Bernard Hopkins - How great?

[the cobra]

Originally Posted by red cobra

Just a cursory glance at an old boxing mag, circa '73-'74, to read of all the experts in the game that thought napoles would be "too much" for Monzon would be worth reading (if you could get your hands on one of those old mags). The prevailing thought was that Naploes would make Monzon look like a slow, clumsy cigar store Indian, and win going away. Really, there have been heavyweight matches with a bigger disparity in height, weight and reach than Monzon-Napoles. mantequilla overreached against the bigger, superior man, but so many, including Angelo Dundee and Gil Clancy thought that he could pull it off.

That's fine if they thought he could pull it off. They we're obviously way, way wrong. Maybe Monzon wins even if they were the same size, but the actual match up saw Monzon with an unfair advantage.


I'd pick most decent Middleweights over Napoles, nevermind arguably the best one ever. Not any better, or maybe even as good, as Hagler's win over Duran or Hopkins' win over De La Hoya.

[Tin_Ribs]

Originally Posted by ushvinder

He still fought roy jones, which is a far bigger risk than anything hagler was willing to do. I wouldnt be shocked if hopkins outboxed qawi by staying on the outside, spinks was great, but the other light heavyweights from that era get overrated. Qawi is a fighter i like, but he never beat a good fighter in his prime, most of qawi's wins are over shot fighters, something that ESB tends to ignore. How do you know for certain that qawi would whoop tarver? hes never really beaten a peak fighter, im sure tarver would have stopped a shot saad muhammad, a shot leon spinks, and a shot mike rossman.

Hagler came up through a far tougher middleweight division than Hopkins and had to wait ages to get his shot before going into the lion's den to face a good champion and winning dominantly before being showered in all kinds of abuse for doing so. He took plenty of risks. He was also 5'9 and had every possible pound packed into his frame; his body just wasn't suited to moving up, much less against a killer like Spinks. Even against the stronger middles like Minter, Sibbo, Vito, Briscoe, Hamsho etc he gave ground. Hopkins is about 6'0/6'1 and was able to gain weight far more effectively with the help of Shilstone.

Can't agree with you about Qawi, I don't think the old version of Hopkins would have touched him with a barge pole. His legs were far too diminished and he was more of a clever, scrappy spoiler at that stage imo, which isn't the way to go against Qawi whatever you think of him. I've already said I don't think Hops would have hung around at 175 if there were more world class fighters there, and I'll stick with that.

Jones is undoubtedly a great fighter in retrospect but can you say he was viewed that way at the time? If Hopkins was that much of a risk taker, why not pursue Jones when they were both at their respective peaks when it would have made mega bucks and settled the score? Instead of having a series with Robert Allen?

Anyway, I get the impression we're only going to go in circles here so we'll agree to disagree.

[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.

[PowerPuncher]

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

[Nightcrawler]

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.

co the fuck sign. i gave taylor both by a round. could hopkins have won? sure but he didn't. and they were not robberies but close fights turned into taylor wins by hopkins inability/apathy/distain for throwing punches. taylor won by wanting it more and throwing punches to take close rounds

hopkins is very very good. even great. but he showed his ceiling against jones, losing by a fair margin. then by thrice getting outworked in winnable fights against taylor and then calzaghe. for the smartest fighter in the game or whatever, he sure hasn't learned his fucking lesson. pascal held him to a (disputed) draw by doing the same fucking thing

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

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]

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.

Well, he'd been retired for 7 years when he was at the age Hopkins was when he lost to Taylor. For my part, I have a hard time seeing Hopkins reasonably close to his best losing to a WW coming out of 3 year retirement, which he spent mainly sniffing coke.

Hopkins did face the two best WWs of his era and soundly defeated both. No former LW, way past his prime, made him look foolish either.

[frankwornank]

Not a great fighter. Very boring. The kind of fighter that detracts from the sport. He wins but is hard to watch.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

Well, he'd been retired for 7 years when he was at the age Hopkins was when he lost to Taylor. For my part, I have a hard time seeing Hopkins reasonably close to his best losing to a WW coming out of 3 year retirement, which he spent mainly sniffing coke.

Hopkins did face the two best WWs of his era and soundly defeated both. No former LW, way past his prime, made him look foolish either.

true but selective phrasing.another way of putting it is that a rusty, 12 month off hagler BARELY lost to one of the 20 greatest fighters of all time who had a perfect strategy.


hopkins beatdown of tito is boner-inspiring. oscar was no middleweight simple and that win means about as much as monzon's over napoles. duran is one of the best fighters ever and his fight plan to was amazing. i don't see hopkins doing any better...he'd be in with someone with a better lead/overhand right than his own, better movement, patience and fantastic defense

[Boxed Ears]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

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

Originally Posted by Bokaj

Well, he'd been retired for 7 years when he was at the age Hopkins was when he lost to Taylor. For my part, I have a hard time seeing Hopkins reasonably close to his best losing to a WW coming out of 3 year retirement, which he spent mainly sniffing coke.

Hopkins did face the two best WWs of his era and soundly defeated both. No former LW, way past his prime, made him look foolish either.

Are there really still hardcore boxing fans who believe longevity is only a matter of years lived and nothing else? Why, I thought they only existed in propaganda fairy tales from MMA proponents. Dear, oh, dear, oh, dear. You hear about these types but you never dream they live in your neck of the woods.

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

co the fuck sign. i gave taylor both by a round. could hopkins have won? sure but he didn't. and they were not robberies but close fights turned into taylor wins by hopkins inability/apathy/distain for throwing punches. taylor won by wanting it more and throwing punches to take close rounds

hopkins is very very good. even great. but he showed his ceiling against jones, losing by a fair margin. then by thrice getting outworked in winnable fights against taylor and then calzaghe. for the smartest fighter in the game or whatever, he sure hasn't learned his fucking lesson. pascal held him to a (disputed) draw by doing the same fucking thing

Good man.

[ushvinder]

Originally Posted by Tin_Ribs

Hagler came up through a far tougher middleweight division than Hopkins and had to wait ages to get his shot before going into the lion's den to face a good champion and winning dominantly before being showered in all kinds of abuse for doing so. He took plenty of risks. He was also 5'9 and had every possible pound packed into his frame; his body just wasn't suited to moving up, much less against a killer like Spinks. Even against the stronger middles like Minter, Sibbo, Vito, Briscoe, Hamsho etc he gave ground. Hopkins is about 6'0/6'1 and was able to gain weight far more effectively with the help of Shilstone.

Can't agree with you about Qawi, I don't think the old version of Hopkins would have touched him with a barge pole. His legs were far too diminished and he was more of a clever, scrappy spoiler at that stage imo, which isn't the way to go against Qawi whatever you think of him. I've already said I don't think Hops would have hung around at 175 if there were more world class fighters there, and I'll stick with that.

Jones is undoubtedly a great fighter in retrospect but can you say he was viewed that way at the time? If Hopkins was that much of a risk taker, why not pursue Jones when they were both at their respective peaks when it would have made mega bucks and settled the score? Instead of having a series with Robert Allen?

Anyway, I get the impression we're only going to go in circles here so we'll agree to disagree.

Duran was able to fight 5 weight classes past his best weight, whitaker was able to fight all the way up to 154, leonard fought all the way up to 168, but hagler wasn't meant to move up, sorry not buying it. Hagler was a great fighter but to me, if I were to rank the 5 best fighters from 1960 and onwards, hagler wouldnt even get a mention. Ali and Duran are far greater than him, leonard, whitaker and pac rank higher, as does napoles for me. Roy Jones would beat marvin at any weight class. I would also rank carlos ortiz above him.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

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.



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.




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.



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.

i may not agree with you but it was a pleasure as always sir

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by Boxed Ears

Are there really still hardcore boxing fans who believe longevity is only a matter of years lived and nothing else? Why, I thought they only existed in propaganda fairy tales from MMA proponents. Dear, oh, dear, oh, dear. You hear about these types but you never dream they live in your neck of the woods.

Of course not. Still doesn't make 40 a virgin age. 40 is old for a top athlete any way you twist it.

And it's hardly like Hagler was a ring wreck himself when he lost to Leonard. He was about the same age, but with less fights, as a certain former LW was when he gave Hagler some trouble.

We don't know really what version of Hagler a 40-year old Hopkins would translate into, and how that version of Hagler would do against Taylor. But we do know that Hopkins at no stage in his career had trouble with former LWs past their prime or lost to former WWs coming off long lay-offs.

[Bokaj]

...

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

true but selective phrasing.another way of putting it is that a rusty, 12 month off hagler BARELY lost to one of the 20 greatest fighters of all time who had a perfect strategy.

I was phrasing it the way everyone was phrasing it at the time. Hindsight and Hagler worship has rephrased it in some places, but I'm not terribly impressed by that.

That you call Hagler "rusty" in this context is quite hilarious. Just wished more people here saw the joke.

hopkins beatdown of tito is boner-inspiring. oscar was no middleweight simple and that win means about as much as monzon's over napoles. duran is one of the best fighters ever and his fight plan to was amazing. i don't see hopkins doing any better...he'd be in with someone with a better lead/overhand right than his own, better movement, patience and fantastic defense

Duran was nothing special as a MW. Not only Benitez and Hearns, but also Laing had previously handled him far easier at 154. If Hopkins had had similar problems with, say, the Whitaker that faced Tito we wouldn't hear the end of it. Or even the Whitaker that faced DLH. It would be taken as a water tight proof that only the extremely shitty state of the MW division made Hopkins able to dominate it.

Even much more so than is currently the case. But for Hagler it's put forth as one of his better wins.