The division did have some depth around the late 80's to early 90's. Imo it has been dead since Jones left back in 94
I really cant see how a case can be made for him being anywhere near the top 10. He would need at least a few wins over prime atg's to get close
he got schooled by a kid 4 years younger and 21 fights holyfield fought for the title after 11 fights michael spinks 16 fights leon spinks 8 fights ray mercer 17 fights Lennex 22 fights michael carbahal 14 fights kittasem 11 fights tim withersppon 15 fights ossie occasio was 15-2 for his second crack at a world title... point being... he had plenty of fights...and he he not only lost, he got toyed with... but it sounds much better when people just admit he got taken to school...than to come up with all the reasons why he was taken to school and most are just excuses
Look at that list of Olympic champions and guys with top amateur careers for the most part, you cant in honesty say that they are the same level cause of the pro fight amount, you are being entirley unrealistic actually makes him look better IMO
logic, prime jones is always arguably the best boxer ever. so why should he not beat X more clearer? yet calzaghe beat X prety easy, X was doing **** but running away and hiding and trying to hold, you dont win fights by doing that.
why you sucking off nasty nas. Nasty nas is just a nas fan boy who is still listening to Nas - I Can while on this thread to have the incitement to hang in with the real deal realsoulja. Charley Burley was probably the greatest fighter to never win a title, he never won any title at MW. So how possibly can he have a greater resume than BHop? Besides his best weight was Welter weight. Dick Tiger loses to Welterweight Griffith, but Hopkins is attacked for beating Welterweights? Face it, all you BHop haters, Hopkins is a top 10 MW ATG :deal All those other guys, I dont know, but Hopkin's MW resume is up there with Monzon's and Haglers, and shits on top of Dick Tiger's of the modern era.
To me, beating a bunch of crap fighters does not make you and ATG. We all have our own opinions, of course, and being from Philly I have always tried to like Hopkins, but he just turns me off. Never been impressed by him
Hopkins put two great performaces which I could watch over and over. But then again his best names in his resume have been smaller guys. The guy did some amazing things, but then again was involve in many illegal dirty tactics. His refusal and tantrum for refusing random testing against Pascal should be question and his Academy Award acting abilities have gone out of control many times. Hopkins IQ is amazing in the ring, but he will always be one of those fighters that you could mention many positive things, but negative equally.
Jones didnt land as often, and didnt have a scorecard as clear as Calzaghe. Also that was Hopkins who had no title experience rather than a fighter who knew his way around world title fights. When Jones beat him he couldnt beat Mercado in his next attempt. When Calzaghe beat him it was sandwiched between his best wins of Tarver, Wright and Pavlik
When Hopkins fought Tito, Tito had only had one MW fight. ONE. People forget that Tito had looked lucky against Oscar and been down seven times that I know of, yet that was Hopkins big MW win? I think his win over Holmes was better
wo wo wo calm down kid :|. I just pointed out to Nastnas, how you rate yourself as a historian, only for nastnas to completely dominate you. Thats not sucking off anyone atsch, that was you being given a similar beat down to the ones I administer to you. You keep saying things about sucking people off and sucking balls, which is a bit odd, that you should perhaps keep to yourself weirdo. Anyway, you have had it tough lately on here, so just accept you were owned by Nastynas and move on like a good boy