Weight wise, does the most current of these three middleweight greats have the benefit of fighting the legitimately larger men? I've been trying to think of something if anything that separates the likes of Duran from Napoles from Trinidad... And if anything it's this. With the advent of the way weigh in's are conducted and cutting/dehydrating agents that let fighters cut far more amounts of weight for weigh ins, has Hopkin's fought the largest of these lower weight classes moving up? De La Hoya was literally one of the guiltiest fighters ever in regards to packing on weight the day of the fight... Upwards to 20 pounds. Were Trinidad and De La Hoya far bigger men then Duran? Then Griffith and Napoles? Thoughts?
Hagler: Hearns, Leonard, Duran, Mugabi Monzon: Griffith X2, Napoles Hopkins: Trinidad, De La Hoya, Wright Hearns, Leonard, and Duran all proved their worth at higher weights and were very good opponents. Mugabi was ruined by Hagler, but he was a high quality fighter at the time nonetheless. Griffith was past his prime, but one of the best MW's of all time along with being one of the best WW's, so while he was the smaller man, he was more than proven at MW. Napoles was unproven, but obviously very skilled. Just too small to really hang though. Trinidad had proven that he could hang at 160, and Hopkins dominated him. Good win. The Oscar win was meaningless, and less impressive when taking into account how even the fight was prior to the KO. The Wright win was at a catchweight, otherwise it would've been a good win. As it was, still a pretty good, but unimpressive win.
Wasn't the stupidly low weight Hopkin's came in against Hoya a catchweight result too? Anyway, I find it interesting that Hopkin's was willing to move down in weight in the early 90's to fight the likes of Terry Norris and even back then, Hoya... And then to move UP in weight at the end of his career.
Nah, Hopkins just wanted to show he doesn´t need the size to beat DLH, his game plan was also built to prove that point. He didn´t use his size advantages but wanted to prove he´s the better fighter, well, he did. Wright imo was very impressive. Wright never relied on size. His strength were his jab, defence and workrate. Hopkins took away every single one of these. Sometimes he imprisoned Wright in his own peek-a-boo defence. He beat Wright at his own game. Imo very impressive. title defences/consistency/length of reign: Hopkins Monzon Hagler opposition/resume: Monzon Hagler Hopkins dominance: Monzon Hopkins Hagler longevity: Hopkins Monzon Hagler Monzon: 2 times 1st; 2 times 2nd Hopkins: 2 times 1st; 1 time 2nd; 1 time 3rd Hagler: 0 times 1st; 1 time 2nd; 3 times 3rd I think Monzon is clearly ahead of every mw that ever fought and the only fighter I have at tier 1 at mw; Hagler, Greb, Hopkins, SRR are all interchangable as the tier 2 fighters.
Monzon is clearly at the top. Griffith (twice), Napoles, and Benvenuti (twice, Jr.middleweight). Griffith could be argued in for the top 10 at middle, and is obviously a top 10 at welter. Napoles is a top 5 at welter IMO, and Benvenuti was a Jr.Middleweight who deserves to be a top 20 middleweight. Hagler comes in next. Hearns and Duran both proved their worth at middle, Mugabi was a solid fighter, and while He was clearly damaged by the fight, I wouldn't say he was ruined. Hagler lost to Leonard so he shouldn't be counted. Trinidad proved his worth at middle, and Hopkins put on one of the most complete displays of overall ability I've ever seen, Duran-DeJesus III level. De La Hoya isn't a top win, but personally I give Hopkins as much credit for it as I do Monzon for the Napoles win and probably as much as I do Hagler for the Duran win (although Duran was the only one of the 3 to prove himself at the weight). For competition: #1. Monzon #2. Hagler #3. Hopkins
