Bernard Hopkins legacy

And what is your top 20 middleweight list?

 

Hagler defeated two fighters who undeniably are greater than Tarver, Tommy Hearns and Roberto Duran, a lightweight and a welterweight, both when Hagler was in his prime and at his best weight, Duran giving much, much more problems than one would think a faded lightweight would give to Hagler (even if it is Duran), and of course he and Hearns staged one of the greatet fights of all-time until Hagler's power shots landed one to many on the notoriously weak chin of Hearns. Considering Hopkins was 41 years old, 15 pounds above the division that made him great, and 18 years after he started his career, the way he ran over Tarver was just as impressive as what Hagler did in any of his best wins, if not more so.

I have said on several posts that I have Monzon at #1, but I would say the win over Tarver is as impressive as the knockout over Griffith, or Napoles, or Benvenuti, or the two wins over Valdez, individually, and again, probably more impressive. Monzon is the greater P4P fighter because he had so many huge wins and never lost in his last 82 fights. I have said this many times as well, Hagler being above B-Hop on an all-time P4P list, or an all-time middleweight list is perfectly fine. I just don't think he is a for sure higher ranked fighter on either, where as Monzon, Greb, and Robinson (in my opinion) are higher P4P, and Monzon is the only for sure middleweight above B-Hop.

 

Monzon was far better against far better opposition. Hagler as well was better. Greb as well, usually against bigger men.

Trinidad(WW), De La Hoya(WW), Johnson(pre-prime, regardless of his record at the time, not the same fighter who beat Jones, and not that great a fighter anyway).

These are his paper accomplishments. Look at the names, watch the fights, analyze them. That is what really counts in my book, and he doesn't match up to the others you're about to compare him to.

You forgot Hamsho, Sibson, Scypion, Obel, Antuofermo, Minter, Seales, Briscoe(old), in other words the real MW's he beat. And even the smaller fighters he beat(Leonard also arguably being one) were proven at higher weights, unlike Hopkins's smaller conquests.

Again, you show your lack of knowledge by failing to quote his two best wins over Rodrigo Valdez, a better MW than anyone Hopkins beat, and better than any he faced Jones aside. Also, his wins over a prime Briscoe. You forget to mention how distinguished and proven Griffith was(arguably a borderline top 10 Middle along with being a top 5 Welter) at the weight, with wins over Tiger, Archer, Benvenuti, Briscoe, Ernie Lopez, Armando Muniz. And though Benvenuti was overrated, Monzon made mincemeat of him in both fights, showing how impressive he could be even on film at a younger, more athletic age.

Nah, you could argue quite a few over Hopkins in fact, though I'd keep him in the top 5 based on his skill level at his best.

 

I appreciate all the comments on the quality of my posts. It's a nice thing to read.

Hopkins is my #2 or #3 middleweight, but rating him down to about #7 or #8 is reasonable enough when taking away the wins over Tarver and Wright and the generally lower level of middleweights he faced compared to the other champions. I'm just arguing the side of B-Hop ranking as a top 3 middleweight, which when taking in his overall dominance of his division and his overall completeness as a fighter in his prime is reasonable as well.

I keep using the Joe Louis comparison, but it works the best so I'll use it again to make my final point on the thread. I rank Joe Louis as the 2nd greatest heavyweight of all-time, and I've never met or heard of someone who did not rank him in the top 2 along with Ali. Their ranking at heavyweight is very similar to my ranking of Monzon and Hopkins at Middleweight.

Monzon was a dominant champion with great wins over several great fighters. At 160lbs, i don't think anyone has as good a resume as Monzon (again, Greb's greatest fights were generally above the limit), very similar to Ali at heavyweight. Hopkins had, with the exception of a few fighters, a weak division to preside over. However, he outclassed and dominated everyone worth mentioning at his division for 10 years unlike very, very few champions in history have. Very similar to Louis at heavyweight.

I think once a decade, maybe 2 has passed, putting Hopkins in the top 3 middleweights won't require this much debate, because his legacy will have grown more. Louis did not fight considerably better fighters than Hopkins, and he didn't dominate fight-by-fight as much as Hopkins did, but he is as big a legend of boxing as any other fighter. It is almost blasphemous to put Louis outside the top 2 heavyweights. Maybe ( though not for sure) Hopkins will one day be viewed as the Joe Louis of the middleweight division.

 

Louis's resume, don't let the Bum of the month club fool you, and don't forget to mention how much more dominant Louis was in his victories:

Walcott, Bivins, Savold, Conn, the Baer bros, Nova, Godoy, Galento, Lewis, Schmeling, Farr, Braddock, Sharkey, Levinsky, Carnera compared with:

Joppy, smaller Oscar and Tito, Echols, Mercado(who oft dropped him), and lower level guys like Lipsey, Baptist, Vanderpool, Holmes, etc. Johnson was nowhere near the fighter he became later on. He was a scared kid in this bout, hardly mounting an offense, though hanging tough.

Both showed problematic bouts, but Louis dominated more thoroughly, and has a far more qualified resume overall.

 

Sweet Pea, not one part of that post you quoted was comparing Hopkins to Hagler, Monzon, Greb, or any other middleweight. Monzon is the greatest middleweight of all-time, but for sheer dominance of his division, Hopkins is above him. that would mean, when just looking at how they performed in the ring and not the level of competition, Hopkins was more dominant. The reason Monzon ranks so much higher is his level of Comp. is so much higher.

All of those things are part of his legacy, the thread is titled "Bernard Hopkins legacy," whether Monzon or Hagler or anyone else could have done it doesn't mean Hopkins isn't the only man to stop Trinidad or De La Hoya or Johnson, the following posts are the ones that compare him to the others. That was a summary of his legacy, all of which is true.

 

Interpret that any way you want to, I was simply giving you the comparison of his legacy and resume to those of the other top guys at MW.

 

Dude...You rock :good

 

Sweet Pea, I'm not calling Hopkins greater than Louis, you seem to misunderstand what i post. One, I can't name another thing in their careers that would allow someone to call Galento, Savold, Buddy Bear, and several of Louis opponents superior to the lower level fighters Hopkins beat like Joppy, Eastman, John David-Jackson, Vanderpool, etc. Maybe you spend all your time going over their resumes and know more about what those 3 did to consider them so much better than most of Hopkins opponents, if so, then I'll concede to you that Louis fought the far better comp. But I don't know of anything that would call for them to be mentioned as top victims of Louis. Louis scored more knockouts, but generally struggled more in each fight. First off, if Trinidad and De La Hoya must be marked as "smaller" than so should Conn and Bivins. Secondly, Mercado dropped Hopkins twice in a fight that was ruled a draw, before he officially became the champion. How many times was Louis dropped in his reign? How many rounds a fight did he lose as compared to Hopkins at middleweight?

Louis was the most dominant champion at heavyweight with a relatively weak division, same as Hopkins at middle. I'm not comparing Monzon to Ali either, but he was a dominant champion (though as a whole less so than Hopkins) who fought and beat the far better opponents. You have Hopkins in your top 5, I said anywhere from #8 to #2 can be called reasonable.

 

Well I certainly do know that a guy like Galento, while however rated by the public, was rated as top contender for quite a while around that period, higher so than most of Hop's MW opponents. I understand your point(though I feel you're off in your comparisons of the fighters) but I also feel that Louis's top wins(not just his bottom ones as you alluded to) were definitely better.

I have given you a tidbit about their worth to Louis already. As for the rest, I think Louis proved his dominance more often than did Hopkins, and that while both struggled, Hopkins didn't look as impressive more often, though at his best he certainly looked great in his prime.

I honestly don't see the weakness in Louis's era, given that he fought pretty much everybody. I can't say the same for Hop.

Fair enough, though I think Monzon was more dominant given these statistics and points made from a poster in the Classic Forum(Old Fogey):

1. Went undefeated for 13 years and 82 fights--How many can match that in the modern, post ND era? Robinson and Chavez on fights, but Monzon's string, unlike theirs, was at the end of his career and he went out on top.

2. His record, according to the Boxing Register, against fighters rated when he fought them is 15-0. No fighter since the ratings began can match that number of victories over rated fighters without losing. Marciano is next at 11-0.

3. His record against men who were ever rated by Ring Magazine is 20-0-2, with both draws avenged with victories. He is the only fighter to have as many as 20 fights against ever-rated opposition and to defeat all of them.

4. His record against Hall-of-Famers is a perfect 5-0. Since the beginning of boxing, only Marciano (6-0) and Tom Cribb (5-0) also have as many as five victories over Hall-of-Fame competition without a loss or draw.

5. He reigned as champion over 7 years and 15 fights, defeating all the top contenders, and ended his run by defeating his heir apparent, the very capable Rodrigo Valdez, twice.

I can't honestly think of another fighter who fought 16 years without ever being stopped while proving himself superior to all his competition. The only honest criticism I can see making is that he never stepped up in class to fight a bigger man, unlike several of the other top middles such as Fitz, Greb, Walker, Robinson, Tiger, and Hopkins. I would rate him the favorite or even money against absolutely anyone at 160 lbs.

I agree with it all.

 

Sweet Pea, I agree with it all as well. There is no doubt in my mind Monzon was the greatest middleweight of all-time, quite honestly I don't even think anyone is really all that close to him (at 160, not P4P). Monzon was really more dominant in his career, but not as a champion. I know Galento and the others were rated highly, that's a sign of a weak era, just as the high ranking of Joppy or Eastman or Hopkins' victims is a sign of a weak era.

Very good post, I rate Louis higher on my ATG list, due to his top wins, and him lasting longer as champion with more defenses despite the 3-year absence from the ring due to WWII. I do however have a problem with one of your points. You said you don't see the weakness in Louis' era given that he fought everybody and that you can't say the same for Hopkins.

Yes, Louis fought everybody, but the era is weak compared to many others in heavyweight history such as the 70's, 10's, 90's, and a few more. Louis would most likely not have been as dominant in those eras (even if you made him of the era so he matched their size and athleticism). The other point, who did Hopkins miss at 160lbs. He fought everybody there and dominated them. I don't know of a middleweight from '95 to '05 that was near the top that Hopkins didn't beat.

 

Well, Louis established himself as by far the best, whereas Hopkins had guys like Toney and Jones around that era(one of whom soundly defeated him), as well as others he didn't face like the British brigade with Benn, Eubank, Watson, Collins, and others like Jackson, McClellan, Nunn, Kalambay, etc. There were plenty he didn't face, and facing a guy like Robert Allen on 3 occasions in the meantime doesn't help.

 

Just as an addition to the thread, for what they did in their whole career, on an all-time P4P list, Robinson is my #1, Greb top 5, Monzon top 10, Hopkins and Hagler anywhere from 25-35. Most (if not all) of my posts have been talking about how high I rank Hopkins, so I thought it would be beneficial to display where I rank each P4P.

 

Hopkins didn't become champion until '95, all the fighters you named were either above 160 or barely (if at all) world class by then. Louis didn't have a division above him where there were fighters he could have faced, just because Hopkins did shouldn't detract from him when comparing their reigns. I do agree that the trilogy with Allen was nothing more than a farce.

 

The 3rd fight with Allen was nothing more than a farce. Hopkins was easily defeating him in their first fight until Mills Lane accidently pushed him out of the ring, causing a no contest. The rematch was just Hopkins erasing that decision by knocking Allen out. There was no reason for a 3rd fight. So the whole trilogy wasn't entirely meaningless, as Allen was at least a ranked opponent, just the 3rd fight was really pointless.