Hopkins resume at 160lbs average?

Hopkins is only average at best.

Hopkins had a 20-3-1-1(title fights) record against opponents with a combined record of 753-56-10. Hopkins opponents totaled a mere 92% winning ratio. His losses were against undefeated fighters.

Glenn Johnson was 27 years old, and only 32-0. Johnson sounds pretty green to me.

Joe Lipsey was only 25-0.

John David Jackson was 33 years old with 2 losses when he lost to Hopkins. Jackson must have been shot. Keith Holmes was an old man, at 32 years of age, with 2 losses; when he lost his title to Hopkins. Bernard was a spry 34 year old when he faced Holmes. Let's not forget the 40-0, 4-1 favorite, Felix Trinidad. What a bum that Trinidad guy was.

Hopkins reign is mediocre at best. There are numerous middleweights with similar achievements. I mean, who doesn't have 19 successful title defenses at 160?

 

Without serious question.

Now, it's not Hopkins fault that he didn't fight in a rich division. But it's also not Hagler's fault. You downgrade Hagler's resume by excusing Hopkins' on the basis of lack of talented opposition. Hopkins fans may not think it's fair to their man to take quality of opposition into account, but it's definitely not fair to Hagler to not do so whether you're a fan or not.

Hagler was the better middleweight, both in terms of talent and accomplishment. I really don't know why there's all this debate about it.

 

Wouldn't this be the subject of another thread?

 

I don't see why. The question the thread asked is a comparative question. We can only judge the adequacy of Hopkins' resume by comparing it to other boxer's resumes. The person I was responding to brought up Hagler's resume and I responded to his post.

Does it bother you when people criticize Hopkins?

 

It would have made sense if you thought that Hagler's resume was borderline average and Hopkins' was coming in at average. Otherwise, it looks like you are taking a well above average resume, and setting the divisional bar there.

What would an average heavyweight resume look like if Joe Louis was the marker for average talent?

 

I am really not trying to sound like an ass here, but it doesn't seem you are following the conversation. Senya13 said that Hopkins record is not any worse than Hagler's or Monzon's, records she (I'm guessing Senya is a woman's name) characterized as "rather mediocre." Somebody responded by pointing out the excellent opposition Hagler faced. I agreed. There are other posts in this thread that talk about other fighter's resumes.

I don't understand why it would be necessary to characterize Hagler's resume as "borderline average" (an indefensible position) in order to bring his name into the discussion. Saying something about Hopkins resume being average is rather meaningless without points of comparison, one of which is Hagler. In comparison to Hagler's resume, Hopkins' is average.

Maybe I don't understand your complaint.

 

As I expected, all boxrec hunters are here, and few actually have seen Hopkins' opponents on film in other fights beside him (around the time he beat them).

 

A lot of numbers and names, but few if any descriptions/quotes of styles/fights.

 

Vanderpool always strook me as someone who may have made it with his stick and move style. Echols may have been a titlist, certainly a banger and he went onto starch Brewer. Johnson (32-0) did go onto be a champ. Perhaps Lipsey and Mercado could have made some waves. Who's to say

And whos to say Trinidad wouldn't have been a great unified MW champ? Tito may well have beat Mitchell at 168 and RJJ would have got all the glory for beating him.

And yes those older lower weight champs may have been successfull MWs too but they were all stopped in their tracks.

Lets not forget Pavlik who was talked by many on this very classic forum as the new Monzon, the new mesiah, was an easier fight for BHOPs than many of his title fights

 

No you didn't mention Monzon, but why mention your not sure Hopkins can beat those men when most have a less adaptable, less skilled Monzon above him? Why aren't you critisising Monzon as a top5 MW?

And for the record I can't see and an ex-LW and ex-WW beating Hops, even Burley

 

Most consider him at his best at 154, a whopping 6lbs below MW. But who's to say Trinidad wasn't in his very prime at MW? His dominant win over Joppy showed he carried his power up to MW just fine. And why was he fighting at MW again, on yes because he was too big for 154 and couldn't make weight anymore, yes a marathon runner couldn't make 154. And remind me where the Ring magazine had Tito P4P when he faced Hopkins, P4P no1.