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

I think he's talking purely stylistically and more notable names than myself, you and Bojak have drawn such a stylistic comparison, well maybe not me

Chin is important, but the fact you need to pick fights that happened when Jones was 35 and 41 says allot, chins/durability rarely get better with age, what was Burley doing at 35? Long since retired. Jones chin held up fine in the first Tarver fight though and he took some bombs in that 1, had to show his heart as he was gassed after 5 rounds, he took some bombs against Sosa, the man Toney labelled as the biggest puncher he faced, he took Ruiz best right hands and fired back. To be fair he didn't take that many flush punches in his prime, but that's testiment to his defensive reactions and having such sick speed to land first time and again

 

i believe eddie futch, who called burley the most complete fighter he ever saw, made that comparison to:good

jones' chin, i agree, is painfully underrated. once down in his prime, never knocked out, **** never stunned otherwise, in his prime. he was so rarely hit clean we'll never have a total picture but when he was tagged, he never appeared terribly hurt. a good chin at worst imo

 

Seems a bit off topic now but i'll put down a case even tho I don't have him there personally:

By the end of 95 it was pretty much accepted that hopkins was the best mw in the world, this is a title he held for the next ten years. His reign ended prematurely since he should have been given the nod in the first fight with taylor and could have been given the draw in the rematch meaning that aside from arguably the greatest h2h 160-175 pound fighter in history, hopkins was undefeated as a mw. The notable middleweights of his time were joppy, holmes, tito, eastman, taylor, pavlik, wright. Hopkins beat them all. He completely unified the division in such a complete manner that has yet to be repeated. From 97-02 hopkins fought tremendously and looked nigh on unbeatable. Had the jones fight happened during this period a different outcome could have happened.

Yeah so I don't have him there, but an argument can be made imo.

 

Wow, how did I overlook that one? :huh

Well, I´m a big fan of that man. Huuge respect for him and the way he turned his life around and stayed as dedicated and disciplined throughout his life. In a way you might say he is a bit of a rolemodel in those cases for me.

But I don´t think a case can be made for him as the greatest mw ever.
For one is resume is too weak, he has some very good wins and many solid ones but not one win over a great or borderline great mw. I think he would need that to be ranked above guys like Greb, Monzon, Hagler, Robinson and perhaps even Tiger, Fitz, Zale, Steele.
And two while 20 defenses look good those weren´t defenses of the middleweight championship of the world. Those were mostly defenses of just a fraction of the title - yes, he was still recognized as the best mw during most of the time but he wasn´t the champ - he actually has less defences than Monzon and Hagler - 6 successful ones. Nevertheless, those 20 are impressive, as is his long unbeaten run there and his dominance. I think you can make a very good case for Top10, a good case for Top5 and decent case for beeing on par or above Sugar Ray Robinson and Marvelous Marvin Hagler. But I can´t see how he ranks above Monzon, nevermind Greb.

I don´t think a case can be made for him as the best mw either.
I think there are quite a few fighters who fought at mw who would beat him despite beeing less great than he is (at mw). Jones Jr, Charles are save bets to beat him even in his prime. And guys like Conn, Burley, Cerdan, Steele, Williams, Walker would give him all he could handle. I see other fighters dealing easier with them. The best mw for me is still Monzon, just frightening efficient that guy.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. Haven´t read the thread yet, guess most points have already been adressed anyway.

 

Bodhi, just 1 point. In this fractured state of champions we live in, I don't think there is a significant difference between being perceived as the best and being perceived as the true champion.

 

Well, Jones beat him before both were truly primed, Jones more than him though. He beat Jones when both were past it, Hopkins less than Jones though. Yes, Hopkins win means less ´cause Jones was more removed from his prime in the 2nd one than Hopkins was in the 1st one. But he still avenged that loss.

I´d switch Hagler with Monzon. Was even more dominant and has a better resume.

I think Hopkins and Hagler are pretty much even money on greatness. Hagler has the slightly better resume, Hopkins got the slightly better achievements and was slightly more dominant.

That´s all nice and fine but it is all speculation. When assessing a fighter you´ve got to go with the facts, with what he actually did and not what he would have done in any other era.

No ´cause that´s pure speculation. Stick with the facts.

Burley? I´d like to see the arguments for him beeing a Top5 mw. Sorry can´t see it. Top10 already would be hard I think.

Griffith and Benvenuti did more at mw than Hopkins´ and Hagler´s upcoming wws together. Both are genuine borderline greats or perhaps even greats at mw, none of that can be said about the upcoming fighters Hagler or Hopkins faced.

You´ve got a point and you could also say that it´s harder to become the champ today as it was in the past, since you have to unify at least three if not all 4 belts thus having to beat 3-4 and not just 1 man. But I still think that should be mentioned and kept in mind when assessing Hopkins.

Am I that predictable?

Well, wasn´t on ESB the whole weekend and I only rarely look beyond page one when I´m not searching for something.

Good thread though, started some interesting debates.

Sturm, that window was pretty small though and he beat the man who robbed Sturm from facing him.

 

I have Monzon and Hagler ahead of him. Just to name two.

 

Well in 94 you could argue jones, toney, jackson and mccallum.

From 95 on I think hopkins beat everyone of significance aside from brown and sturm.

It's the age old argument of how a new lineage is created and in my opinion, today's boxing is more about who the best in the division is. For instance wlad from 06-present, hopkins from 95-11.

I'd even go a step further and point out usurpations of lineage: jones overtaking dm, tyson overtaking foreman etc. In these instances lineage means very little other than to trace a championship back.

I can reconcile that at this moment in time every lineal champ has a ring belt and vice versa but I strongly believe it's relevance has been diluted in this fractured state. Wlad has been top dog since 06 regardless of any lineal recognition. I do believe there should only be one man claiming defences in any one division but the difference between being ranked 1 and ranked champion now is just notional.

As an aside, how many defences did hopkins make from 95 onwards?

 

Reggie Johnson imo was the second best from 94-95 (outside of GMAN) before he moved up and was robbed in his MW losses. Otis Grant was an WBO champ as was Harry Simon who was undefeated, also a 154lb champ with a win over Winky Wright. Simon ended up killing someone with his car though and he gave up boxing. I heard some story about him turning down a fight with Johnson or Grant but not sure of the validity or circumstances if that was true

You can't fight everyone ofcourse

 

Simon, that's who I meant, not brown. Not sure how I made that mistake :lol but it's noteworthy to say that simon's victory over wright is controversial at best, as is oscar's over sturm. Hard thing to consolidate because those guys still had the belts so the fights still make sense.

Yeah johnson has a poorly represented record in comparation (yeah I just made that word up but I figure you know what I mean) to the performances he gave in the ring.

All in all I think it's fair to say that from 95 onwards hopkins cleaned out his division.

 

Sometimes the top two will suffice i.e. Chavez and taylor but with the increasingly bizarre stripping and handing out of titles it is much harder and still not always accepted. I think the importance of being lineal is much less because now you can hold a valid world title, be ranked at the top by everyone and be safe in the knowledge that should you lose, the victor will take your place at the top. It's almost another form of linearity in itself that comes from time not just beating the top ranked guy.

For example, take khan now. He rose to the top without ever beating bradley nor alexander. Being the man in the division still means something but the criteria has changed imo.