Even though last page you said: This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
No. Probably not. Probably my ranking of Mayweather was to high on that list. Regardless, it hs no baring on the following position: rating Hopkins above Hearns is not reasonable. This is really becoming about semantics now, I don't be to be curt, but it's not at all interesting to me. What I said was that rating Hopkins' one-weight dominance as equal to Hearns six-weight title exploits was a weak position but not one that couldn't be defended. But this has no baring upon Hearns' superior win resume. If YOU are right and I am wrong, there is still no valid reason for ranking Hopkins above Hearns. There achievements are around equal (not in my opinion but in yours) but Hearns still beat the better fighters - and probably looked better doing it.
Fair enough. I find your ranking of Mayweather over Hearns indefensible, you find my ranking of Hopkins over Hearns indefensible.
IMO you can make an argument that he is but not a strong one. Imo he ranks around the same like Hagler, Jones and Hearns. They are all pretty much interchangable just outside the Top30.
Agreed. None of them would make it into my top 30 though I have to say. All three are in the 30-40 bracket, not a lot between the three of them IMO.
Well, this thread refuses to die. Some people were praised, some were slated.....but it's died down now and the winner is HOPKINS!
And McGrain, who salted my list ranked Mayweather that high??? Just because I don't have Burley and Barbados Joe Walcott in my list I clearly know nothing about boxing
Hearns above both Hopkins and Mayweather. Mayweather and Hopkins a virtual toss-up. I may have to slightly favor Floyd there unless I'm being biased though. Depends on what you prefer and how strongly you feel in regards to certain strengths and weaknesses of each fighter's careers. Hopkins's consistency and longevity are top notch, but lack of competition during his prime years has to be taken into consideration when comparing him to a guy like Hearns, who I consider to be better than either fighter at their very best. Same with Floyd, longevity aside (though his multiple weight exploits and similar if not superior resume make up for it).
No wonder there is so much arguing relating to Hopkins all time ranking and how he compares to other recent boxers ? Because a DEFINITIVE list has him currently just inside the top 30 and most of the boxers mentioned in this thread are all very close to him. When i say 'DEFINITIVE' list i refer to a list where boxers receive points for winning/losing fights {bouts weighted - non title fights,title fights,fights against HOF's etc}, not a subjective list written by a person. Currently Hopkins 25th Hagler 15, RoyJones 16, Duran 27, Hearns 28,Trinidad 29,SR Leonard 34 {Roy Jones dropped 4 places after losing to Calzaghe} The top 4 in order are :- Ali, Louis, Armstrong and Sugar Ray Robinson {then quite a big gap points wise to 5th place}
Calzaghe already inside top 40, Joe will probably overtake Hopkins and break into top 25 if he has a couple more wins {if he continued to fight on to 50 and 0, i think he would get well inside the top 20, even and wisper this quietly if the opposition was strong enough, top 10}
That is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. There are so many holes in logic with a system like that.