So where does Hopkins rank now all-time?

I believe I rank him higher than anyone from his era (or multiple eras, in fact, aside from perhaps Jones, and I can see the argument for Oscar.)

 

He's one of the best old men who ever fought.

 

Top 15 material - But that includes beating Calzagghee on my cards.

 

Above any Floyd Mayweather Jr, that´s for sure......

 

I rate him very highly all things considered. I couldn't be more precise than that right now though.

He's pretty much the longest reigning aggregate champion in history though.

95-05 he ruled the mw era and he's been the best lhw for the last 5 years apart from a period when he got inexplicably shelved despite battering kelly pavlick.

He's beaten every meaningful opponent he's fought by my cards.

 

hes good at boxing id have to admit but defo in my top 20 due to his charisma and endurance

 

He's top 40.

He's one of the best to ever box. Every thing he does is sound, he makes few to no defensive errors, and he's making the end of his career all about beating people who should be beating him, unlike, say, Roy Jones.

One of the finest to ever do it. To not see otherwise is to be looking with negative bias.

He might not be the greatest 160 pounder ever, I'll admit that, but he's done more than any fighter from that weightclass ever did.

He's 3-5 on the middleweight ATG lists based on his title reign there, and he's the best middleweight p4p ever.

Yeah. You just can't sing the guys praises high enough when the best fighter of THIS era, Manny Pacquiao, is still trying to catch up with the best fighter of the last era because he's still kicking ass.

 

His middleweight championship reign was exceptionally long and cannot be faulted, but I do wonder if its exemplifies the dilution in the ranks brought on by added weight divisions and the multiple titles.
I mean, I just don't see many good challengers around at that time. Very few maybe.
And perhaps this is because the 168 and 154 divisions eventually did syphon off much of the talent of the 160s, which really used to be the most prestigous division (rivalled by LW and WW for quality fighters).

The super-middle division really kicked off around the early 90s, and the light-middle division (which has been around since the 60s) only really gained prestige in the 80s, so it makes sense that come the mid-90s, the old traditional middleweight class would be feeling a squeeze.

 

The only reason Hopkins isn't the best middleweight ever is because the rest of the resume in boxing at the time fought at 168 and 154, and the fine fighters he beat from 154 get called "blown-up".

 

But if Roy Jones Jr , (to use the obvious example), had stayed at 160, what would have become of Hopkins ?

 

He is a Top 5 MW in my opinion, but I wouldn´t say it´s wrong put him outside the top 5 at the weight to be honest......as an example, I can see LaMotta being rated over him, why not ? His resume is good enough for that......

Guys like Echols, Glen Johnson, and a perfect performance against Trinidad were decent accomplishments for his MW resume......and his consistency is great, never losing against average opponents, and his ability H2H is great as well.........p4p I rate B-Hop possibly higher than many here....he is perhaps a Top 25-35 in my opinion (I don´t have a list).....

 

I am all but alone in the opinion, but I believe Hopkins would have mastered him. Slowly but surely, Roy let technique and fine generalship give way to pure speed, flash, and numbing power. No less formidable, mind you, no less great or phenomenal, but I myself am a HUGE believer in the benefits of strict adherence to technical skill.

Roy was amazing, and I do not wish to underrate him, but Hopkins IS the better fighter(Not at all the more talented, but the BETTER), and I believe had he gotten a second try at the right time, based on the flashes I saw in the first fight between the two, Hopkins just might have cleared that hurdle.

Its a controversial opinion, I understand, but my father at the end of his life shared it, so I know I am not alone.

 

I've said it many times, and too many people get wrongly caught up in such analysis... there is NO Top 10, nor 25, nor 100.

we can rate yes, based on wins and opposition, but equally too many other factors get overlooked - Era's, Circumstanes over losses and affordabilty for fights that didn't happen and so on. Point is we can't know exactly.

Hopkins IS a Very Good, Not Great fighter, found among great middlewights sure, but there are easy 100 - 200 (at least) that would have beat him over the History!

I prefer fighters to be thought of as some of the best, or among the best, or fit for any fighter in their respective weight class in history!!!

this I believe is the most accurate we can go!!!

 

I agree, when rating a fighter head to head, there will be many masters over a given man, due to many factors.

But resume is concrete, and there are absolutely not 100 or 200 fighters to have ever laced up that have a better CV than Bernard Hopkins. Period.

 

Yeah, I agree Magna.......
I never did a serious top 100 list or something like that...but I think Hopkins would be up there with the old school ATGs without a problem......you can see in his performances that he was a high level fighter....