As a defining statement for Bernard Hopkin's being below Roy Jones, and therefore not being mentionable in the same breath as Monzon or Hagler. Or at least I've seen this said before. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernard Hopkin's was very green, only fighting consistently for three years when he lost to Roy Jones. Roy Jones was a fighter with an extremely extensive amateur career. Hopkin's did not have the benefit of this. But how much is a green Hagler faulted for getting his ass kicked by Willie Monroe (42-48 and 41-49 on two judges scorecards) three years into HIS career? And two fights prior to that losing to Bobby Watts? Those are some very similar situlations, two ATG's losing to fighters while still "growing", learning from the experiences and going on to greater things. But I think losing to Roy Jones in a solid fight three years into his career is slightly less a mark against him than Hagler's loss to Watts and Monroe three years into his career. -------------------------------------------------------------------- On Monzon's much touted unbeaten streak... He went unbeaten from 64' to 77'. 13 years. Within those 13 years are all nine of his draws, including the famous one to Bennie Briscoe. No mark against Monzon due to the nature of close fights and how they were scored in South America, but it's there. Hagler went undefeated for a bit shy of a decade, but only had two fights in 85-86. Hopkin's went undefeated for 12 years. --------------------------------------------------------------------- No screaming of holes in anyones record nor am I putting Hopkin's over either of them. But I do feel that there is absolutely NO reason that Hopkin's name should not always be mentioned in the same breath as Monzon's and Hagler's, especially when he's proven his ability to move up in weight like neither of them dared do, and his longetivity over both.
I agree 100%. I've never put to much into the Jones-Hopkins fight as both were inexperienced pro's in their first title fights, and what it ultimately came down to was who had the superior amateur background and natural talent, both of which obviously go to Jones. RJJ's best performance was just a year after his fight with Hopkins, and watching him in this fight and other fights around this time I personally don't see too much of a difference between that RJJ and the one a few years later where he is classified as "in his prime," where as watching Hopkins of that time and then watching him in the late 90's and early 2000's you can see an obvious improvement. For what they did at 160lbs, Monzon's #1, and I'd probably put Hagler above Hopkins (although there's no certainty to that), but P4P, due to his success in a higher weight division and success into his mid-40's, I'd probably put Hopkins above Hagler.
I wouldn't put any of them in a concrete place above the other. There are arguments for all three and I can't dismiss any of them. Monzon's sheer activity and number of fights. Hopkin's longevity and his performances years past his best. Also, moving up in weight. Hagler's absolute destruction of the men he defended his title against. He KO'ed almost every one of them.
Hops could have been DQ'ed for holding and constantly fouling against Wright and Calzaghe. Disgusting performances that make me wish he had been in with someone remotely talented at lightheavy to see him take a nice career ending beating.He probably would have punked out after a few rounds, like he tried to do against Calzaghe with the low blow bull****. That's what i will hold against Hopkins, not his loss while green to Jones.
Monroe and Watts were veterans by then hitting their peaks more or less. Watts beat Monroe and Monroe beat Hagler. Hagler was actually taking a step up in opposition facing contenders ranked above him. It was a gutsy move b the Petronellis. Marvin just edged out by Watts. The Jones fight on the other hand proves to me that Bernard could not deal with opponents possessing special abilities while Hagler could and did. Both Roy and Hopkins turned pro the same year and were about the same point in their careers. Neither was really that young in the sport of boxing and Roy had actually proven himself the best middle by 1992. Just consider that Leonard-Hearns 1 was fought with only 4 years under both men. And remember how Roy won with a broken hand while weight drained. Hopkins while he could be cute and resourceful could never beat a man like Roy because he lacked the power necessay to do the job and as I said no boxer could ever beat Roy Jones. Even if X had a chance for a rematch with Jones what would he have done differently to change the outcome?
Hopkins was at the most athletic stage of his career, and he was already very technically sound. What he lacked was the experience and craftiness, and it showed. For then he did imply the best strategy, to pressure, but he was just outclassed. Prime for prime Jones was at SMW, so Hopkins would probably move up, but I'd favor that Jones over any Hopkins, while it's definitely possible a prime Hopkins does better against the young Jones.
Hagler himself had to deal with dirty tactics like Echols ****ing body slamming him and ruining one of his arms for the rest of the fight. *Shrugs* Hopkin's isn't the only great fighter to fight dirty.
Fair post. Hopkins has always pointed to his loss to Mercado as being the turning point of his entire career and the place where he thereafter discovered total dedication. Peak Hopkins would undoubtably give Jones more to think about but Roy would still be favoured. There's barely a 160 i pick over that Jones even at this early stage of his career.
Hopkin's also avenged his draw with Mercado in devastating fashion, much like Hagler would do most of his losses. I find the parallels extremely interesting.
And from the rematch on he was performing at his finest levels. Great consistency, dedication and application of skill fight after fight against the best of what his division had to offer. One of the great runs of all time of course.
All three had ridiculously good consistency, another reason I find it so hard to distinguish between the three to any kind of degree.
A guy like Hagler was just beating better opposition, and his smaller conquests were much better fighters. In fact, Hopkins never beat a natural MW better than any of Hagler's smaller wins like Hearns, Duran, and Mugabi. I thought he was just as dominant in his wins, but the opposition was so much better that I give him moree credit. And again, he established himself as by far the best, whereas Hopkins proved second to Jones. Losing twice to a fighter like Taylor is a bigger black eye than anything on Hagler's resume.
At a very similar stage Hagler lost to a blown up inactive Welterweight, Hopkins lost two very close fights to his acclaimed heir apparent. I'll take that anyday.
C'mon, Taylor has proved his worth(or lack thereof) at MW since then. Those were not good losses to have. Leonard was a far better fighter all around than Taylor, even at MW, and beat a faded Hagler in one of the most controversial fights of all time. Hopkins fans seem to think he's still in his prime, and he's had plenty of success since then those losses, so it's not like he was done or even close.
A welterweight who hadn't fought in three years with eye problems, among other things, if you want to get into it.