If Hopkins beat Dawson, is he the greatest boxer of modern times?

Defended the middleweight title 20 times.
Unified all four of the major belts and is the only man to do it.
3rd longest reign as a champion. (10 years something).
He was the underdog against Jones, Trinidad, Tarver, Calzaghe, Pavlik, Pascal x2 and now against Dawson.

One can argue that he was robbed against Calzaghe.

Oldest man to win a legit championship.
And soon to be the oldest man to defend a world championship.

 

I dont think the loss to Calzaghe hurts Hopkins legacy. It was too close, on another night it could have been Hopkins walking away with a SD.

 

Point taken, but it is frustrating to see the top dogs avoid challenges instead of just getting on with it. I was especially disappointed in Ward. He seemed like a real warrior, but after getting two straps he starts to mess about for no reason.

 

He's fought across two periods of time generally perceived as "eras"; I think I'd have him ahead of everybody post-2000, and second only to Jones Jr. in the 90's, and possibly Oscar.

And this is exactly why.

 

A legitimate win over Chad Dawson would be huge for Hopkins at this stage. Dawson's a good/solid fighter, a very difficult style matchup, and a proven top guy at 175 and Hopkins is about 50 percent of what he once was and closer to 50 than 40. I'd have no problem rating him over Pacquiao and Mayweather. Imagine if he closed out his career with Dawson, Bute, and maybe one or two other contenders or a cruiserweight belt. That would be epic, although I think it'll come to an end this year (probably after going 1-1).

 

I am just pointing it out. And its not like Jones dominated him.

 

No.

 

He was not the underdog against Jones , Calzaghe or Pavlik ..Where did you get that from ??


Against Jones Hopkins was ranked higher by the IBF

Against Calzaghe it was Hopkins title on the line


And against Pavlik that was Kelly's first fight north of 160 ..

 

RJJ has a win over Hopkins but as resumes go BHOP>>>>>>>>>>JONES

 

This is an ignorant statement, no offense intended. Hopkin's was prime for 97-2002. he's not close to his prime, he's just still better than the other fighters because he's smart enough to exploit stylistic match ups and isn't simply a reflex fighter. He thinks while he's fighting, where as most fighters fight off impulse.

 

he was the underdog in all of those fights, hater.

 

Beating Dawson should be enough to erase those doubts

 

bernards longevity deserves to be highly respected but when all is said and done, bernard has never once beaten an elite fighter at a fair weight. then throw in the fact that he has got into the ring on 8 seperate occasions and not been good enough to beat his opponent and you get a truer reflection of bernards true pedigree.

 

Hopkins is so overrated its untrue.

Yes he's done very well to still be competing at the top level at his age.

But the greatest boxer of modern times??? Come on.

The greatest boxer of modern times can't be someone who has 2 losses to Jermain Taylor on his resume.

His MW run is packed with awful defences.

And he wasn't robbed against Calzaghe. Calzaghe clearly edged a **** fight IMO. However it was a close fight; wouldn't have been a robbery whatever way the decision went.

 

cheaty? that's boxing my dude. get over it. he's yet to be dq'd so clearly the professionals don't see it as cheating.