Can I see your MW list? Top 10, 15, 20, whatever?

Hopkins is an interesting pick for top-5. Is this based on his longevity, as a Middleweight titlist/Champion?

 

Is he? Who else would you have above him? His 20 title defences and wins against all top contenders at the time definitely put him top 5 imo.

 

That's my 5 too but maybe SRR might be lower than #2.

 

Hopkins' Middleweight run is a good one and longevity counts, of course; just not that much to alone warrant a top-5 of all-time position, in the historical ratings - Not in my opinion, anyway. He is peculiar, in that his most of his better wins were actually achieved at Light Heavyweight, when in his 40s.

As to who could be ranked above him (apart from Greb, Monzon, Hagler and Robinson)... ...maybe Ketchel, Steele, Ryan, Tiger, LaMotta?? It's a very rich division.

 

Hopkins is not in my top 5,though he would not be an easy nights work for any 160pounder.

 

I totally agree. He's in the mix for my Top-10 so, we're talking some fine lines here, for sure.

 

I'ma big believer in résumé>>>. I've said so a good few times since I've been on here too, but 20 title defences over a 10 year stretch is a feet that's unprecedented in the division. That alone puts him top 5 imo, wins over Tito, Del a Hoya, Eastman, Johnson, Allen ect proves he's no Grigorian. Putting somebody like LaMotta over him is a bit like putting Holyfield over Holmes at HW. It's not inarguable, but I wouldn't.

H2H he's a monster too, he'd beat Monzon and Hagler imo too, lots of others as well.

 

I don't subscribe to the idea that something unprecedented is necessarily indicative of something great. In the main, Hopkins' time at Middleweight was run-of-the-mill. His performances were solid enough in patches and he faced several good opponents, but nothing stellar at 160. It's not enough for top-5, in my view.

Like I suggest, there are fine lines between those rated highly on the all time great listings and, whilst Hopkins, as a fighter, does present certain challenges, the head-to-head question is quire a different matter. Suffices to suggest that I'd have stacked a lot of money on both Monzon and Hagler beating him.

In particular, I can't see Hopkins posing the kind of problems Hagler hadn't seen before. It's not an easy night's work for Hagler (although I used to think it would be), but I do think Hagler would bring a lot of pressure on Hopkins and close him down; out-punch him and do some damage to Hopkins in the process.

Hopkins might find himself often on the cusp of getting the better of a round; just not quite pushing that envelope enough to actually bag the rounds. I also think it unlikely that Hopkins could knock Hagler out and that frustration might creep its way in, to impact Hopkins' performance, i.e. him resorting to spoiling tactics.

Overall, it's a tough fight, with some close rounds but, in the end, a comfortable to wide decision on all cards for Hagler.

 

You have a valid case for making him top 5 on longevity , but for me his resume is not particularly deep.
He doesn't beat Monzon or Hagler imo, and a fit Giardello would give him a very tough nights work. I should add I'm not a B Hop fan ,I found him less than enthralling to watch and rather cynical with some of his ploys.So I'm not unbiased!

 

In the current era of multiple titles, the main way to establish dominance is to unify. The alphabet organisations don't seem as averse these days as they did in the 90s to unification bouts and that's one reason why Hopkins might not have established his clear dominance earlier.

It took Don King and his desire to turn Felix Trinidad into a global superstar to bring the titles together at the beginning of the 00s. Had that not happened, we might be looking at Hopkins like we look at Virgil Hill's light-heavyweight run - record-breaking but not earth shattering. But Hopkins' wins over Trinidad and De La Hoya, whilst arguably not as impressive as Hagler's wins over Duran and Hearns, took him up to another level and are the basis (along with the unfication) for his top 10 ranking.

 

I have no argument with a Top-10 all-time rating for Hopkins; pretty much on the basis of your post above.

That said, I don't think I’d argue too hard against a case for him being outside of the Top-10, either...based on comparable levels of opposition.

 

Personally, I have him at no. 7 all time.

 

There is true lunacy occurring in these parts.

Abraham might make the Top 35.

 

I can't see it myself but, if you can justify a place for him that high in the ratings, then more power to you.