ATG: Who ranks higher? Hearns or Hopkins?

You forgot to mention the Leonard draw and the Hill fight.
The Hill fight is a very big victory too. Hill was undefeated at the time and dominated the division for yeaars to come. Amazing accomplishment.

Also, the Hagker and Leonard I fights are honrable to mentionm even if they are losses, they were great fights.

It is a tough call thpough and I think the ring Magazine ranked Hopkins over Hearns.

 

Gotcha...LOL! :good

A couple corrections tho.

You mistook my post for the person stating that Hearns and Leonard were "past their primes". I didnt mention that at all...what I mentioned was that like Hopkins with Taylor, Hearns often gets credit for a win or at least as much credit as you can get without a win for his second fight with Ray.

Also, in my post, I mentioned that Hearns had the better accomplishments (which against Hopkins is saying alot), simply because his career spanned so many weight classes. The only thing I mentioned was, above MW, he was a much lesser of a fighter than he was at WW and JMW. Whereas Hopkins moved up very late in his career and is still a mainstay as one of the top 5 p4p fighters alive (in most lists and arguments that is).

Go back and read my post man...I think you might have read a few crazy ones before me and they all kinda melted together. I honestly felt I was being quite fair in my assessments.

And one last thing (well, two), old or not, Tarver was the #1 LHW champ out there...and Winky, tho above his prime weight class...remember much like Bernard was as well...was still the pretty much universally regarded #3 guy out there. Also, going into both of these fights, Hopkins was a pretty fair underdog.

:thumbsup

 

Hearns without a doubt

 

Yeah, you're probably right. A few of the crazy ones probably did stick in my head when I was typing that first post....

I agree about the lessening in 'dominance' if you like as Hearns moved up in weight, from being a terrifying WW and JMW, to being very good at middle, and pretty good at LHW (for example).

Hopkins is a hard one to pick. Is he a middleweight that fought initially out of shape as a light heavy, or a guy that's probably a natural super middle that trained like a demon to be a middleweight, and now he's older is naturally a light heavy (or heavier?), but keeps in that class due to his professionalism and training?

Doesn't matter really. I think his 'old school' philosophy to not blowing up way overweight between fights is why he's still around now, and why a lot of other guys fade away much earlier.

 

Hopkins hanging around with the elite at 44 is amazing. You have to go back a long time to find a similar accomplishment for non heavyweights.

The Ring magazine ranked Hopins above Hearns.

IMO, it is pretty close. Hearns' resume is slightly better while Hopkins longivity is impressive and he has not been knocked out. I tend to favour Hearns slightly but hopkins career is not over. .

 

Hopkins is the greatest boxer ever, he invented the light bulb, he was the first person to make garlic bread, he is a HOF legend super fighter of the 21st Century.

well he is if you ask him.

 

Hopkins just. But Hearns was first to win titles at 4 weights and would probably beat hopkins if they had fought imo

 

I would pick Hearns by decision. Hopkins would fight a defensive fight as he would be afraid of that right hand all night long.

 

And all the more reason to rank Hearns higher.

You've picked a fighter who made his name at WW/JMW to beat one of the most succesfull middleweight champions.

Surely that alone points to Hearns being higher ATG?