Bernard Hopkins - How great?

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

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

[ushvinder]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

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.




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.

Dont forget that duran actually won like 5-6 rounds against hagler, pretty sad. Hagler gets more credit for beating little guys than any other fighter in the history of the sport.

[redrooster]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

he is a hard one to rate. He is great, yet he was not top 30 ATG.. A very solid fighter..

solid but not inspirational

how good you are in any industry is marked by how memorable you are

he does have longevity that others didnt have

[the cobra]

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.

This comes across as a critical somewhat negative post, but I think you rate him as high as anyone, my man. No one really claims he deserves better than 30-50. I'll still pick him over Cleverly, btw, if that actually goes down.


Also: Mayweather - fine, whatever, fine...but fuck that De la Hoya shit.

[Bummy Davis]

He got better as he aged and picked up the level of opposition as he aged...His move up in weight proved to be a positive one....I rate him an ATG but I felt he lost clearly to Calzage...the older version very schooled would give trouble to the best but loses to the top 5- top 10...pulls out a few good wins while at it but loses to the best

[Tin_Ribs]

Originally Posted by ushvinder

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.

Don't buy it all you like, means jack squat. It's a commonly accepted common sense notion that Hagler's height and body type weren't suited to him putting on another stone in weight whether you agree or not. Unlike Duran, Hearns, Leonard and Hopkins. Not all fighters are physically the same funnily enough, and God like geniuses such as Duran and Pea are hardly a normal barometer anyway. Still, if Hagler had had the luxury of moving up to face someone a champion as historically mediocre as Tarver and not an ATG master like Spinks, he might have entertained it.

Out of the career/mainly career middleweights, I'm struggling to think of one who could step up to 175 and have anything like a fair chance against Spinks. You're the first person I've heard slag Hagler off for not fighting him and that speaks for itself. Marv knew where his ceiling was, like Monzon did when he didn't tackle Foster, Galindez or Conteh and like Robinson did when he didn't tackle Moore (yeah, I know he fought feather-fisted Maxim, which is my point). And like Hopkins did when he never bothered to tackle Jones a second time when it mattered despite them being a similar size, which seems to have bypassed you.

Hagler paid his dues for years on his way up, probably for relative peanuts. It took a fuckload of toil for him earn the title and the division was full of solid, worthy challengers to keep him occupied as well as potential blockbusters against Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Curry or Leonard should they choose to challenge him, with Tommy, Ray and Don being physically well suited to do so. Why challenge Spinks for financial fuck all only to get your block knocked off? Don't bother answering, that was a rhetorical question. It's called high risk/low reward, or futility in this particular case and doesn't affect Hagler's legacy negatively, especially when he ruled all and sundry with an iron fist.

I agree that all the fighters you mentioned are greater than Hagler. They're greater than Hopkins too.

Can we leave it at that?

[Boxed Ears]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

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.

Blue: If you understood me correctly, this would not be here. It's like an umpire and a coach are arguing out or safe and some drunken fan stumbles in and starts yammering about corked bats. I cannot argue about corked bats with you, Bo. Nor was I talking about them to begin with.

Green: When a guy dethrones one of the great welterweight champions, was clearly a top shelf welterweight, even by historical standards, becomes a light middleweight champion and goes on to become a middleweight champion and is regarded by most as one of the top 5-10 greatest fighters to ever live, he's still just a lightweight. Meanwhile, Jermain Taylor is just Jermain Taylor. Hopkins lost rounds to a former super featherweight, however, I should mention, since we're being silly.

Originally Posted by the cobra

This comes across as a critical somewhat negative post, but I think you rate him as high as anyone, my man. No one really claims he deserves better than 30-50. I'll still pick him over Cleverly, btw, if that actually goes down.


Also: Mayweather - fine, whatever, fine...but fuck that De la Hoya shit.

If it's negative to rate a guy in the top 50 fighters to ever live, I don't think you'd like to see me give my more critical opinions. Yeah, many rate Hopkins higher than 30-50. More than you'd think, apparently. ODLH? Well, Hopkins' best win, as far as quality of opponent in the time and place he defeated them was arguably over a guy I have ODLH clearly defeating at said opponent's best weight, which was two weights lower. I think Oscar's got the better resume overall, and clearly, in my opinion. And I prefer his accomplishments. Both were sporadically ranked the top p4p fighter on many lists and more often than not in the top tens on all the lists while still fresh. If you think it's a bit crazy, I can't help that. I just can't consider them so far off, let alone in the position of Hopkins ahead and being so far off. But if we all saw everything the same way, this forum would be fairly boring.

[IntentionalButt]

Originally Posted by Boxed Ears

It's like an umpire and a coach are arguing out or safe and some drunken fan stumbles in and starts yammering about corked bats.

[the cobra]

Originally Posted by Boxed Ears

If it's negative to rate a guy in the top 50 fighters to ever live, I don't think you'd like to see me give my more critical opinions. Yeah, many rate Hopkins higher than 30-50. More than you'd think, apparently. ODLH? Well, Hopkins' best win, as far as quality of opponent in the time and place he defeated them was arguably over a guy I have ODLH clearly defeating at said opponent's best weight, which was two weights lower. I think Oscar's got the better resume overall, and clearly, in my opinion. And I prefer his accomplishments. Both were sporadically ranked the top p4p fighter on many lists and more often than not in the top tens on all the lists while still fresh. If you think it's a bit crazy, I can't help that. I just can't consider them so far off, let alone in the position of Hopkins ahead and being so far off. But if we all saw everything the same way, this forum would be fairly boring.

Ignorant general fans who, like, totally could have swore that Fighting Harada was a 300lbs professional wrestler during the 1980's might rate Hopkins in the top 30, but most people who know what they're talking about have him where you have him. I didn't mean you were being negative, I meant that it seemed like you were trying to be negative (what with the "If Hagler..." stuff) while actually being quite realistic. It was like, "Sure, he's great and all...but only 30-50 great." The post has an attitude of its own, and that was its attitude. Meanwhile, the really, really intelligent and well-informed posters who are slightly biased in B-Hop's favor were saying things like, "I'd have him inside the top 40." So, basically, it seemed like you were trying to be negative but failed. On the DLH issue, I don't like him in the top 50. I'd have him about 30 spots back. Hopkins firmly ahead for me based on dominance, longevity, looking the better fighter, and so on, but yeah, the boring bit is true.



And that's as serious a debate-type thing as I will ever do with you, because it's wrong. It feels wrong. Sick wrong.

[Boxed Ears]

Okay, okay. It's all good. We're getting too old for this shit.

[the cobra]

N..no? Ok, my bad. My bad, everyone.

[ushvinder]

Originally Posted by Tin_Ribs

Don't buy it all you like, means jack squat. It's a commonly accepted common sense notion that Hagler's height and body type weren't suited to him putting on another stone in weight whether you agree or not. Unlike Duran, Hearns, Leonard and Hopkins. Not all fighters are physically the same funnily enough, and God like geniuses such as Duran and Pea are hardly a normal barometer anyway. Still, if Hagler had had the luxury of moving up to face someone a champion as historically mediocre as Tarver and not an ATG master like Spinks, he might have entertained it.

Out of the career/mainly career middleweights, I'm struggling to think of one who could step up to 175 and have anything like a fair chance against Spinks. You're the first person I've heard slag Hagler off for not fighting him and that speaks for itself. Marv knew where his ceiling was, like Monzon did when he didn't tackle Foster, Galindez or Conteh and like Robinson did when he didn't tackle Moore (yeah, I know he fought feather-fisted Maxim, which is my point). And like Hopkins did when he never bothered to tackle Jones a second time when it mattered despite them being a similar size, which seems to have bypassed you.

Hagler paid his dues for years on his way up, probably for relative peanuts. It took a fuckload of toil for him earn the title and the division was full of solid, worthy challengers to keep him occupied as well as potential blockbusters against Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Curry or Leonard should they choose to challenge him, with Tommy, Ray and Don being physically well suited to do so. Why challenge Spinks for financial fuck all only to get your block knocked off? Don't bother answering, that was a rhetorical question. It's called high risk/low reward, or futility in this particular case and doesn't affect Hagler's legacy negatively, especially when he ruled all and sundry with an iron fist.

I agree that all the fighters you mentioned are greater than Hagler. They're greater than Hopkins too.

Can we leave it at that?

Spinks had no problem taking a beating from tyson, hagler didnt move up and give spinks his 'name' win. Marvin knew that all of his fights were going to be on tv, he couldn't entertain the thought of getting beat up by michael spinks. Hagler is a great, but not a top 10 or even top 20 all time fighter. Fitzsimmons and greb would have fought spinks, they are warriors, hagler is a businessman that feasts on smaller guys.

Leonard and Duran went the distance with the guy, if Hagler moved up could he even last the distance with Spinks, or would he get stopped within 3 rounds.

[dinovelvet]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

Of course dominating over 10 years, beating every notable opponent in the process, means a lot. To say otherwise is nonsense.

But they're not "notable" therefor post is renderd void.

[dyna]

Wasn't Duran the most skilled of the fab4?

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by Boxed Ears

Blue: If you understood me correctly, this would not be here. It's like an umpire and a coach are arguing out or safe and some drunken fan stumbles in and starts yammering about corked bats. I cannot argue about corked bats with you, Bo. Nor was I talking about them to begin with.

I understood you perfectly, but I think you missed out on something. I'll make it easy for you: Hopkins was some way past his prime and probably had a hard time making weight when he lost to Taylor.

Can't really understand why it should be a big strike against him that he lost two close fights to an average opponent when he was 40 and had stayed in the same weight class for some 15 years. If the Taylor losses were a true measure of his ability, and not just soemthing that happened because of his age, don't you think he would have been exposed sooner?

Please tell me what other fighters that have losses at this age that you really hold against them.

Green: When a guy dethrones one of the great welterweight champions, was clearly a top shelf welterweight, even by historical standards, becomes a light middleweight champion and goes on to become a middleweight champion and is regarded by most as one of the top 5-10 greatest fighters to ever live, he's still just a lightweight. Meanwhile, Jermain Taylor is just Jermain Taylor. Hopkins lost rounds to a former super featherweight, however, I should mention, since we're being silly.

A lot of smileys will not help make this anything but a stupid post. "Former LW" was the term used, since Duran did the vast body of his best work there. This is a big factor as to why most, and I suppose you too, rate his wins at higher weights so highly.

And the Duran that faced Hagler was not only fighting in a higher weight class than he did in Montreal, he was far from the same fighter any more. That he had BEEN great doesn't really make any difference. At MW he was never great.

DLH was not that shopworn and Hopkins stopped him. Became the first to do so, if I'm not mistaken.