Don't you rank Hopkins higher than Hagler McGrain? I remember reading several posts you made where you stated that you had him higher than Hagler. Do you rate Hearns higher than Hagler then?
I have tried to rank Hopkins above Hagler, yeah, but I don't, no. It just don't work. To much h2h speculation and such. Hearns and Hagler very close.
OK. You think longevity and success in a higher weight would be enough to argue the case for Hopkins? From my perspective I don't see too much seperating them when I rank them. Hagler has the superior resume for sure, but I don't think it's a massive gap or anything like that, Hopkins did a lot more past his prime and had success above Middleweight unlike Hagler, and they're basically even when comparing them in a H2H sense, So I can't get myself to put one clearly above the other. At least you tried to rank Hopkins higher, as a big fan of his I enjoyed reading that, but what you said makes sense to me. It's a beautiful thang.
hopkins is a top 10, if not top 5 IMO he's just beaten a prime beast at his old age, beat tarver and had a very competitive bout with JC- who else has done that? he only really ever lost properly to roy jones who was in his peak and had freakish skills to outbox most styles. the jc loss was close and remarkable at his age, the taylor fights were too close to call.
I think he was being sarcastic. Hopefully so. (he is afterall from London, and apparently Hopkins isn't liked too much around there so it would make sense)
everyone is allowed their own opinion. I'd be interested to see which positions you object to so much and who you'd have instead?
I don't really understand why you don't see my point, even if you don't agree, especially considering I have intimated repeatedly how closely I rank them both. Hearns has a slightly better win resume, basically on the strength of his two outstanding wins, Duran and Benitez. Other than that, I don't think Hearns's resume is really that strong, certainly not so strong that it would make it impossible for Hopkins to be ranked higher than him when taking other factors into account. Hearns does indeed have success through the weights on his side too, but he was never even a unified champion at any weight, never mind an undisputed one. Hopkins was a true undisputed and dominant king and master at middleweight at the same time as he was world pound-for-pound number 1 for several years. At 40+ and coming off 2 controversial defeats, he jumped two weight divisions and dominated the linear lightheavyweight world champion. His performance against Pavlik was further evidence of a skilled master boxer - this is a factor I personally value in rating greatness, maybe you don't but I do. As I said earlier, I think Hopkins is ever so slightly a more skilled and greater boxer than Hearns. Also, I rate Hopkins higher at his natural fighting weight than I do Hearns at his. Now I very well may be wrong, as is always the risk when deciding between two great fighters very close in terms of greatness IMO, but I hope I have succeeded in at least presenting an argument of some validity when stating that I rank Hopkins slightly higher than Hearns. However, I should end as I began on this thread by reiterating that I don't think B-Hop does make it into an all-time top 30.