Bernard Hopkins vs Charley Burley

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by Surf-Bat

Pretty much sums it up for me. I haven't heard any compelling arguments for Hopkins beating Burley. He has no advantages that I can see or that anyone has brought into this discussion. None.

Charles beat Burley at middleweight. Was that version of Charles better than Hopkins? Would Hopkins not be able to replicate the results of say, Lloyd Marshall or Kid Tunero against Charles?

Because Burley beat a younger Moore is poor reasoning in my opinion. I could definitely imagine Hopkins fighting defensively to decision the Moore of '44.

Are we saying Hopkins would come out bottom-of-the-pile if he mixed it up with Moore, Burley, Booker, Bivins, Charles, Marshall, Williams, Wade, Lytell, Chase, Kid or The Hogues in the '40s?

I think not. I should imagine he'd come out very favourably, losing a fair few but more than holding his own. Hopkins at his best was easily capable of beating any of the above (Charles and Moore as their middleweight incarnations) and to say otherwise is a bit nostalgic.

[brnxhands]

Who did Hopkins ever beat?

[Surf-Bat]

Originally Posted by Manassa

Charles beat Burley at middleweight. Was that version of Charles better than Hopkins?

In my opinion? Considerably. By a mile.

Originally Posted by Manassa

Would Hopkins not be able to replicate the results of say, Lloyd Marshall or Kid Tunero against Charles?

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.

Originally Posted by Manassa

Because Burley beat a younger Moore is poor reasoning in my opinion.

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

Originally Posted by Manassa

I could definitely imagine Hopkins fighting defensively to decision the Moore of '44.

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.

Originally Posted by Manassa

Are we saying Hopkins would come out bottom-of-the-pile if he mixed it up with Moore/Burley/Booker/Charles/Marshall/Williams/Wade/Lytell/Chase/Kid or The Hogues in the '40s?

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

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by brnxhands

Who did Hopkins ever beat?

Who did Bob Foster beat?

It seems clear that a fighter as dominating and clinical as Hopkins or Foster, even if their opponents were weak, would at the very least be competitive in tougher eras. Likewise, they should be in with a substantial chance of winning should they be pitched against a fellow great who's a bit smaller.

On that note - Hopkins was bigger than Burley by a decent margin. It is less due to weight and more about stature and room for growth; Hopkins was a lean six feet and one inch, shredding himself to make the middleweight limit, and was more comfortable at around 165lbs, as evidenced by his pre-championship days and now his latest exploits. Burley was just smaller.

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by Surf-Bat

He could beat the Hogues and possibly Wade. That's about it.

Not getting into a quote-for-quote debate, it's boring. This is about all I needed to know, thanks

P.S. - by your reasoning I'm guessing Hopkins comes in around #15 on your all-time middleweight list?

[lora]

Hernard Bopkins vs Bharley Curley

[El Bujia]

I also see no reason to assume the 160-168 pound prime Roy Jones, who holds every single conceivable advantage, would be able to beat the natural Welterweight Holman Williams. You know why? Experience. Holman had over 100 more fights, which of course means he'd have seen what Roy had to have offered many times over, because there were so many fighters the caliber of Jones over the years.

You guys may laugh, but I'd also take Alfredo Urbina over Pernell Whitaker. Compare the number of fights. Experience is what truly matters. Talent and ability? Boxing skill? The ability to win a fight? Don't make me laugh.

[LittleRed]

Originally Posted by El Bujia

I also see no reason to assume the 160-168 pound prime Roy Jones, who holds every single conceivable advantage, would be able to beat the natural Welterweight Holman Williams. You know why? Experience. Holman had over 100 more fights, which of course means he'd have seen what Roy had to have offered many times over, because there were so many fighters the caliber of Jones over the years.

You guys may laugh, but I'd also take Alfredo Urbina over Pernell Whitaker. Compare the number of fights. Experience is what truly matters. Talent and ability? Boxing skill? The ability to win a fight? Don't make me laugh.

Len Wickwar would push in Ray Leonards shit. 463 fights to 40. Numbers don't lie.

[Surf-Bat]

Originally Posted by Manassa

Not getting into a quote-for-quote debate, it's boring. This is about all I needed to know, thanks

P.S. - by your reasoning I'm guessing Hopkins comes in around #15 on your all-time middleweight list?

Possibly. He DEFINITELY doesn't crack my top 10. There were many middleweights greater than Hopkins. Like I said, I watched his entire career from the beginning (almost) until the present. An impressive fighter, but I never saw him do anything jaw-dropping. He was just a solid fighter. Put him in the 1940s and he never comes within a sniff of the championship (unless he's from NY and has Rocky Graziano's management behind him).

From where I stand, Hopkins and his accomplishments are more a product of the anemic state of boxing than some magical skills he possesses. He was a bright light in a dim era.

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by Surf-Bat

Possibly. He DEFINITELY doesn't crack my top 10. There were many middleweights greater than Hopkins. Like I said, I watched his entire career from the beginning (almost) until the present. An impressive fighter, but I never saw him do anything jaw-dropping. He was just a solid fighter. Put him in the 1940s and he never comes within a sniff of the championship (unless he's from NY and has Rocky Graziano's management behind him).

From where I stand, Hopkins and his accomplishments are more a product of the anemic state of boxing than some magical skills he possesses. He was a bright light in a dim era.

How about Hagler?

[Surf-Bat]

Originally Posted by Manassa

How about Hagler?

H2H he ranks highly. I'm still debating where to rank him otherwise. The MWs are difficult that way. I definitely have him over Hopkins if that's what you're wondering.

[McGrain]

I guess i'd pick Burley to stab it out in a close one.

[Shake]

Originally Posted by El Bujia

I also see no reason to assume the 160-168 pound prime Roy Jones, who holds every single conceivable advantage, would be able to beat the natural Welterweight Holman Williams. You know why? Experience. Holman had over 100 more fights, which of course means he'd have seen what Roy had to have offered many times over, because there were so many fighters the caliber of Jones over the years.

You guys may laugh, but I'd also take Alfredo Urbina over Pernell Whitaker. Compare the number of fights. Experience is what truly matters. Talent and ability? Boxing skill? The ability to win a fight? Don't make me laugh.

How do you feel about the assertion that it is almost a different sport now? The dip in activity and frequency of fights in a boxers career makes it so that it suits different types of fighters.

Injury-prone but otherwise fine boxers can thrive in the current climate, where they couldn't in an environment where you often boxed more than once in a month. You have the advantage of video footage of your opponent, ample time to prepare for his style, and to prepare yourself physically. Ricky Hatton was famous for a lifestyle that would have barred him from any sustained success in the old days.

In reverse, you could say the best fighters in the old days were the ones that kept fit continuously, could fight while avoiding injuries, be tough and fight with injuries or in less than perfect condition, figure out an opponent while having much more limited info and without the use of performance enhancing substances.

The current climate favors fighters who, given the perfect preparation and postponement in case of injury, can work towards the highest highs and peak at just the right moment. You need to be a "ten" twice a year.

In the old days natural fitness, grit and recuperative ability were much more important. It does no good to be sterling one night and wortless the next. You need to be an "eight" all year round.

Therefore, I submit that modern fighters of comparable standing reach a higher level of quality in comparison to their old time counterparts on a given fight night.

In other words -- the boxing on display in the modern era is better, overall, than in the days of 200+ fights on a resume. In the old days it was simply more quantity instead of quality.

[Flea Man]

Shake I agree with all of those points.EDIT: Apart from the but about well-prepared modern fighters reaching a higher performance peak than the old timers that fought more.

In a 'prime for prime' matchup I see the different era's being able to cross over without much hassle.

But if Floyd Mayweather had come around in the 30s and 40s he would be obscure, let alone highly regarded.

[thistle1]

Originally Posted by Pachilles

This guy can be quoted as saying Hopkins would be a lower tier journeyman in the 30's, and he wont deny it when he sees this. He also believes in God

this guy never said that at all... this guy happens to focus first on ERA's, the Best of those Era's, Champions & Contenders alike are streets ahead of weaker Era's.

WHY???

because of the level of competition, number of fights among that competition, longievity in that Era & against such comp and lastly fighting up against the next division or two.

this guy said two things about Hopkins (and others),

1) in that Golden Era of the 1930s - mid-late 50s, Hopkins would have been a L-HW, a 6'1" guy at that time was never a MW except as a young teenage fighter passing through the division, leveling off as a L-HW cum HW.

2) against such reality and fighting facts, again Comp & number of fights against such Comp, does BHop 'stay' the distance, does he remain a TOP fighter???

well all we've got to compare is His Era, much weeker comp and a fighter who fought (like most today) well below his natural weight - there is very little to say that he swims with the sharks for a career of it.

Thats it, thats all, and it is the same for ALL fighters from weaker Era's, the fighters that DID it, are Sealed for ALL TIME, the ones that did'nt have to be looked at under the microscope to see where they would fit in such Era's and whether they would still be on top or not... thats it, it's that simple!

I said Bhop would be a 'Fringe Contender and a Journeyman fighter, as SO many greats then were and became, on the fringe finishing up journeymen.

as to Froch/Bute - the comparison was Two Great Fighters, the courts were split even as to who was going to win, but Froch walked it... Why? because he was just better... not a difficult analogy was it?

Burley's just better.


and believing in God all of a sudden rules a person out of discussion. Please.