How Does Bernard Hopkins Middleweight Reign, Compare To Such As Hagler s /Monzon s?

No, not really even close. What's Hopkins best win at 160? He won the belt in a rematch with Sergundo Mercado after they fought a draw, then:
Glen Johnson
John David Jackson
Antwun Echols
A completely shot Simon Brown, how a guy who was 6-4 in his last 10 fights got a shot is a mystery
Trinidad ? great welterweight, so,so middleweight
De La Hoya wasn't a 160 pounder
Joppy? hardly

then 2 losses to Jermain Taylor. While he was consistent, this is not in Monzon or Haglers league

 

I know @JohnThomas1 likes Hopkins, and @Richard M Murrieta likes Monzon, so i'm going to let these gentleman argue the case for them fighters. As for me i'm not that knowledgeable on Monzon's opposition, so i'm not going to make myself look silly trying to debate that.

What i will say is that Hagler and Hopkins best wins are against fighters moving up ODLH, Trinidad, Duran, Hearns, although i would argue Duran was quite a bit better at Middleweight than Oscar was. And Hearns also better than Trinidad at Middleweight, but Trinidad was undefeated and favoured against Hopkins at that time. So i guess there's not too much difference in the victories there for both men.

Then you have the other wins for Hopkins John David Jackson, Glen Johnson, Keith Holmes, Antwun Echols, William Joppy, Howard Eastman, Segundo Mercado, Simon Brown. I'm probably missing a few names.

And for Hagler you have Alan Minter, Vito Antuofermo, Tony Sibson, Juan Roldan, John Mugabi, Fulgencio Obelmejias x2, Mustafa Hamsho, Wilfredo Scypion.

I would say looking at this that Hagler did beat the better more recognized Middleweights, i also think Hearns and Duran are better wins than ODLH and Trinidad overall. If i can maybe cheat a bit aswell and add some of Hagler's wins vs Briscoe, Finnegan x2, Seales x2, before he won the title, i think Hagler would have an even better claim of being rated above Hopkins aswell.

 

Not for me.

 

Monzon stated his most difficult opponent was ancient Emile Griffith with high mileage whose best weight was 154lbs.

 

I’m a fairly big Hopkins appreciator…I guess you could make a case for him being rated above or on par with them. I don’t personally, but I could see it. I rate him just behind them, and am fine with that.

 

Hopkins had a long and productive reign. But he didn’t have the signature wins that some others middleweight greats had

 

It doesn’t.

 

He made them look worse than they were and ended Joe Lipsey’s career.

 

Hagler first then Hopkins feel like Monzon is overrated his only decent wins Valdez, Benuvito and Briscoe.Napoles was better at welterweight and Griffith was past his best

 

Hopkins certainly had a long reign but he fought a lot of filler. Hagler and Monzon not only look better on the eye test but I think the quality of their wins is higher. Now if you take career overall then Hopkins might have a case. His remarkable longevity and success at various weight classes creates a stacked resume.

 

The problem with Hopkins' "20 defenses" (it was really 19) is that they come primarily from an alphabet trinket. When you level the playing field between Hagler, Monzon, and him by reducing it to Lineal Championship defenses, Hopkins only had 6. That's half of Hagler's total and less than half of Monzon's. I don't think guys like Trinidad, Daniels, Hakkar, Joppy, Allen, De La Hoya, and Eastman hold up by comparison. I would rate both Hagler and Monzon significantly higher historically.

 

That’s a biased narrative. The multiple belts create obstacles to lineage and make lineage less relevant.

Hopkins was 3 in the Ring by 94 and 1 by 96. He stayed there until 2004.

For comparison, Hagler was 1 by 1980 and stayed there until 86. He had a few years prior as the no 1 contender too.

These are very similar reigns.

 

Imagine watching all of Hopkins title run. God that would be boring.