Bernard Hopkins: ATG or just a master of longevity?

There's a difference?

 

Honestly, I lean towards master of longevity. At his younger peak, he was quite beatable.

 

Well he's the overall greatest middleweight since Hagler, longevity being a part of that. Only Jones and Nunn had a greater blend of skill and talent imo, with Nunn's being apparent over 2-3 fights before the wheels started to come off. Possibly Kalambay too, but again, only a brief peak.

Hopkins was probably of comparable ability to McCallum and Toney, though more complete than the latter imo if less effortlessly easy on the eye. And a better career middle than either by quite a distance and far more of a physical unit at the weight than McCallum.

So that's only a small handful in the last 40 years on his level or higher, none of whom had greater tenure at middle. You have to qualify that middle has been largely shite for about thirty years TBF, the last 15 being the worst in the divisions history imo.

Still, he was an excellent light heavy too and making younger men look daft for years, though again in a very weak era. Not a personal fave of mine by some distance but unquestionably a great fighter.

 

That's right - Longevity alone does not an ATG make.

But, there was more to BHop than just a sustained period at the top. His Middleweight record is sufficiently solid; enough in my opinion to at least consider him a divisional Top-10 ATG.

He also has the moves up in weight, through some catch-weights to LHW, in which he established himself and dished out a few sagely master classes to the more youthful players (Pavlik, Pascal, Cloud), even in defeat (Calzaghe, Dawson).

Difficult to not consider him in the running for such a status, given the interesting runs he had from 160 to 175. But, I'd hear arguments against this view.

 

Both really but tbh I think his run at LHW really carries his legacy. His best wins at middleweight were over two welterweights he was way bigger then and the rest of his wins aren't any better then Golovkin's, who most people here consider overrated. But at LHW he beat some pretty good fighters despite being ancient by boxing standards so gotta give him credit for that and his overall longevity. But in terms of peaks I wouldn't say he was ever better then Jones or Toney he simply outlasted them both.

 

He dominated the MW division for 10 years. You don't do that if your're not good.

 

I think so.

EDIT: If it's for MW.

 

lower-tier ATG but top ATG in terms of longevity. He was so dedicated, which surely helped. I recall seeing an interview with him in which he was saying that he went his entire career without a single cheat meal, without a single bite of food more than he was supposed to eat, without eating so much as a single piece of candy or a single bite of chocolate, not a sip of alcohol, etc.

I wonder how he felt the first time he actually sat down at a restaurant and just ordered whatever looked good and didn't worry about the macros, caloric content, etc.

 

Not an ATG. He hid out at 160 to pad his record against inferior opposition. Best wins were two blown up welters. He waited until Roy was shot to rematch him, pricing himself out of rematch's at 168 while Roy was in his prime. He got off to a late start in boxing while fresh out of prison. He didn't have a lot of wear and tear on him from long amateur career as most fighters do.

 

Lived the life and evolved as needed. That level of discipline is great…..

 

His faith (Islam) certainly helped.

 

Hell no!