Is Bernard Hopkins a top 30 All-Time Great

I PM'd McGrain about this but he must not have been on today. I have to admit I almost choked on my cornflakes when I realized he had Mayweather above those guys! I was considering writing my own top 50 list so was having a look back at other posters' lists that I have saved, I was merely scanning McGrain's when I noticed this little anomaly! He has been a little touchy on this thread about the opinion that Hopkins be ranked higher than Hearns and again and again has brought the argument back to resume - so I look forward with great anticipation to hearing his explanation, as McGrain will definitely have one, his knowledge is vast and I haven't noticed him ever ****ing up before, so this should be pretty interesting/illuminating. For me, Hopkins definitely has a better resume than Mayweather!

 

And Michael Spinks, and Ruben Olivares...

 

If i did one he might just sneak in i'd say.

 

In determining "win resume" - what better way than to use betting odds? Take a look at how much money you would have won/lost by betting on the 10 or so fights where the odds for said fighter are LONGEST. So for example with Hopkins we'd start with Pavlik and Tarver since those were his longest odds, then go down the list with others where he was the underdog: Tito/Wright/Jones/Calzaghe/etc. Bet a thousand on each of these ten "long-odds" fights and how much money would you have? Now do the same for Hearns, Duran, etc.

Someone should compile a list like this and see which ATG would make you the most RICH. That would be a hell of a lot more relevent than any of your pissant opinions based on romanticization and/or hate of various fighters. :smoke

 

McGrain you say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PACFAN84
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.


"Because ranking them closely is probably fine, but having Hopkins above Hearns is indefendable in my opinion. Mainly because..."


Quote:
Hearns has a slightly better win resume,

"Chief amongst the reasons i've already outlined."

________________________________________________________


So, resume is the 'main' and 'chief' thing you value when rating fighters overall greatness as you have made clear here.

I have just read through your top 55 thread (great list and great read for me, a real education), and I could not find any mention anywhere of you moving Mayweather down retrospectively.

However, my point is: you said having Hopkins above Hearns is "indefensible". McGrain you're not only saying you disagree or that you can't see the argument for it, but that it cannot even be defended, implying the opinion is irrational/absurd/worthless. Strong words, I'm sure you'll agree. And as we see from the above post, the main/chief reason for you believing this was indefensible was resume.

Do you not think it is a little hypocritical of you to make this claim, when you have a man with a comparatively weak resume in Floyd Mayweather Jr ranked higher than men like: Hearns, Hagler, Jofre, Arguello, Napoles, Williams, Sanchez, Spinks (most/all of whom have significantly stronger resumes than PBF). If you have since revised your ranking of Mayweather (because it was indefensible perhaps? ), then it would be good if you could say which of these guys you do now rank above him, as it does seem like you are using one criteria with which to dismiss my point of view as "indefensible", yet completely disregarding the same criteria when deciding on your own rankings.

I hope you don't think I'm being argumentative or confrontational for the sake of it, I just enjoy debating all matters list-related. I very much hope to write my own definitive top 50 very soon.

 

McGrain?

 

Nah, it really wouldn't mate.

 

I'm glad you have conceded that it is not "indefensible" to have Hopkins over Hearns, as I thought that was dismissive and a bit harsh. All of us value resume more than any other single factor when evaluating greatness, and to say my opinion was indefensible whilst disregarding resume by ranking Mayweather over Hearns due to other factors - well, I think that was a little contradictory.

Personally, I do not see the argument for ranking Mayweather above any of the litany of fighters already mentioned in this dialogue, but I accept that you may believe this and do so on your own sound reasoning - as I do when I rank Hopkins slightly higher than both Hearns and Mayweather. From what I know of your rankings, I think you value achievement through the weights a little more than I do, I think this may cause the disparity in our values when ranking fighters.

I don't rate Mayweather's resume very highly at all, so that he moved through so many weight divisions does not mean anything like as much to me as if he had fought say Tszyu at 140 when Tszyu was world p4p#3, or Margarito and Williams at 140, and maybe some more good fighters on the way up through. OK, a natural superfeather beating the opposition Mayweather beat at 147 is a better achievement than a natural welter beating them, but it is still not a strong resume, never mind a great one.

Is having Hopkins above Hearns really any more indefensible than having Mayweather above him? I genuinely don't think so, considering Mayweather's resume.

However, we have somewhat laboured this point, I have two things left to ask you since you're here just now, though I doubt I will have time to respond till tomorrow, I hope you can shed some light upon these things for me:

1 - why do you rank Charley Burley so highly? This question is not critical of your ranking of him, I'm only asking to help my own education/knowledge of him as I understand you are quite a scholar of his career.

2 - what is your general thoughts/opinions of Barbados Joe Walcott? All I know of him is through reading books, which tend to be more descriptive and less opinion.

Cheers M :good

 

In a word NO.

 

he lost too many times

 

atsch

so sven ottke ranks ahead of henry armstrong?