Can a case be made for Hopkins as the best MW ever?

He was the best MW in the world for some 10 years and dominated just about all his opponents during that time. He also, as far as I know, didn't have a strong competitor at MW during this time that he didn't beat. Just as with Monzon and Hagler it can be argued that he was never beaten at MW during his prime, never actually came close to being beaten (Mercado I, I consider being a just draw as much as I consider Hagler-Anufuermo I being one - in other words, not at all).

Is this enough to make a case for him as the nr. 1 MW of all time?

 

IMO best ever, is not just resume but the best of the best who can beat anyone, given Jones Jr dominated him, Hopkins can't go down as the best ever. In terms of achievement at the weight, his resume isn't the best of the best. In terms of achievement at above the weight he rates highly but behind Jones Jr and Greb. So I don't think there's a case for him at all, there's a case he's better than Monzon and Hagler though

 

Is it impossible to make a case here, though? I do agree that it's damaging that he has such a clear, unavenged loss, though.

 

i think it is tough sell at best. his competition, while comparable to hagler overall, lacks any all time greats. small or not, duran and hearns are far and away above any fighters hopkins beat. the trinidad win is magical but it's really the only bright patch in a reign over mediocre competition.

hagler, robinson, and greb had more dominant wins, over better competition and with the latter two MUCH better competition. hopkins has overtaken monzon but not the top 3 for me

 

Yes.

 

Even as a huge Hopkins fan and a tireless defender of him on these forums, I say no. I don't see the argument for ranking him above Monzon, who was as dominant but beat better fighters, simple as that.

 

I don't think he's making the distinction:

But anyway, if he is making that distinction and I don't see it, then yes a case could be made. He wouldn't be my number 1 choice, but I'd view him as a legitimate choice.

 

No, you cant compare Hopkins level of competition to some of the other greats.

 

agreed :good i have undergone a subtle, gradual appreciation and love for hopkins over the last few years. his skills are among the best i've seen. his competition, which HAS to be a major factor in divisional ranking, is weak. not as bad as some say, but relatively weak. and if you have competition that's so sub-par, you should blow them away not look horrible against howard eastman

 

you can argue him #1 but i have him in the top 5. i do think he beats robinson at 160.

 

I'm reminded so much or Larry Holmes. His competition was mostly sub par and NEVER outstanding yet he had major drama's with the likes of Snipes, a very green Witherspoon and the journeyman at the time Weaver.

 

No case can be made. People are vastly overrating him because of his impressively slow physical decline, but remember he lost TWICE to Jermaine Taylor, his last fights at the weight. He also lost to Jones, Jr. His resume is impressive in depth but not quality as most of his better victims were smaller fighters, DLH, Trinidad, John David Jackson, Simon Brown and Carl Daniels.

THis is nitpicking, sure, but if we are talking about the top spot, it is allowed. I would have to rank him behind Monzon, Greb and Hagler. But top-5 is definite.

 

I wasn't making distinctions, I leave that to you guys. Use whichever criteria you feel is valid.

As PP pointed out, it will perhaps be hard sell to rank him nr. 1 on a h2h basis, though, given how easily handled he was by Jones.