ATG: Who ranks higher? Hearns or Hopkins?

it is ok that hearns got STOPPED 3 times though too

 

Hopkins gets my vote. Dominated a division for a long time and has never been stopped. Although Hearns was the first man to win titles in four divisions, the loses to Barkley kinda put a damper on his legacy to me. No shame in losing to Leonard or Hagler but he should have beaten Barkley. I love what he did against Duran though. That was his biggest victory.

 

Yep, Tarver looked like **** when Hopkins fought him. He looked like he was still fighting on the set of Rocky. Good win for Hopkins though, I didn't think he would win.

I don't go in for the Ring Belt much, maybe it's just bias. I don't think having the Ring belt THEN (not when he first won it along with the ABC titles) meant much. Any challengers other than RJJ, Johnson or Hopkins simply didn't get a shot.

I don't think having the belt then made Tarver any more THE MAN than Vitaly was THE MAN for beating Corrie Sanders, or Shannon Briggs was THE man for winning the linear title.

 

He disagrees with the "positive spin" on the Hopkins breakdown, so he puts his own wildly negative spin.

 

1. Lots of Hopkins' opponents look bad when fighting him. He does it to them with a carefully laid out gameplan. It is no coincidence that fighters complain about "not being able to get their shots of" every time they fight Hopkins.

2. Then forget the Ring Belt. It is beside the point. Tarver was The Man in the division. Hopkins slaughtered him.

 

Hearns just

 

LMAO!

You say a positive spin on Hopkins for mine and then make one of the more biased posts disparaging him in yours...

Not even sure if its worth my time to reply to this with some serious intent.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Tommy is, was, and always will be a sentimental favorite. He brought an element of excitement and high drama to the ring that Hopkins never did. On the other hand, I simply cannot imagine Bernard losing one fight to Iran Barkely, let alone two. If you ask me who I prefer to watch, I'll pick Tommy Hearns every time. If you ask me who is greater, I'll say it's damn close.

 

Gatti was more exciting than 99% of fighters who stepped into the ring, but noone is gonna make the Gatti > Hopkins argument either.

Wait, let me take that back...this is ESB, that thread could pop up later tonight...



(I agree tho, it is damn close)

 

It's very difficult for me to be objective about Tommy Hearns. He's a top 5 all time personal favorite just below Arguello and Little Red, and he's been a favorite since the late 70's.

 

Who did Hearns beat that makes you think Hearns deserves to be ranked higher?

 

I love Hearns...top ten all time fav for me. I saw earlier in the post you mentioned that you watch that highlight vid religiously...lets just say its been on my favorites for quite a long time on youtube as well.

:yep

 

Yeah, I had to balance it out a bit...

I'm not disparaging Hopkins at all, I think he's a great fighter. I just think he gets too much credit for his post Taylor career. Taken as a middleweight, he's had a truly fantastic career. Zero arguments from me.

With the exception of Pavlik, (which was a huge win for him), I don't really think it's been exceptional.

Look, Tarver may have the lineage (as did Shannon Briggs in heavy), but he was what, 37 or 38 when Hopkins beat him?

Yes, I know Hopkins is older, but for guys to say that Hearns draw against Leonard was when both guys were 'past prime', but count Hopkins win when the younger guy was about 5 years OLDER than the "past prime" Leonard and Hearns is just crazy.

Hearns was fighting guys when they were in their 20's and early 30's. Actually in their prime.

And spanned multiple divisions.