Bernard Hopkins: ATG or just a master of longevity?

Often dull to watch but an ATG no question.

 

I certainly don't think typical prison conditions are great for You, but to be honest - it might still be better than being a professional fighter. I think it's likely that if He started earlier, He wouldn't be able to go on for so long.
Although who knows with B-Hop, He was an alien.

 

The reality is that Hopkins resume at middleweight is very thin was the topic at hand especially when you look at who he faced which was brought up by another poster.
The simple fact is that most of his title defenses were against pretty weak opposition as I already outlined and there is no getting around that fact,
If you were to take say a Hagler and compare the 2 reigns side by side Hopkins is seriously lacking.

 

It is not so much about poking holes though. His middleweight resume really is not that strong. Lots of quantity but not that much quality. And do not forget the two losses against Taylor.

 

Depends on the criteria. I don't think he was ever as good as Jones, Hagler, or Leonard. But none of them were as good for as long as Hopkins. He didn't reach the top, but he was at the top the longest, and his resume is excellent.

 

No

 

ATG middleweight. Nowhere near ATG lightheavyweight. Defo master of longevity.

 

Eghhh I'm no Borenard fan. But he is unquestionably an ATG.

 

Of course he's an ATG

 

Defo. One of the greatest middleweights EVER.

 

Honestly I think Hopkins is a true ATG. He can be considered one of the top five middleweights of all time, he has won important victories over champions and great fighters, and at 41, he immediately rose to light heavyweight, dominating the best fighter in the division. At 46, with his victory over Pascal, he became the oldest boxer to win a world title. I don't know how else to define Hopkins other than ATG.

 

No doubt an ATG , because of his longevity, but his skill set
leaves a lot to be desired, especially as he aged and became
more of a spoiler type.
When looking at most of his opposition each had a ton of question
marks. Most mainly were not that great to begin with, or past prime ,
and going up in weight to fight him.
In his prime he may have won one round against prime
Roy Jones Jr. In my opinion a real bad look.
A lot like Alvarez's showing against May Jr.
That fight in itself ask some serious questions about
his ATG status skill wise.
Because Some ATG's lose in their primes, however very few
get dominated.
And none that I can think off the top of my head.
But he does deserve credit for fighting so successfully
into his late forties.....
Or is that more of an indictment of the caliber of
the competition? How poor it was.

 

With four faces on it ?

NO


But he probably is an ATG.

 

At his younger peak, he was only beaten by another ATG..................he didn't lose again until he was outside his peak (age 40) and still arguably won both of those fights.

original question:
He's both

 

But, he also barely fought anyone good at 160. He lost to Jones, never fought Toney, Jackson, McClellan, Benn, McCallum, Reggie Johnson....the list goes on and on. Bernard might argue timing and politics. But, the bottom line is that there were MANY great fighters at that time where he could have proven his greatness, but, he fought none of them. Instead he hid behind IBF mandatories against guys like Robert Allen. (Who actually gave Bernard problems)