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

Yay and nay. Watts was definitely not the same fighter and Monroe claims the same after being beaten by Love and facing some personal drama's. It was a case of ships passing in the night going in different directions. SRL was never avenged.

 

Most existing footage. But is that going to be our yardstick in this debate? I thought we were going by resumes/quality of opposition and era.

 

:goodThat's basically all I'm saying

 

I agree about Hearns, but not Duran. Duran was an ATG LW and a great WW, but above he wasn't much more than a good contender.

It seems to me that the division was clearly weaker once Robinson moved up to MW for good. The "murderers' row" was retired or badly faded, Cerdan was gone, Charles had moved up and LaMotta was struggling with making weight and against any decent opponent he faced.

To be honest, had they been contemprorary fighters, most would have dismissed Robinson's last victory over LaMotta with him being shot. I don't think that would be really fair, but I do believe it would be the case.

 

Would Hagler, SRR or Monzon? No.

 

I agree and have made the same point myself. But it's better to have avenged the lossed than not have done it.

But I do consider Jones an exceptional fighter even at MW and believe he would have beaten perhaps any MW in history. That's a lot of speculation, though, since his record at the weight is thin outside of Hopkins.

 

Correct or not, it doesn't mean much since no fighter did.

 

Greb was never a long term dominant champ at 160, though, was he? Was Ketchel?

Louis' era almost always get flak when he is dicussed. As does Monzon's and Hagler's.

 

Well he did

 

You seemed to suggest that every dominant champ was accused of being dominant merely because they dominated in an era that was inferior to the previous. I gave you examples to the contrary.

Long term dominant "champ"? Or "Fighter"? Greb absolutely dominated his era and beat just about every middleweight of note. If that isn't dominance then I don't know what is.

 

agreed. but if longevity is the yardstick of putting him above those three, you have to consider the context of it. would he exhibit that consistency in their respective eras? would they exhibit his consistency in hopkins era?

 

40s no chance, 80s through to early 90s no, in some others I think he could

 

No, Monzon was the best MW ever and there can be absolutely no debate about it at all whatsoever.

 

well i guess we can close the thread and go have a beer

 

I guess so. But I wouldn't really agree with it. I believe he's top 5 though, easily. Hagler, Monzon, and Greb would make the top 5 with hopkins. i havent decided the 5th name yet though