Grading Hopkins's best wins

Isn't "World class" better than "elite" ?

 

Considering the time and place he fought who he defeated, for them, not him, it isn't elite by a long shot. Considering his own age, it's come up to a B+ or A-, historically speaking. It really lacks any great fighters for the time and weight he took them on. Other greats he's overlapped his career with, like Holyfield, Pacquiao, RJJ, even Mayweather, they carry much better resumes, in my opinion. But the remarkable longevity keeps him in their company, on a historical level.

 

The only one there who was world class when Hopkins fought them would be Pascal. Tito wasn't a middleweight, Pavlik was never a 170lber, Winky looked awful at 170 and Tarver lost too much weight, too soon.

They were all excellent fighters at one point but the problem is, Hopkins didn't beat excellent versions. If he had done, he wouldn't have fought Tito and Winky and Tarver could have beaten him so things could be very different.

Hopkins has a good resume but nothing special. I think he belongs in the the latter stages of a top 100 of all time.

 

He blatantly ducked Calzaghe shortly after that, to add another name.

 

No, no. Don't misread. I'm not saying names he avoided, I'm saying names that simply weren't there for him in his weight class. He dominated everything and that gives his status as an all-time great very high marks, but you're talking the quality of his opposition-his resume of victories-it was good, but it is missing elite middleweights at middleweight and elite light heavies at light heavyweight. That's all. Historically speaking, you'd have to have enormous balls to rate his resume as elite against the real elites like Leonard, Ali, Armstrong, etc. Especially when he doesn't even beat out his contemporaries on those terms.

 

I agree. Historically, a B+ for me.

Probably a top 50-60 ATG.

Very good resume, great longevity, but not "elite" in terms of greats like the Leonards, Durans, Harglers and even other modern day fighters of his generation.

I don't agree with those that discredit the Tito win, though. Tito was amazing in his middleweight fight with Joppy, coming off an amazing streak at 154 (where he looked like he fitted the weight much better than welterweight), was still undefeated and ranked p4p no. 1 at the time. Great, great win.

 

Blatantly ducked is a bit much.

Even at his 40+ age, it was a close fight.

I'd tip Hopkins to win if the fight happened a few years earlier.

 

Totally agree. To a certain extent I hate the "you can only beat what's out there" bull****, as it is generally used to elevate fighters above where they should be. For example, Hopkins should not get the same kudos for dominating his middleweight era as Monzon's, as the latter was significantly stronger. For Hopkins' resume to rank alongside it, he would need to be significantly more dominant, and for a longer period. Ranking elite ATGs isn't supposed to be "fair"; we're looking at over 100 years of fighters across several weight classes, and unless you apply strict criteria it turns into a hopelessly subjective numberwang.

As a middleweight, Hopkins beat some good fighters (Joppy, Holmes), and some great fighters moving up in weight (Trinidad, De La Hoya). He also avenged the only contentious fight on his record (Mercado). However, he comfortably lost to the best opponent he fought (Jones).

His later wins at 175 enhanced his legacy, and his post 40 accomplishments are among the greatest in history. Overall I definitely think he is top 100 ATG, but outside the top 30. I wouldn't have a strong argument with anything in between.

 

From a modern perspective:

Tito - A

Tarver, Pavlik and Pascal - B+ (maybe A- for some of those, considering Hopkins age (in the Pascal fight) and dominance (in the Tarver fight) - Pavlik was/is not a fighter that a dominate win could grant a higher ranking though)

Winky and Dela Hoya - B or B-

Some middleweight wins deserve some recognition. His dominance of Johnson, and his win over Holmes could be in the B to B+ range.

Using your grading system of course, and again, from a modern perspective.

Historically, B+ for me. A top 50-60 ATG.

Even some of his losses, despite not winning, are good for his resume. A close fight to Roy Jones coming into his prime and a close loss to Calzaghe when he was 40+ are not things that take away from his resume.

His longevity and dominance of the middleweight division (albeit not exactly strong) certainly help his overall resume.