What do you make of this article. The title is alot more controversial than the actual article but it is an interesting and I would say against the Status Quo argument. http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/casey/MC_Hopkins.htm Thoughts?
I think Hopkins is one of the most skilled boxers who ever fought in the MW division. This article is interesting but it contains a lot of opinion - and the opinion is obviously heavily skewed in favour of the writer's point of view. What that is worth is for others to decide, but I did get a little tired of it whilst reading.
What does 'circumlocutary' mean? I think it makes some valid points but as McGrain said is full of opinion. I read it today just breifly and thought to post it here I will look at it further and raise some extra points
Circumlocutory: Takes a long time to say not all that much; skirts around the points of substance (which, as you and McGrain have agreed, are mostly very subjective and need justifying).
I honestly think that Hopkins is greater than Monzon or Hagler, and yes Zale or Lamotta. Obviously I am not the sort of person who would hand out that honour to a contemporary fighter lightly. One thing I have noticed is that some otherwise verry good historians just don't get Hopkins. They almost seem to look for reasons why he is not great and miss the big picture.
That is very odd coming from you. Your reasoning if you don't mind me asking? I assume you have Greb at no.1?
On the last point you assume correctly. My reasoning? After Hopkins lost to Taylor he was prety much in the same place that Monzon and Hagler were when their careers ended. He might have had a more lacklustre reign but he was in the same boat. Instead of retiring he writes another chapter to his career at the age of 40+. He beats the best light heavyweight on the planet which Monzon and Hagler never did. He beats a top pound for pound guy in Winky Wright. Then to cap it off he dominates the heir to his throne.
Higher than most. I do think that he beat Hopkins, but he was the best sub 175 pound fighter on the planet at the time, and Hopkins came closer to beating him than anybody. If any loss could have enhanced his legacy at this point then that was it.
I don't think Hopkins's opposition at middleweight is enough to put him above several fighters at that weight. Even Dick Tiger and Jake LaMotta could claim that they fought better opponents. However this is where you have to factor in his dominance, consistency and longevity. Also the fact that he stepped up at 40 years of age to the light heavyweight division and beat three very good fighters while holding another one to a split decision should be looked at favourably. But the likes of William Joppy, Robert Allen, Keith Holmes and a green Glen Johnson just don't rate very highly for me as top opposition.