Is Hopkins truly that good ,or is heflattered by the level of competition in his era

I believe B-Hop r4eally is that great. Look at his resume, and the fact that at 43, he's still got plenty left in the tank and routinely gives out boxing lessons to his opponents. I think he's truly deserving of all the praise he gets.

 

I should add that I believe Hopkins would have succeeded in any era.

 

Hopkins is great but there's a bit of smoke and mirrors to his accomplishments in recent times imo.

For one, I don't think he beat Winky Wright - certainly not convincingly in any case. He got outlanded and walked down by a smaller man fighting way out of his comfort zone and was probably as far past it as Hopkins himself was.

Against Calzaghe, Hopkins fought extremely well, but Joe himself is on the slide and looked bad in that fight. Certainly nothing any great 175 would have trouble disposing off.

Pavlik is your quintessential plodding, heavy hitter who will get owned by any decent boxer with a solid chin - especially out of his comfort zone at 160 where he at least enjoys quite a size advantage on opponents.

Tarver is Tarver. Nuff said.

Had a couple of close fights with Jermain Taylor but that ain't anything to really valorise.

Hopkins has maintaned an excellent level at an advanced age, but there is no doubt in my mind that if there was a great or near great fighter in their prime around his vicinity right now he would get comprehensively beaten.

I suppose the fact that it would take a great or near great in their prime to comprehensively beat him now is testament to how good he remains.

 

Hopkins is a defensive master,

Your saying Kelly Pavlik wasn't tough?, Kelly is a huge puncher with immense power but couldnt hit him..

 

Kelly Pavlik is tough as nails and hits like a mule - whatever stands in front of him, at any rate.

And yes Hopkins is excellent defensively.

 

I think Hopkins would have succeeded in any era. I think he's among the best we've ever seen in the MW division, but yes indeed he was helped out by the lack of opposition in regards to his dominance.

 

Yup, what I think as well. Ole Pop can fight and he is a very crafty technician with all the tricks in the book. He's got a very good chin, reasonable power and does all the fundamentals very well. For me though there's just something missing that separates Hopkins from the truly great fighters, some spark, x-factor, call it what you will. He'd give most middleweights in history a tough fight but I still look at what RJJ did to him. Albeit RJJ in his prime was a sensational athlete and Hopkins was not yet in his prime but I think prime RJJ beats prime Hopkins every day of the week.

Speed will always beat Hopkins. RJJ demonstrated it, Calzaghe demonstrated it and Hopkins was not shot in any way in their fight as his clinic on Pavlik demonstrated.

 

For me, Hopkins is great, for real, great. The era hasnt been the best i understand though.

 

The young Giardello (1954) was an excellent aggressive offensive fighter, but became more defensive in his later years.

 

I dont think Hopkins would have dominated in the 1940s, 50s or 60s. He might not have even won the title - lots of great fighters didn't. But Hopkins is on a par with those guys, he's comparable.