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

it is about who guys beat which makes them the best ever. If a guy fights at 60 years old and beats a top 50 guy, that does not make him the best ever. I give Hopkins credit for aging well, but he has exploited a weak era of fighters who are not great, and his experience and his opponents lack of great skills has been enough to overcome any aging he has had. In another era, Hopkins would have been beaten by all top fighters. This is not a great era. I like Manny Pacman, but that is also a case where fighting in a weak era makes a guy look better, and they know how to handpick.

 

You don't get a handicap because of your age when you step in the ring. It is not an age-adjusted result. Not to be overly macho or dramatic, but this is a sport for men. No quarter given nor taken.

 

he fought who he had to, but no one to make him greatest at middleweight. Virgil Hill had 25 defenses at light heavyweight and no one seems to give him any credit at all, which sort of confuses me a little since I thought he was pretty good.

Why I mentioned Bernard and fighting later is because what makes him great is his post Trinidad resume rather than before it.

People who mention McCallum as Hearns or Duran opponents have to realize that Hearns and Duran had Leonard and Benitez and Hagler to fight in those years, they did not need Mike, who was not a big fighter in 1984 -1986, and the public was not clamoring for it. Also, the timing for Hearns and Duran to fight Mike was not there. Hearns was busy in 84 with Duran and tuning up with Hutchings to fight Hagler in 1985. Then Hearns moved up in 1986 to mw and then 175 in 1987. When would he have fought Mike? Hearns was fighting legends, he really didn't need Mike. Mike needed him. I just do not see how it is Tommy's fault for fighting other legends, and not Mike? It was up to Mike to make some noise and make it marketable. I admit Mike is a good good fighter and hall of fame, but he is at fault for not making a case for the fight, and losing to Kalambay in 1988 really blew his chances to fight the legends of the 1980s.
Yeah Leonard handpicked Hagler and Lalonde and Hearns and Duran, and he was 3-0-1 in those fights. He picked the top guy in boxing in 1987 and beat him. That is a little different than Hopkins losing to Taylor.

I was never that big on crediting guys who are older who beat younger guys, since there is handpicking involved and more than likely the fighter they beat is mediocre. A top rated really elite guy would not be beaten by an older fighter.

 

I respect Mike, but he has some anger about the fab 4 not fighting him. He seems to not realize they had the guys to fight, each other. They were already established. That is how it works. He never clamored for the fight, and had he beaten Kalambay in 1988 they might not have been able to avoid him, although by that point only Hearns was a top fighter. When Mike lost to Kalambay in 1988, Hearns was scheduled to fight Barkley in June of 1988. After that fight Tommy moved up and Mike stayed at 160.

 

I have no problem with a guy losing near the end and then hanging it up. But I do have a problem celebrating rather ordinary victories while ignoring important losses just because a guy is old. What I am saying is that Hopkins late run does little to nothing to enhance (or detract) from my estimation of him as a middleweight... the Taylor fights a bit perhaps but not much beyond that.

And I think we might be in agreement that some fighters are over-rewarded for good timing on the retirement papers.

 

the only reason I mention Hopkins later career is because if you go by his MW resume, he is not the greatest ever by far. Other will mention his later career fighting Pavlik, Wright and Tarver etc, so I figure I would cover that aspect

I don't think people ducked Mike McCallum. I don't think he marketed himself enough to get those fights with the fab 4 who already had legacies. They didn't need him, and the fact is he never faced that quality ever up to that point, so we really do not know if he could beat them.

 

My point was that his estimation, including that at middleweight, seems to have greatly increased since even the Pascal win. I am all for discarding those efforts in this discussion. However, he did lose to Taylor at MW, at a time when he was still being lauded as some sort of fistic marvel.

In regards to his previous resume, it is very strong in consistency. Good enough to stand right behind Greb, SRR, Monzon... and I think Hagler, tho you could make the argument that it beats his.

 

Best, sure. He has as good a case as any I feel.

If you really, really, really value dominance - as in it's way more important to you than anything else - then a case for greatest exists too.

 

I really don't think Hopkins would beat a prime Giardello.