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

It can be noted that Hopkins was in The Ring's annual ratings at MW for 14 consecutive years, topping them for 9 (as champion for 4 years). Monzons was in the rankings for 9 consecutive years, topping them for 7 (as champion the whole time). Hagler was ranked for 11 years, 7 of them at the top (as champion).

 

Ok. At what point do you reckon Monzon estabished himself among the top 10 MWs?

Yeah, they should always be taken with a pinch of salt. Monzon as well as Hagler could well have been top 10 fighters before The Ring named them as such. I just used them as a pointer.

And in Hopkin's case, it seems they're pretty accurate. It should be noted, however, that he became the top MW more through the previous top MWs (McClellan, Toney, McCallum, Benn and Jones especially) having moved up rather than him beating them. In short, he became top dog in rather underwhelming circumstances. It was rather how he remained there that's impressive.

 

This is a quite popular answer. I see no rational reasons for it, though. How can a guy topping a division for 10+ years, dominating every opponent during that span, not have an argument for being the best in that division (not even top 5 according to you)?

And even if we break down Hopkins' abilities, we get one of the most complete and skilled MWs ever. Objective, rational reasoning should have Hopkins a lock for top 5 and be open for him at perhaps even nr. 1. Those that have Robinson ahead of him at MW, for example, hasn't really thought it through.

 

There is absolutely no argument whatsoever for having Burley, Williams and LaMotta ahead of Hopkins. Hagler, Monzon and Greb are those you could reasonably have ahead of him.

 

When you make a big point out of "two razor thin close" losses a fighter suffers at 40, you are probably clutching after straws.

You and I both know we can find a lot more losses on Burley's and LaMotta's records smack in their prime. Even Robinson has worse losses at MW (he was still some way from 40 when he lost to the Pender's of this world, not to mention the guys he lost when he actually was 40).

Same is true of Hagler. Except he lost to one of them.

That I can accept.

 

It's not like he dominated this era, though. He mixed wins and losses. Lost to a green Charles for one thing.

Same as above really. LaMotta gets mythical status for being around in the 40's and facing Robinson, but apart from beating an injured Cerdan he was more a really good contender type than, at any point, the dominating figure at the weight.

More of the same. Being a one of the best of a good era can never be better than dominating a division for more than a decade. And it wouldn't be if it wasn't fighters from the 40's.

These guys don't rank above Hopkins at MW any more than McCallum, Kalambay or Toney does.

About as complete a fighter as you can get. Just like Hagler. For me he's up there with Hagler and Monzon (can't say much about Greb, other than that he undoubtly was great), with Monzon probably just ahead. P4P he's ahead of both, though.