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

More dominant wins? How many of Jones fights between Mercado I and Taylor were even remotely close? Which of his opponents during this time gave him as much trouble as Duran, Roldan and Mugabi gave Hagler? Robinson had several close shaves with MWs and didn't face that many really good ones. He also lost to Turpin when just a little past his prime.

And I personally would be hesistant to say too much about Greb's MW opposition since we have so preciously little film of them.

 

:thinkyou raise a good point about dominance but i was thinking more the manner of his victory. to a degree, i think domination and knockouts count and though hopkins was winning most of the rounds in all his contests, there was never that air of invincibility that other great middleweights exuded. and the fact is duran and even mugabi are light years above most of hopkins resume. look at the tony sibson fight, an opponent who was as good or better than most of hopkins middleweight ledger: hagler picked him apart and destroyed him. while that may not be hopkins style of fighting, it makes me feel he was vulnerable and the (past prime) losses to taylor hurt him. i think taylor won both and on his record he has 2 losses to a very green and underwhelming fighter. add that the dominant win by jones and i have trouble with rating hopkins top 3.

as to robinson, i have to disagree and basilio, fullmer, olsen, turpin, graziano are a completely different league than hopkins faced.

good point about greb but from his record and what we have to read, it's an all time great 160 resume.

you've given me quite a bit to consider though when ranking fighters and what value the nature of the win has, if any

 

Au contraire.

Speaking title reigns, at the stage Hopkins was losing twice (close fights) to his empirical heir apparent Hagler and Monzon were 3 years into their rocking chair. Granted Monzon beat his perceived heir apparent twice going into retirement but he was a few years back from where Hopkins was and his apparent had already been a fair way around the block and did nothing post Monzon.

Valdez gets an extraordinary amount of milage out of resume that falls well short of reputation.

Hagler was losing to a natural welterweight who hadn't fought for years at a time when Hopkins was recording his finest 160 wins. Who knows what happens if he fights another 3 years but it's likely he finishes worse than Hopkins in the division. Hagler also had his biggest wins vs smaller fighters incidently.

One solid theory which has gained great weight for Hopkins post 160 is that he simply spent too many years drained to make the weight and simply had little energy and stamina left at 160 by the time of the Taylor fights. His workrate was ordinary in both fights when it especially needed to pick up in the rematch. Given his incredible tactical awareness, adaption, and notably increased energy (and ridiculous success) once he went up to 175 this theory is hard to debate against.

As for losing to Jones Jr, Hagler was losing to less endowed fighters at the same career stage and then some. Monzon was drawing with nobodies!!!!!!

Nitpicking fits all three and Hopkins is definitely top 5 with a decent argument for higher. He beats the pair P4P and i'd personally favour him H2H too.

 

Duran was a hit and miss above WW and Mugabi didn't do that much above JMW as far as I know. Can't see why guys like Tito and Mercado would be that far behind, or why Johnson would be much lesser than Sibson.

As for Robinson, he also lost to Fulmer, Basilo and Turpin. In no way did he dominate these guys. Graziano, I don't rate very higly at all and Olsen seems to be mostly known for who beat him. Hopkins was 40 when he lost to Taylor; Robinson lost to average MWs when younger than that. At no point did he ever really dominate the MW division. Ali get a lot of flak for defending against Dunn and Coopman, but Robinson's European tour was probably made up of opponents of similar quality until he ran into Turpin. I feel Robinson is overrated at MW.

 

Large fish, small body of water.

 

That's seemingly the case. But we're talking a 10 year period here. Pure statitics should tell us that there likley were some very decent fighters around, but perhaps they just didn't get the chance to shine due to Hopkin's dominance. I think you always have to be open for that when talking about dominant champions (it of course goes for Monzon and Hagler as well).

 

Hagler's record is helped by him emphatically avenging those defeats, though.

 

1)tito and mercado wouldn't be that far behind mugabi but duran and hearns, for me, put hagler's resume a step ahead. johnson is a good comparison with sibson, put them about even at middle

2)can't argue at all with this part. robinson, in retrospect, certainly lacked in hopkins consistency but you have to admit his era was light years ahead. hopkins' longevity has long eclipsed hagler's

 

That is definitely to be considered, yes. But this is where I agreed with "The Arc of Boxing". Only in the modern era could a fighter do what Hopkins has done (what is it now, 20 title defenses and a 10 year reign?). Could he have pulled off such a feat in ANY other era? My vote is an emphatic "no". His accomplishments point as much the the dismal era as his considerable skills. Even moreso, imo.

 

Could he have reigned 10 years and 20 defenses in the 20s? 30s? 40s? 50s? 60s?

No. No. No. No. And no.

Not to sound arrogant or smug, but anyone who suggests otherwise I daresay has precious little knowledge of those eras in MW history.

 

Perhaps. But that is a point made against all dominant champions. With that said, it seems very hard to find MWs of the quality of Nunn, Kalambay, McClellan etc during Hopkin's time. But who knows, if a fighter had managed to dominate the post-Hagler era perhaps we would have called that one weak as well.

 

How many of the 20's and 30's MWs have you seen extensive footage of?

 

agreed. hopkins is great and he'd likely excel in any era with his fundamentals. BUT would he go 20+ defenses against the best there was to offer in the 50s? no.

 

If looked at from a birdseye view there is definitely a weakening of eras that begins in the 1960s and gets gradually worse as it thins out to the present era. From my POV, anyway.

And I can't agree with your assessment regarding that accusation being leveled against all dominant champs. When Ketchel was knocking them stiff I don't recall reading anyone saying that Stan could never have pulled this off during the 1890s. Or that Greb couldn't have. Nobody said that Joe Louis couldn't have wiped out the post-Dempsey, pre-Louis era.