Is Bernard Hopkins a top 30 All-Time Great

Hopkins is 0-2 against fighters in your top 100 - do you not have De La Hoya or Trinidad or Wright in your top 100?

Hearns wasn't 40 when he fought Leonard and Hagler. The only guy to beat Hopkins (other than the debut) was Roy Jones Jr, IMO a greater fighter p4p than Hagler. And unlike Hearns he wasn't stopped, never has been.

Hearns's win over Duran is a great win and better than anything on Hopkins's resume, despite the fact Duran was 33 or 34, coming off a loss, and fighting 19lbs above his natural fighting weight, and that he never had another great win after that fight other than Barkley.

Hearns does have a better resume and he was as good h2h as Hopkins was at middle, but I have Hopkins 4th best middleweight in history, I do not have Hearns at 4th best welterweight considering his resume at that weight. Though Hearns's achievements at multiple weight probably negate this.

There's not a lot in it at all, but I edge with Hopkins.

 

But I had Hopkins beating Calzaghe by a point.

 

You seem not to understand the difference between quality of fight and quality of performance.

 

Hopkins? Top 30? Not even close. He's an almost great fighter and I have respect for the man...but I've never been sold on his boxing talent. He's rugged, well-studied, and he keeps his body in terrific shape...he knows every trick, but from a talent perspective. Let me put it this way...I think just about every great middleweight from the last great middleweight generation would've killed him. That's right. I think Hagler, Hearns and Leonard would've beat the heck out of him. All three of those fighters had more speed, power and talent than Hopkins. Sorry, but Hopkins is a fighter feasting in an average era.

 

anyone claiming that hopkins age is a factor ie, he only lost to jones before he was such and such an age are talking ****. he has proved himself to be perfectly able bodied at 43 , its a non argument after what he did to pavlik. the guys superhuman as far as his age goes, it aint a factor.

 

so hearns performance against hagler was nothing special then ?it takes two to make a fight that highly thought of. and youve changed the goalposts more often than usual today pac, to suit your arguments. i ilke ye, but its true

 

Have you seen the Taylor fights? Did you think he lost both of them? Do you think the Hopkins of the Trinidad fight in 2001 would have had such trouble with Taylor?

 

I like you too, but no it isn't. Hearns was brave against Hagler which made it thrilling, but he was never really in the fight. He was thoroughly outgunned. Marquez was excellent for 12 rounds against the world p4p#1. Do you not see the difference? The goalposts are perfectly stationary.

 

i have seen them, i didnt score cos i dont but both were close. off days maybe ? he was good against calzaghe and great against pavlik, those two fights come AFTER the ones you mention.
everyones entitled to their opinion, and it really matters not one jot to me if you rank hopkins above hearns or not, and i'm sure you feel the same. i reckon hearns is top 30 , hopkins isn't.