Bernard Hopkins All-Time Ranking

Which of these fighters would you rank him over? My personal top 25.

1. Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Sam Langford
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Roberto Duran
8. Ray Leonard
9. Barney Ross
10. Pernell Whitaker’
11. Benny Leonard
12. Willie Pep
13. Joe Louis
14. Joe Walcott
15. Mickey Walker
16. Bob Fitzsimmons
17. Joe Gans
18. Archie Moore
19. Carlos Monzon
20. Marvin Hagler
21. Tony Canzoneri
22. Julio Cesar Chavez
23. Sandy Saddler
24. Gene Tunney’
25. Alexis Arguello

 

Man, **** putting fighters from the 1900's and early 1910's in the same list as post-40's guys. There needs to be a separation, it's not the same sport.

 

Where would Calzaghe move with wins over Hopkins and Dawson successive in your list?

Do you take head to head into consideration? Because then Hopkins could merit a top 20-25 with a win over Calzaghe at this point.

 

I take head to head the least into consideration. Less head to head and more how dominant they were in their time. Their in-ring performance, but I find some room for head to head. Such as someone like Jones. I try to do things more on an era by era basis though, to be fairer.

Again, Calzaghe doesn't rank as high for me as for you judging by my criteria. I'm not even sure where I place Joe right now to be honest, so I'll have to look over where he places given those wins.

 

That's fine, but as fans of modern day boxing, pre-20's events and fighters should be completely separate from post-40's, it's unfair to fighters who have competed in modern rules and the modern times to be knocked down by inferior specimens who fought in a different ruleset and who fought the best of their era more so due to the state of the sport and the economic climate.

You won't get an era/era resume comparison to Langford's and Greb's, but they also didn't fight in modern boxing and are highly, highly inferior to the fighters post-40's and post-60's especially.

They should be ranked in their own category of 'bare knuckle and early gloved boxing'.

 

None of the fighters I mentioned were bare-knuckle boxers. And even Ray Robinson and those of that era, post 40's, had smaller gloves than the ones we use today.

As far as inferior and superior techniques. Their techniques suited their time, rules, and regulations, ours suit our time, rules, and regulations. Again, I go off an era by era system, not neccessarily a "what would he do in his time" system.

 

Ray fought in mostly modern rules though.

Langford and Gans didn't, big difference. Era by era is fine, but considerations and changes are never taken into view.

And pre-20's and below are not even in the same discussion, they should be considered an early begginings set of era's and rank the greats from there in their own category.

Because if you think you're judging Sam Langford by an era to era consideration, you aren't, you're looking at his resume from his era and seeing the accomplishments as if they could even be done in a more proper time period, which they couldn't. He'd be comparison to a 3-4 weight division champion today or post-40's in general, with his fair share of losses at that.

 

In a more modern era, Langford wouldn't have the amount of losses he did, given that he wouldn't be purposefully throwing fights.

Also, your bit about this type of career not being able to be replicated in a more modern time period is probably the truth, considering noone fights like that anymore. This is why, for the most part, you'll see more "old timers" on my list, they achieved a lot more for their time.

If you'd like a listing of more modern fighters, simply take out the old-timers you consider inferior and re-do it. I have Hopkins around #40 all time all things considered, higher in the modern era.

 

Let me just add some more clarification, because I rank on an era to era basis as well.

Too much credit is given to the older era's, as most of the 'analysts' lean towards them, some even to the stone age years of the pre-20's and that's fine to rank and analyse. But you have to have an even level of modern to old when ranking them era to era.

In the case with one of our mutual favourite's, Pernell Whitaker, he has a resume that's about as good as it could get in his era, but it still isn't going to look as impressive on paper as some of the older resume's, such as the ridiculous feature of Langford beating top people from Welter to Heavy and Greb's amount of wins.

But let's say Greb and Langford were the same type of fighters they were, just modernised to now, what kind of resume would they have in the modern climate... an impressive set obviously, but not in the abudance and no bull**** like Welter to Heavyweight.

**** man...:yep

Guillermo Jones started at Welter and ended up TKO'ing Braithwaite in 4 at Cruiser and is now fighting at Heavyweight, avoided as a dangerman.:yep

But that's only minor success, not serious success.

 

Yes, but again, different sport and climate. Impossible to have those types of on paper resume's now, and most don't consider what moderners do in their time because their heads are way stuck up the ass of classic boxing, not putting that on you.

Jones at #28 or whatever and Whitaker at #10 is about right.

 

If he beat Joe Calzaghe at 43 years of age (unlikely), I would have no hesitation ranking him above Hagler and Monzon. I think he would fall at about 20 on my list.

 

Fair enough, but I'd like to point out that it isn't as far fetched as people think it is in today's game to move from around Middlweight to Heavyweight, as we've seen it with modern fighters like Toney and Jones. And fighters of the post-prehistoric era like Charles and Moore. I don't personally think it's that implausible, considering someone like Hearns started at WW and moved through Cruiserweight. Langford had a smaller build being as he started at age 17 at LW(beating Joe Gans), and grew throughout the weights to HW against the likes of Jack Johnson.

 

Hey "Sweet Pea" I see your a little bias for Sweet Pea

 

Now that I think about it, I may not even move him up but a few spots even if he beats Joe now at 43, because of his overly conservative effort TWO TIMES against Jermain Taylor is the reason we had to suffer through the agony of Jermain Taylor's title run, period.

Hopkins needs to repent deeply to boxing fans for that, when he could have easily fought superior and won it clear enough instead of coasting about.

Taylor was just pure agony, and the morons eating him up and saying he's a future ATG, I almost lost the will to watch boxing...

:yep

 

Gee, what makes ya say that?

I could see Pea being as low as about #17 to be honest. I rank him higher because I consider him a better boxer than Willie Pep, and have defended it to no end. I consider him the best pure boxer the sport has seen.