Can I Justifiably Exclude Jones Jnr & Hopkins From My 160lbs Top Ten?

I think Hopkins just about deserves top 10 status. I wouldn't make him top 5 though. For me, Jones just didn't have the body of work at middleweight to justify a top 10 spot and the win over Hopkins was more impressive in retrospect.

 

That's true mate. He's a legendary fighter , but the winning ,losing , winning the belt puts the question mark against him .The guys u mentioned aren't doing that , there consistent.

 

But as for McVey s question, I think you can exclude Jones's more so than Hopkins .Despite Roy actually beating Hopkins he then made one single defense against Tate .So not a great run at the weight. Hopkins is a bit tough for me .A great title holding achievement , even though his defences were less than stellar ,by that I mean the opposition
I think you have to ask yourself ,when you think of Hopkins do u think of him alongside Carlos, Hagler etc or more along the lines of Eubank ?
I don't think leaving him out is asin but no one can argue putting him in top 10 or just out side.

 

Hopkins title reign started when the best middleweights of the early 90s had either passed their best or had moved up to super middleweight.

He was really the only top middleweight around and he improved during his reign but the level of opposition was mediocre. He racked up a bunch of defenses but for a while he was just another belt holder.

It was as he went unbeaten that he started getting a bit more respect as a titlist but he was still underrated when he met Trinidad. Once he won that though people started talking about him as being one of the greats.

Like Hagler, his biggest wins were against top level fighters in lower weight classes who were moving up (Tito and Oscar) rather than middleweights per se, because there just weren't enough good ones around.

If you take his reign as undisputed champ from the Trinidad fight, then he was champion for a little under 4 years and made 6 defenses. Compare that with Monzon and Hagler (7 years, 14 defenses and 6.5 years, 12 defenses) and it's a notch below their level of dominance.

 

Jones yes, Hopkins no!

 

Spot on!

 

Based on Jones's single title defense and Hopkins' 10 year, 20 defense reign?

 

I honestly don't think Fitz belongs on this list. As a middle, he beat a welterweight Dempsey and a middlin Jim Hall..., and... and...

I'll take Jones, Jr. resume at middle over his. Vaca, Castro, Tate, Hopkins.

And above both, I will take Steele with Apostoli, Dundee, Jones x3, Risko x2, Lesvenich and Overlin.

 

Just a thought... is it fair to credit a middleweight champions body of work with his performance against the current light heavyweight champion?

 

Very good point about Steele. I'm the culprit, who initially suggested Fitzsimmons. I have a tendency to base my picks rather too much upon what I think and feel and read, rather that what I know and see. That's why I tend to accompany most of my lists with an apology or caveat. It's just me. It takes all kinds, eh

 

I think one can justifiably exclude both Jones and Hopkins from a list of All-Time Top-10 Middleweights; Jones more so than Hopkins, on account of his short stay at the top, amongst those ranked in the 160 division.

There is a case that Hopkins might just squeeze in there - but, such is the rich history of the division, the same might be made for several others; often seen listed outside of the 10, but for whom the worthiness of being inside could just as well be argued.

With the case not being so clear, when the distinction between the ATG Middleweight positions from, say, 15 to 6 is very narrow, I'd say there's always room for doubt.

 

I agree 100%