Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-24-2012, 12:52 PM   #16
Bokaj
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,179
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

He has a strong case for being a top 3 MW, and even though he's by no means an ATG LHW his run there is highly impressive considering his age. The Tarver and Pavlik perfomances would even be very, very impressive for a moved up at MW that was in his prime years. For a moved up MW in his 40's they are quite astonishing.

To summarise: I rank him higher than both Hagler and Monzon.
Bokaj is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-24-2012, 01:48 PM   #17
dinovelvet
Up Top To The Head
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,571
vCash: 86
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

His MW career is littered with nobody's and the big name wins dont mean anything. He's lucky he was able to prosper in his 40's to make up for it.
dinovelvet is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 01:54 PM   #18
thistle1
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,073
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinovelvet View Post
His MW career is littered with nobody's and the big name wins dont mean anything. He's lucky he was able to prosper in his 40's to make up for it.
exactly!
thistle1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 02:02 PM   #19
Nightcrawler
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada!!!!
Posts: 2,215
vCash: 500
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokaj View Post
He has a strong case for being a top 3 MW, and even though he's by no means an ATG LHW his run there is highly impressive considering his age. The Tarver and Pavlik perfomances would even be very, very impressive for a moved up at MW that was in his prime years. For a moved up MW in his 40's they are quite astonishing.

To summarise: I rank him higher than both Hagler and Monzon.
can't do it myself. like his longevity, love his skills but he lacks either the big names or dominance against elite middleweight opposition to get him into the top 3.

i like hagler's opponents and monzon's consistency better. robinson has better names and wins as well and greb, taking everything into account, probably trumps them all.

hopkins is burdened by being in a TERRIBLE middleweight era and having to, like hagler, fight welters moving up. the problem for hopkins is that the fighters moving up aren't quite in the league of duran, hearns, griffith, or napoles

If I had to decide right now, I'd probably put hopkins 5 behind Greb, Monzon, Hagler and Robinson
Nightcrawler is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 02:07 PM   #20
the cobra
Awesomeizationism!
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,982
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Overall careers, I have him over Hagler. Resumes are of similar quality, similar dominance, similar ability/skill level in primes. The only major difference between the two is B-Hop's success above 160 and into his mid-40's. I think he's firmly the greater fighter, even if I'd only rank him a few spots higher on an ATG list.

I still have Monzon over him, but not by too much. Strictly at 160, I'd put him at #6.
the cobra is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 02:12 PM   #21
Nightcrawler
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada!!!!
Posts: 2,215
vCash: 500
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by the cobra View Post
Overall careers, I have him over Hagler. Resumes are of similar quality, similar dominance, similar ability/skill level in primes. The only major difference between the two is B-Hop's success above 160 and into his mid-40's. I think he's firmly the greater fighter, even if I'd only rank him a few spots higher on an ATG list.

I still have Monzon over him, but not by too much. Strictly at 160, I'd put him at #6.
really? on a p4p sense? interesting but honestly his post 160 career as you pointed out may well do it. hagler has a spot in my heart (hagler hearns is the first fight i ever watched and his fight with sibson is magical) but hopkins wins against pavlik, tarver and pascal may tip him over (**** the wright win)
Nightcrawler is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 02:15 PM   #22
red cobra
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Sea of Tranquility
Posts: 13,111
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokaj View Post
He has a strong case for being a top 3 MW, and even though he's by no means an ATG LHW his run there is highly impressive considering his age. The Tarver and Pavlik perfomances would even be very, very impressive for a moved up at MW that was in his prime years. For a moved up MW in his 40's they are quite astonishing.

To summarise: I rank him higher than both Hagler and Monzon.

Can't go that far, but he's definitely top 50.
red cobra is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 02:21 PM   #23
salsanchezfan
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Auburn, WA
Posts: 4,043
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

I think ultimately we'll remember Hopkins not for his many middleweight title defense, but his late-career weight jumping and title-grabbing. This is partly due, I think, to being merely a product of the times when world titles mean so little one must constantly seek new challenges in other weight classes to remain relevant. The older he remains relevant, the more interesting the story.

I agree with the consensus that his defenses were mostly against less-than great opposition, and that most champions we'd consider great could also run the tables against that bunch for a very long time. Still, you've got to be good to be that consistent and he did have to fight the occasional tough guy.

I'd put him a full notch below Hagler and Monzon in terms of his reign. Still one of the better ones, though.
salsanchezfan is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 02:26 PM   #24
red cobra
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Sea of Tranquility
Posts: 13,111
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by orriray59 View Post
Monzon is greater than Hopkins.
Both Monzon and Hagler are greater.
red cobra is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 02:31 PM   #25
Bokaj
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,179
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinovelvet View Post
His MW career is littered with nobody's and the big name wins dont mean anything. He's lucky he was able to prosper in his 40's to make up for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle1 View Post
exactly!
Of course dominating over 10 years, beating every notable opponent in the process, means a lot. To say otherwise is nonsense.
Bokaj is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 02:31 PM   #26
Tin_Ribs
Me
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 1,397
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Great but a mid tier great at best imo, whatever that means. If I had a list of the top however many fighters, I'd find him hard to rank, because his being active in his particular era has benefited and hampered him at the same time.

The generally piss poor standard of the post-95ish middleweight plus scene has aided his staple longevity and dominance, as has the opportunity to pick and choose his fights as his career has gone on, but other than Jones, Trinidad and maybe Calzaghe, it's also robbed him of the chance to put many/any really great scalps on his CV or consistently test his excellent skill set, which was often a level above the relative mediocrity around him.

His place in the top 10 middleweights is nailed on in a lot of people's eyes, but I have trouble making up my mind when I compare him even to lesser appreciated greats like Yarosz, who I think would've had a good chance at beating Nard and who fought in an absolutely stacked era and has loads of top wins with a few losses chucked in to the equation to show for it. I can remember sweet_scientist saying some time ago that El Feo Rodriguez has a better middleweight resume than Hopkins with a similar if slightly lesser level of dominance despite never winning the title, and I think it's a reasonable argument. How many top 10 lists do we see Rodriguez in these days? Don't get me wrong, rankings are largely biased and subjective anyway, so although having Hops in a top 10 is fine, I don't think it's a crime to not have him there either. Far from it really, although considering what a board favourite Hops is, I suspect I'll be very much in the minority here.

Middleweight history is deep beyond belief and it would have been interesting to see him in the mix in one of the really great eras with fighters who had a similar or greater number of tricks in their bag - the kind that have generally flummoxed Hopkins' opponents. Well, as interesting as such a flawed hypothetical posit can be seeing as he would've probably been a different person entirely had he been born back then, which is probably just as well when I half suspect that his often flat track bullying attitude wouldn't have washed nearly as well among the Murderer's Row.

Concerning his reasonable 175 exploits, had the post early 2000s era been quite better than what it has to date, I'm not so sure we'd have seen him carrying on with so much success or even carrying on at all, which you can't hold against him considering his age. He would've rightfully gone into very well earned retirement some time ago imo had the top dog been an Ezz Charles or a Foster, or even a Galindez with the likes of Yaqui Lopez and Richie Kates knocking around in the background. He still gets plenty of brownie points though for knocking off Tarver and the two travesties that are Pavlik and Pascal in addition to doing fairly well against Joe C when both of them were faded, Hopkins a bit more so.

What I've said can be applied to quite a few other fighters if we're being honest. And if nobody's said it so far (?), I'll point out in rather cliched fashion that Hopkins deserves massive credit for turning his life around the way he did.

As said before, I'll probably be in the minority with all of this and coming across as biased/harsh, but to paraphrase a saying (one that I hate), it wouldn't do for us all to be the same.
Tin_Ribs is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 02:32 PM   #27
the cobra
Awesomeizationism!
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,982
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post
really? on a p4p sense? interesting but honestly his post 160 career as you pointed out may well do it. hagler has a spot in my heart (hagler hearns is the first fight i ever watched and his fight with sibson is magical) but hopkins wins against pavlik, tarver and pascal may tip him over (**** the wright win)
That Wright win never did anything to you. It's decent, ok? Nothing great, but it's a decent win.

Anyway...

Not much either way in terms of resume. Hagler has one really, really great win and a series of solid, respectable ones. Hopkins has a few moderately great wins and a series of solid, respectable ones.

Not much either way in terms of dominance/consistency. Nard held the title for longer and made more defenses, but Hagler beat every man he ever faced bar Leonard. They both had a decade without a loss.

Each guy was a brilliant, absolutely fantastic fighter at their best. If you want to know, I'd favor Hopkins over Hagler, honestly, but they're right there with each other so no edge on this one, either.

Longevity is what splits the difference. Hagler's whole career spanned 14 years and he was done by his early 30's. Hopkins has been a championship level fighter for nearly 20 years and remains a quality Light Heavyweight just a few birthdays from 50. The fact that he's doing all of this after a jump up in weight, something Marv never attempted, only serves to seal the deal.

Monzon's a bit trickier, but I could see a case there, too.
the cobra is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 02:39 PM   #28
ushvinder
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Id say hes on par with hagler, people are really overrating hagler's win over duran. This is the same duran that was shutout by benitez and lost to kirkland laing not too long ago, hopkins win over trinidad is clearly better. Sure hagler beat better opposition at middleweight, but hagler never moved up. Hagler is much closer to hopkins than he is to duran/leonard on my all time lists.
ushvinder is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 02:45 PM   #29
Bokaj
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,179
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post
can't do it myself. like his longevity, love his skills but he lacks either the big names or dominance against elite middleweight opposition to get him into the top 3.

i like hagler's opponents and monzon's consistency better. robinson has better names and wins as well and greb, taking everything into account, probably trumps them all.

hopkins is burdened by being in a TERRIBLE middleweight era and having to, like hagler, fight welters moving up. the problem for hopkins is that the fighters moving up aren't quite in the league of duran, hearns, griffith, or napoles

If I had to decide right now, I'd probably put hopkins 5 behind Greb, Monzon, Hagler and Robinson
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.
Bokaj is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 02:46 PM   #30
Tin_Ribs
Me
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 1,397
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Id say hes on par with hagler, people are really overrating hagler's win over duran. This is the same duran that was shutout by benitez and lost to kirkland laing not too long ago, hopkins win over trinidad is clearly better. Sure hagler beat better opposition at middleweight, but hagler never moved up. Hagler is much closer to hopkins than he is to duran/leonard on my all time lists.
Neither would've Hopkins if it meant having to fight Spinks and the like. Plus Hagler wasn't really a big middleweight anyway.
Tin_Ribs is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013