Is Bernard Hopkins a top 30 All-Time Great

Let me ask you.

Margarito stays at WW for a long time, racks up 20 defenses, no great welters, but some good ones, a great lightweight, a great superfeatherweight.

Margarito wins title belts at WW, LMW, MW, SMW, LHW and Cruiserweight. He beats some good fighters, a couple of great ones.


Which would impress you more?

 

Hopkins' win over Trinidad is a good win and a great performance.


Now. Margarito winning belts all the way through the divisions is exactly what Hearns did.

Margarito staying at ww and winning in loads of defences (before having moderate success at MW) is what Hopkins did.

 

Yeah, but i'm not asking to weigh Margarito's resume. I asked you to weight what would be more impressive out of his

a - doing what Hearns did

and

b - doing what Hopkins did.

You answered that doing what Hearns did would be more impressive. And you are right. Hopkins defending his title for so long is amazing. It speaks of the highest possible mental discipline. In that time he has never taken a beating which is even more amazing (to me).

But for Margarito to win a title at cruiserweight as well as every division in between 147 and 200...that is an indescribable achievment. In fact, if Hearns hadn't already done it, I would probably say it is not possible.

 

Don't count? It's not a prestidgious title, I grant, but IBO champ Miller was a WBA champ until he was outpointed by Tiozzo, and it is a strap. But scrap it if you are unfomfortable.

Hearns won fights and straps from Welter to Cruiser. Even if you exclude Hearns strap-winning IBO title shot on a technicality, Hearns has a respected ex-champion at that weight. I suppose it would be like Margarito beating an over-trained Enzo Mac.

But I can see your mind is made up. If you think Margarito going 3-1 at middle and having loads of defences is more impressive than winning all these titles and winning a fight as high as heavyweigt, there is no persuading you.