Bernard Hopkins legacy

you must of only seen him fight past the age of 39 because he destroyed tito ko'ed delahoya, beat the **** out of joppy and put the most humiliating beating on a fighter I've ever seen when he moved up and clowned on tarver.

 

Tarver wouldn't be considered as part of his middleweight reign would it?

Have you considered that it might be more difficult to look as great if you are fighting Hearns, Antuofermi, Mugabi and Minter rather than Johnson, De La Hoya, Trinidad, Joppy/Echols?

 

Middleweight might be the hardest division to rank, because you have the greatest all-time P4P in a division above his best weight, a fighter with the greatest competition of anyone but the majority of it above 160, the most dominant champion in the division's history had good comp. but nothing special, and two guys who weren't as dominant as him but more so than the others and against better fighters than the most dominant. For what they did at 160lbs, I'd probably have to say:
#1. Carlos Monzon
#2. Bernard Hopkins
#3. Marvin Hagler
#4. Harry Greb
#5. Ray Robinson
#6. Stanley Ketchel
#7. Emile Griffith
#8. Charlie Burley
#9. Dick Tiger
#10. Jake LaMotta

Again, very hard to rank these fighters against each other. P4P both Robinson and Greb deserve top 5 places, but at middleweight, I put them behind the three most dominant champions.

 

I didn't consider Hopkins' win over Tarver when comparing them at 160, the comment was if you rated Hopkins and Hagler on an all-time P4P list, I wouldn't have a problem with either man being above the other, where as I would if either was above Greb or Monzon.

I don't think fighting Mugabi or Minter or Antefeurmo would really make you look less than if you fought Trinidad or Johnson, and if so not by that much. Where as the win over Hearns would be harder than Hopkins other wins. I said Hopkins was more dominant fight-by-fight and as a whole. I think it's a little hard to disagree with that. Not calling him greater, just don't have a problem with him being ranked higher all-time P4P.

 

If Hopkins is a top 20 middleweight at best, could you please tell me the 19 that are above him? I'd just like to know.

 

First off...let me start this post by saying...

the cobra = sues2nd's favorite new poster!!!

:happy :happy :happy

Ok, now touching on the original posters point.

I have the Beyond The Glory episode on TIVO (I know...big suprise there LOL)...its a POWERFUL, POWERFUL episode. To see where he came from, what he went through, how low he truely was...and see how high he raised himself up is just AMAZING!!! When he goes back to the prison and sees that mural they made.........wow! Anyone who hasnt seen it, go watch it...its on youtube...and if ya didnt have a large amount of respect for Bernard before, you will after.

Now about his legacy...

His resume is STELLAR...Johnson, Jackson, Holmes, Trinidad, Vanderpool, Joppy, Oscar, Tarver, Echols, Lipsey, Wright...plus the debatable ones in Calzaghe and Taylor (history will be very kind in assessing these...as whether you think he won or not...there is an arguement to be made in all three...BTW, I had him 1-1-1 in them with a win and a draw vs Taylor and a loss to Calzaghe) The fact is, the people who knock his wins as just wins vs "smaller men" are really attempting to look at it from a slanted, biased view. 20/20 hindsight aside, looking back at those supposed wins over smaller men are fantastic wins when looked at in the correct light.

Lets look at the Trinidad fight for reference...

Tito had struggled to make weight for YEARS before moving up to MW. He was also a very large favorite going in. Not many people gave Bernard a snowballs chance in hell of winning it. Plus he had just OBLITERATED the 3rd best MW in the sport at the time (Joppy) who had never been beaten that bad before. He was also a top 3 p4p fighter (actual place depending on what outlet you read).

He was GOING to win in most peoples eyes...the only question was, in what round would it end.

All of that...yet Hopkins wins BIG...and now he is knocked because Trinidad came up from a lower weight??? Doesnt make much sense at all??

This is also a hypocritical way of looking at things, especially when you take into account that most of the big names on the resumes of the "undeniable top fighters ever at 160" (Hagler, Monzon, etc.) are also fighters from lower weights (I dont think I have to rehash those names do I?).

I could go on and on about this stuff...but again, a resume must be looked at fairly when assessing it....not just in the numbers aspect.

Also from a legacy standpoint, there are so many other factors to take into account...accomplishments, longevity, h2h ability, skill set, etc.

From an accomplishment standpoint, there are VERY, VERY, VERY few MWs ever that can match or compare to what Bernard has done. Undisputed MW champ (one of two to hold EVERY SINGLE major belt there is), record title defenses at 160, two division champ, undefeated for 12 years (arguably should have been a HELL of alot longer)...10 of those 12 years as champ....then add in the advanced age he did this all in (his longevity is matched by VERY VERY VERY FEW fighters EVER!!!)...and there is no denying his greatness.

H2H ability as well he is among the elites ever at MW (I have him number one at MW...and can easily make a case for him against any of the top guys...but that is really another post for another time). With the way he fought in his prime, he matches up well with just about ANYONE who has fought at 160. His amazing defense (among the best ever at MW), his pinpoint accuracy (same), his supernatural (copyright Amsterdam... ) timing and counterpunching ability (same), his rock solid chin (anyone ever see him hurt??? In a 20 year career, spanning 3 decades??? Pretty good chin if ya ask me!!!), his WORKRATE (Prime Bernard truely was an "executioner" in the ring), his lead right, the angles he used, his unbelievable footwork and overall movement, his ability to make a fighter fight his fight (ring generalship) and the fact that he is arguably the smartest fighter ever (ring intellect wise)....its just as hard to make a case against him.

Honestly, he was one of the most perfect fighters I have ever witnessed at his peak. Its sad in this "what have you done for me lately" world of boxing, few that comment on him now have ever really even seen him fight then.

I have Bernard number one at MW...tho just like many of you...I would have no problem with the likes of Monzon, Greb, Hagler, Robinson, etc. over him...but its the people who barely have him in the top ten??? Or worse (didnt someone say he was #20 in this thread???? WTF???) is what confuses me.

Think about it...if we had the internet to argue it like we do now, would Hagler have been knocked for fighting a former LW in Duran? Would Monzon had been called out for beating a former WW in Griffith? I think the biggest problem with discussing this is ironically TIMING (one of Bernard's greatest assets IN the ring). Years from now, Hopkins will be much more fondly remembered...much like others who we have mentioned are now.

 

Hopkins was a great middleweight, esp. when he testified against Don King, which took balls the size of churchbells!

 

Thanks for that. I've always felt B-Hop doesn't get the credit he deserves (I know, a lot of people, himself included, say it) and if you honestly look at what he's done in the ring over the span of his career from an unbiased view, that it's really hard to argue him not being around (a little better or worse) #30-35 on an all-time P4P list. Sues2nd, I agree with everything you said in your post except the Hopkins being #1 thing (like i said, have to go with Monzon) but he's my #2 or #3 depending on who I feel would win head-to-head between him and Hagler, which changes daily. I think their resumes are close enough and their eras close enough that a H2H comparison can decide it either way. I'm just glad to see this thread has been mostly a pro-Hopkins thread and not one bashing him.
This isn't an attack on who said it, but I really doubt the person who said B-Hop's a top 20 middleweight at best can even name 20 other middleweights that deserve to be at the top.

 

Who is the best opponent Hopkins beat, and where does that fighter rank in the weight class he beat him at? Anyone disagree that it's Tarver, who ranks in the top 30?

 

Hagler's best wins are vs Hearns (ATG WW and JMW), Mugabi (NOWHERE NEAR AN ATG MW) and Duran (ATG LW). You can do the same with Monzon. Same with a ****ing LOT of CLEAR ATGs.

This thought process doesnt make sense...

 

Tarver ranks higher in his division than anyone B-Hop beat, but as has been mentioned on this thread before, the majority of middleweight champions fight fighters below their division. Robinson was a welterweight himself, Monzon has wins over welterweights Griffith, Napoles, and jr.middleweight Benvenuti, Hagler has wins over lightweight Duran, welterweight Hearns, and jr.middleweight Mugabi, Greb's most famous win came against Mickey Walker, a welterweight.

Hopkins never beat a truly great fighter at their best division, but he did what a great fighter is supposed to do if the opposition isn't as great as he is...he dominated them, 21 consecutive fights for The World Middleweight Championship against the best of his division, and none of those fights are even competitive. A 10 year reign of utter dominance, that's what makes Hopkins great, the Lightheavyweight crown and the success past 40 are 2nd to that. I said it on a previous post, if you are looking at it from an unbaised view Hopkins can rate no less than #8 and has the possibility to rank as #1. Joe Louis may be the greatest Heavy of all-time, yet how many great fighters did he beat. Billy Conn, a top 10 Lightheavy, and "Jersey" Joe Walcott, a top 20 Heavy who should have gotten the decision in their first fight. Why is he rated so high? Because he was the most dominant champion in the division's history. Same with B-Hop at 160lbs.

 

Monzon and Hagler both beat better middleweights than Hopkins did. Ignoring those you named, Hamsho, Antuofermo, Benvenuti, Valdez and maybe Minter would all be considered Hopkins' best win, had he beaten those. They all rank higher at middleweight than Tarver does at light-heavyweight.

I'm not critising Hopkins for fighting welterweights. Some of the great fights throughout history have been welter vs. middleweight. I'm just saying that those welterweights he did beat weren't great at middleweight.

People always bring up the same argument. Hagler and Monzon beat welters, so Hopkins can get away with it too. The problem is, the calibre of welterweights Hopkins beat are a class below those either Hagler or Monzon beat.

At welterweight the fighters Hagler fought are first. then it's Monzon's 147lb opposition and then finall Hopkins'. At middleweight, the first two swap places and Hopkins opponent fall a mile behind.

You can't put these fighters on the same level because the common denomintor is that they were welterweights. Judge them indiviually and you will find that there is a big difference in the groups of fighters.

Agreed. I'm suprised anyone with this opinion can rate Hopkins so highly. What you are saying is what I agree with, yet our opinions on Hopkins are drastically differing.




Answer me this question. Do Hagler or Monzon have a bigger win on their resume than Hopkins does over Tarver?

 

where does Roy Jones rank at middleweight?