George Benton vs Bernard Hopkins

I will. It may not be P.C. to say this but I believe the Professor completely schools Hopkins in a win over the distance. Hopkins is too immobile and Benton is way too versatile to even make this interesting. I believe Hopkins' competition pales in comparison to Benton's. It's not his fault, it's just there's just so much you can learn fighting guys like Steve Frank, Bo James, Andrew Council and those beefed up welterweights as opposed to learning your trade against guys like Luis Rodriguez, Joey Giardello, Jimmy Ellis, Freddie Little, Bennie Briscoe, Hurricane Carter, Henry Hank and Holley Mims.

Scartissue

 

Watch a versatile fighter like Roy Jones against him. Now that's immobile.

Scartissue

 

Im not that qualified to assess this but I would hazard a guess at Hopkins by spilt dec ,I find him to be the more aggressive of the two,Benton was skilled defensively ,but could be a bit negative for my taste,,its really a pick em fight,maybe Im just being awkward,one for the aficionados..

 

Green?! He was 28 years old, had been a pro for 5 years and had a few more pro fights than Jones. He didn't need any more seasoning, that was peak Hopkins. That was 12 rounds of Hopkins chasing, swiping and missing. It just showed what a ring general could do to him and Georgie Benton was a ring general. I'll grant you this. Hopkins had a great jaw and has obviously shown tremendous longevity in the game. But I've always felt he was a one-dimensional stalker who benefitted from poor competition.

Scartissue

 

Watch a fighter like RJJ against anyone in the early days, they're all immobile. Latter day Hopkins undoubtably cut the ring off better.

 

Benton liked to get cute in their sometimes while Hopkins was more consistent and to the point.

If they fought each other more than once, I would think Hopkins coming out on top with more wins due to his consistency. Benton might put together a great performance one night, but not equal it the next three or four times.

 

Of course you're going to have losses on your record if you're consistently fighting at the top level of your game as Benton did. However, the only thing consistent about Hopkins was his poor competition. Lest we forget the fabulous Morrade Hakkar or the shell-shocked Simon Brown (Hopkins should have been arrested for defending his title against him) or the absolute legendary Robert Allen. These guys wouldn't have made it as sparring partners in the Philadelphia cauldrons that Benton came from. But do you know what Hopkins calls them? Title challengers. Please, the difference in comp talent is chasm-like.

Scartissue

 

Like it was Hopkins' fault that his comp was weak. But just because his comp was weak doesn't mean that his skills were weak.

By your criteria, Benton woulda wiped the floor with Carlos Monzon?

 

Roy Jones was not a ring general... he was a PHENOMENAL ring general.

Georgie Benton was merely a highly skilled ring general... as is Hopkins.

 

I don't understand "by your criteria". What criteria? Fighting talented fighters during your career? Are you suggesting Carlos Monzon did not fight talented fighters during his career? Griffith, Valdez, Benvenuti, Briscoe, Mundine, Licata were far superior to anything Hopkins fought during his tenure. We're going way past the original question which was who would have won between Benton and Hopkins. I feel Benton was a fluid, ring general who would have outboxed the slower, stalking, I don't have a plan 'B', Hopkins over 12 or 15 rounds and you don't. And I'm OK with that.

Scartissue

 

Tobkhan, I can assure you there is no bias, no agenda, no conspiracy, no X files or anything else that flies in the face of what you perceive as the norm. It's just one man's opinion. You say I brought up his weakest opposition. Well I say take your pick. Those fighters I mentioned encompass 8 title defences. That's alot of mediocrity to just scoff at and say I picked the worst. You brought up Glen Johnson and state what a wonderful job he did on him. I say, although he went on to have a fine career years later, how the hell did Johnson get a title fight? He was 32-0 and I don't recognise one name on his record other than one 40 year old and one guy nothing more than a clubfighter. Let's keep going. John David Jackson, recognisable name but lost his last fight to a guy named Abdullah Ramadan who had a record of 9-6. There is no way he should have been fighting for the title. My opinion is that Bernard Hopkins is a fine fighter, I've never said anything to the contrary. He is very strong, has an excellent jaw, is always in shape but I feel he is one-dimensional. His competition was at times pitiful and was very fortunate not to come around in the '50s or '60s when Benton was trading leather. Cuties like Joey Giardello and Holley Mims would have opened up Hopkins like a can of beans while he trudged after them round after round. I think you're blinded by all those wonderful defences he made and are more appreciative of the numbers than the depth of the competition.

Scartissue