Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Ignorant general fans who, like, totally could have swore that Fighting Harada was a 300lbs professional wrestler during the 1980's might rate Hopkins in the top 30, but most people who know what they're talking about have him where you have him. I didn't mean you were being negative, I meant that it seemed like you were trying to be negative (what with the "If Hagler..." stuff) while actually being quite realistic. It was like, "Sure, he's great and all...but only 30-50 great." The post has an attitude of its own, and that was its attitude. Meanwhile, the really, really intelligent and well-informed posters who are slightly biased in B-Hop's favor were saying things like, "I'd have him inside the top 40." So, basically, it seemed like you were trying to be negative but failed. On the DLH issue, I don't like him in the top 50. I'd have him about 30 spots back. Hopkins firmly ahead for me based on dominance, longevity, looking the better fighter, and so on, but yeah, the boring bit is true.



And that's as serious a debate-type thing as I will ever do with you, because it's wrong. It feels wrong. Sick wrong.

This content is protected

 

:yep

This content is protected

N..no? Ok, my bad. My bad, everyone.

 

Spinks had no problem taking a beating from tyson, hagler didnt move up and give spinks his 'name' win. Marvin knew that all of his fights were going to be on tv, he couldn't entertain the thought of getting beat up by michael spinks. Hagler is a great, but not a top 10 or even top 20 all time fighter. Fitzsimmons and greb would have fought spinks, they are warriors, hagler is a businessman that feasts on smaller guys.

Leonard and Duran went the distance with the guy, if Hagler moved up could he even last the distance with Spinks, or would he get stopped within 3 rounds.

 

But they're not "notable" therefor post is renderd void.

 

Wasn't Duran the most skilled of the fab4?

 

I understood you perfectly, but I think you missed out on something. I'll make it easy for you: Hopkins was some way past his prime and probably had a hard time making weight when he lost to Taylor.

Can't really understand why it should be a big strike against him that he lost two close fights to an average opponent when he was 40 and had stayed in the same weight class for some 15 years. If the Taylor losses were a true measure of his ability, and not just soemthing that happened because of his age, don't you think he would have been exposed sooner?

Please tell me what other fighters that have losses at this age that you really hold against them.

A lot of smileys will not help make this anything but a stupid post. "Former LW" was the term used, since Duran did the vast body of his best work there. This is a big factor as to why most, and I suppose you too, rate his wins at higher weights so highly.

And the Duran that faced Hagler was not only fighting in a higher weight class than he did in Montreal, he was far from the same fighter any more. That he had BEEN great doesn't really make any difference. At MW he was never great.

DLH was not that shopworn and Hopkins stopped him. Became the first to do so, if I'm not mistaken.

 

Just to be clear: I'm not trying to denigrate Hagler's reign. He dominated one of the traditionally most stacked and prestigous divisions for a decade, and that means a hell of a lot to me. I'm merely giving the same credit to Hopkins' time at MW.

You can always argue "but he was probably a bit better than him, and he was less of a natural MW and further past his prime than him" etc, etc. But that's a pretty pointless discussion to me (even though I have indulged in it pretty freely here ) - over a decade there's bound to be sufficient quality coming through to prove you're a great as long as you accept the challenge. Hopkins did, and passed it until he was finally beaten when 40.

That makes for one of the greatest MWs in my book.