank nowhere. Surely the highest would be Tarver, who probably places about 25th?

I can see the consistency argument, certainly. Personally, I don't think it's too important but if you do, fair enough.

[brownpimp88]

Originally Posted by Jack

Their records aren't overly impressive, either. However, I rate them all higher than Hopkins, as I think they do better against other greats. As far as resume goes, it's pretty even, sure. The difference being that Hagler does better against other great middleweights and the same for the two heavies against fighters of the same quality.

Certainly. But for a boxer to be consistently ranked in he top 5, do you not think he needs a win over at least one really top class fighter? I don't think Hopkins has that.

At the weight Hopkins fought them at, who is the fighter who ranks the highest in that division, all-time. Ignore P4P lists or their prime weight. Where is Oscar at 160lbs? Where is Winky at light heavy (Or 168, if you want)? Tito at 160? Johnson at 160? These people rank nowhere. Surely the highest would be Tarver, who probably places about 25th?

I can see the consistency argument, certainly. Personally, I don't think it's too important but if you do, fair enough.

hagler's best wins at 160 are hamsho, briscoe, sibson, antuofermo and minter. Where do you think they rank at 160?

[Marciano Frazier]

Monzon, Hagler and Robinson all built their middleweight resumes largely off lighter guys moving up in weight as well. Middleweight is often kind of a transition division and a lot of guys move up to and from it. Fact is, Hopkins has beaten some of the absolute best championship-caliber guys of his era, smaller than he was and bigger than he was. He had one of the longest middleweight title reigns in history and was exceptionally dominant. It isn't his fault the middleweight division was generally shallow through his tenure as champion. I don't think Hopkins' place in the pantheon of middleweights is really set just yet, with him and many of his opponents still active, but certainly ranking him in the elite tiers is not ridiculous.

Hopkins was a great fighter, simply because he was a world class fighter for such a long time, great longevity and he took his profession and conditioning seriously. He's a great fighter.

BUT I dont go along with that stuff that he made "a record 20 defences", he simply was not considered the middleweight champion until he beat Trinidad. I also think he benefitted from the fact that Roy Jones Jr. and other notable fighters chose to campaign at the new 168 division in the 1990s.

He wouldn't make my top 10 middleweights of all-time.

[Russell]

Consistency, for starters.

Not to mention that he just hasn't BEATEN the people he's run into, he's systematically destroyed them, even when they've been unbeaten, hos prospects.

His dismantlings of Trinidad and Glen Johnson come to mind.

Only man to ever stop Trinidad, ODLH, and Johnson as well.