Lets take an honest look at this for one second before I state who I picked... First, the people saying its laughable to compare are one of two things, people who are too caught up on the older generation of fighters or people who just have a general dislike or disappreciation for Bernard himself. Plain and simple, they are in the same range in an ATG sense, and Im perfectly fine with either man being ranked higher. Saying that, lets take a look the few criteria most use to judge this. Resume: Hearns - Cuevas, Benitez, Duran, Minchillo, Hill, etc. Arguably beat Leonard in their second fight as well. Hopkins - Trinidad, Johnson, Jackson, Echols, Oscar, Joppy, Holmes, Eastman, Tarver, Pavlik, Wright, etc. Arguably beat Taylor both times. Im sorry, but tho Hearns' resume is VERY top loaded, Hopkins is LEAGUES deeper. Achievements: Hearns - WW, JMW, SMW and LHW Champion. One of the greatest WWs of all time...the greatest JMW of all time. Hopkins - MW Champion (defense record...oldest champion ever), LHW Champion. One of the greatest MWs of all time. Close, but the sheer fact of Hearns success above his original prime class of 147-154, I think he edges it, even with Hopkins records. Longevity: Tho he did move up successfully, Hearns was not nearly the fighter he once was at his lower, prime weight classes. Hopkins on the other hand, dominated his weight class for such a long time, the achievement is unmatched in boxing history...but the beauty when speaking on his longevity is what he has done SINCE then. Jumping two weight classes and dominating the recognized champion of that division at such an advanced age...then defeating the p4p #3 fighter in the world...THEN dominating the undefeated MW champion of the world...simply amazing. Still to this day, Bernard, at 44 years of age is a mainstay on just about every p4p list out there (normally taking residence in the top 5). Few can match what Hopkins has done in terms of longevity...as great as Thomas Hearns was, he is not one of the few. This is what I think sets him apart. Hearns achieved quite a lot above his prime weight...but everyone can attest that he was not the same fighter. Hopkins, still is among the very best in the sport...2 weights above his prime and quite a few years outside of it. Its why I have Hopkins about 2 or 3 slots above Tommy in all honesty. And if he were to get a Chad Dawson win or even better, a title from Adamek...its not close anymore. As I said, with it that close in my eyes, I would have ZERO problem with anyone saying Hearns is better...but the extent that some have made it out to be in this post is simply laughable and shortsighted.
Tommy Hearns! Hearns fought Leonard twice, Duran, Benitez, Hagler, Iran Barkley twice, Pepino Cuevas, Virgil Hill, Michael Olajide, James Kitchen, Juan Roldan, Mike Colbert etc........ Hopkins doesn't have resume like that!:happy
I actually think Hearns stacks up poorly head to head with Hopkins. Prime Hopkins would stop Hearns inside the distance.
hopkins had 20 defenses in a row, he dominated trinidad as a big underdog, was the only guy to stop oscar, beat winky wright who was also a top 5 p4p guy, beat tarver when he was a top ten p4p guy, almost beat jc who is a great fighter, then beat KP who was a 4-1 favorite and he destroyed him....i still like hearns over bhop just because of the excitement he brought but it is far from ******ation to think bhop is better....25 years down the road he will be looked at as a god
WOAH!!!!! if u go plain resume u can argue all dfay....hearns LOST alot of those fights too....hopkins has FOUGHT 1)RJJ 2)Glen Johnson 3)Tito Trinidad 4)Oscar DeLaHoya 5)Jermain Taylor x2 6)winky Wright 7)joe calzaghe 8)Kelly pavlik 9)antonio tarver he never got dominated and dominated all his wins for the most part.....hearns is great but come on man...u have got to give bhop props..and alot of the fighters their were very late in his career when BHOP would crush him...like barkley and hill and LEONARD 2 lol
There's a lot of postive spin on Hopkins there. Firstly, he was never the Light heavy champion. Yes, he won the Ring belt, and what the IBO or something? But never won an ABC belt there. The Ring belt is nice, but doesn't make you a champion. Don't forget, he got the Ring belt from the circle jerk of old men fighting each other, Tarver, Jones Jr, Johnson etc. Don't know who the P4P #3 is you're talking about? I'm assuming a pudgy Winky Wright, but I'm not sure. The win over Pavlik was a very good one, without a question. But Pavlik got the belt from Taylor, who beat Hopkins. And didn't fight at middleweight either. There's no doubt Hopkins has been a fantastic fighter, but I don't think it compares with a guy that fought and won titles (when there were only 2 to win for most of it) from welter to light heavy, and avoided nobody along the way. In most of the posts above listing HOpkins wins (Trinidad, ODLH, Pavlik) - the guys he beat were moving up to his weight. FOr Hearns, he was mostly the guy doing the moving up, having started out as a welter, and probably finding his best weight at 154.
lol name then then....duran, cuevas, benitez???? hopkins has beat oscar, tito, winky, lost a split to an ATG in JC.....and he dominated the current undisputed MW champion of the world...not sure how this is so easy for hearns
1. Are you denying that Tarver was "The Man" at Light Heavyweight when Hopkins beat him? He most certainly was. Supposing Marquez beat Floyd, would the win be less important just because Floyd lacked a trinket? No. 2. Why does Taylor beating Hopkins detract from Hopkins' win over Pavlik? You lost me there.
tarver was a bum when hopkins beat him? he was a 3-1 favorite and beat jones twice and jiohnson??? and u can't seriously tell this message board he was not the LHW champion...come on man who cares about the alphabets...noone could have beat him...he beat the man who beat the man EASY and u say pudgy wink like all of hearns opponents were in their primes