Can a case be made for Hopkins as the best MW ever?

i've heard robinson and burley for that spot with few complaints

 

i agree with powerpuncher

 

He didn't completely dominate his best opponents, namely Gibbons, Loughran, Tunney, Flowers, O'Dowd, Bartfield, Norfolk. Now granted Tunney/Norfolk had size advantages, the rest didn't really and Bartfield had a size disadvantage

 

yeah I would probably pick Robinson for that 5th spot. to be honest I don't really know enough about Burley for him to take the 5th

 

Hopkins statistically is probably the most dominant Middleweight champion in terms of rounds lost and KO's etc...

And 'air of invicibility' that is purely opinion. I think 'media hype' might be a better word

Really?

Duran is a great win IMO, despite him being inconsistent above Welterweight. And Mugabi wasn't really that proven at all, Hopkins faced better opposition than Mugabi a few times.

Trinidad, Joppy, Keith Holmes, Johnson, John David Jackson are probably Hopkins best wins. I don't think Duran and Mugabi are light years ahead of this pack of fighters.

I agree there. But you could argue that Trinidad was better than Sibson and look how Hopkins dealt with him, it was even more impressive IMO.

How so?

They do, yes. But he should have been giving the nod in one of them, by most peoples reckoning. So I don't put them down too harshly because this was Hopkins after ten years at the top after all. The Ray Leonard loss is much worse IMO.

I think Hopkins edged the second fight, clearly. Taylor isn't that underwhelming really, depends how much you expected of him. It was clear he wasn't very good to start with.

I think the Jones fight was pretty close, a green Hopkins did himself pretty good there IMO and improved a lot for the subsequent Mercado fights.

I agree, but Robinson lost to 3 of them. And only prove dhimself to be the complete superior (by say beating them more times than they beat him) of two of them.

Trinidad is ahead of Mugabi by a long way. I'd say Joppy is comparable to Duran. Hearns though is something Hopkins can't match.

Sibson is better than Johnson (well, when Hopkins met him) by a long, long way.

Agree

It is alright saying: 'If', 'Could' and 'Would'.

Hopkins actually made 20 defences and reigned for ten years. He has to get credit for that. I agree it was easier in his era, but he did do it.

For example, people think Lloyd Marshall could deal with Robinson's title opponents but he never did create the oppertunity for him to prove this, so you can't give Marshall credit for it. And you still give credit to Robinson for doing it.

Although I do agree with what you are saying.

Indeed.

Nah.

 

Certainly, Hopkins gets much credit for longevity but longevity and excellence are not entirely the same. And let's not forget that Monzon retired with 87 fights. Hopkins had 40-something at the time of the Taylor fights.

My problem with current assessments of Hopkins is that his MW campaign is basking in the glow of his post-middle career and in a sort of "no-lose" situation. He gets lauded for every victory while his defeats (and frankly an ignominious performance against Calzaghe) get a pass as he is "an old man." You can't have it both ways.

His workrate is still nothing to write home about. He was on his way to being stopped by Calzaghe because he couldn't take the pace and pulled one of the most bush-league low blow fakes I have ever witnessed to get his wind back. He does have great "tactical awareness" though this often stretches the credulity of the rules to a ridiculous extent.

Granted, there is little shame in losing to Jones, Jr. However, I do believe Monzon avenged each of his three losses and something like 65 fights undefeated which is an awesome achievement when it includes 14 title defenses, 11 or 12 of which were for the undisputed title (my memory could be slightly off on this and I don't have time to look it up...)

Hopkins is certainly in consideration for a top-5 spot, but I can't put him ahead of Monzon, Greb or SRR. I would also give Hagler a slight edge. And H2H, I think Monzon batters him over the 15 round distance.

 

I don't think he can be the best middleweight ever, or even near the best fighter. After he lost to Taylor, he started to handpick opponents whom he could beat and he has done well, but still he lost to Taylor and Calzaghe . Where are they ranked?

 

We're talking MWS, so Tunney and Norfolk aren't in the discussion. If you look at the top MWs of Greb's era you will see that Harry dominated. He did indeed eventually get the better of both Gibbons and Loughran.

Flowers? His prime coincided with Greb's decline, yet a case can be made for a one-eyed, aged Greb beating a prime flowers in their rubber match(many people thought so, including Tunney and Comissioner Muldoon). Both losses were by close SPLIT decision. Prime for prime? I think it's safe to say Greb...all day every day.

O'Dowd? Hard to dominate a guy who runs scared from you and only agrees to fight you by making outrageous weight demands. Let them fight 5 times. If Greb didn't win 4 I would be shocked.

 

I think it is better to beat the best when you are prime than to handpick when you are older and beat average guys, yet lose to good fighters and have an age excuse. Aging is different with everyone. It is obvious that Hopkins is incredible as far as aging and has taken care of himself, but at the same time he lost to Taylor 5 or 6 years ago, and Taylor is not great. And Duran's victory over Barkley was never great to me. I knew when it was signed he would beat Barkley. In retrospect, Barkley is known for beating Hearns, without that fight he lost to everyone good he fought Kalambay, Nunn and Benn.

 

compared to your boy McCallum who never beat the best, Tommy actually beat the best. I have noticed that you admire Mike as much as I admire Tommy, so to put down Thomas Hearns for having a great resume and beating greats is not really fair since Mike didn't have the resume Hearns did.
Tommy beat Cuevas for his first title, Benitez for his second and Hill for 175 pounds. and beat Duran at 154. I would think knocking out Cuevas and Duran constitute smashing all comers.

 

And Bartfield was a welter. If memory serves Greb beat him in 3 of 5 anyway. So he was the dominant one there as well.