Is Bernard Hopkins a top 30 All-Time Great

I have Duran-Hagler much closer than you, and keeping in mind that Duran is a 135lb fighter, even surviving and being shut out 15-0 would be an astonishing achievment which can only be born of the type of skill Duran put on display on that fight. I think it is amongst Duran's best performances.

Additionally, Duran was moving down in weight to take on Hearns, closer to the weight he put in one of the best performances in history at, Leonord #1. He had one of his very best wins ahead of him.

Hearns sparked a past-peak Duran, no question. But it was a Duran who had just turned in one of his best performances pound for pound and had one of his best wins ahead of him pound for pound.

Also, Duran did better against Hagler than Trinidad did against Hopkins.

But this is all hot air. I don't mean to be an *******, but you're claiming a top 25-30 spot for your man without putting up a list, or really seeming to understand how HARD it is for a fighter to skip ten places on one of these lists - you just don't do it by beating a GOOD fighter. Every guy on these lists has beaten MULTIPLE good fighters.

Holman Williams, for example, has a vastly superior resume to Bernard Hopkins.

 

If you want to get into this ABC analysis, like I said, Duran did brilliantly against Hagler, Trinidad did not do well agaisnt Hopkins. Hopkins should be below Hagler at MW, probably.

Also, careful in comparing their relative weights - Duran has BY FAR the better win at WW than Trinidad, and I take Montreal Duran to smash Trinidad to pieces.

 

You have proved here that Hearns prime was short lived and that four weights north of his original weight he was vulnerable. It's thrashing around, it's peripheral to achievment and resume and skillset.

 

But why are they close?

Achievment through multiple weights - Hearns

Win resume - Hearns

Physical tools - Hearns

Skillset - Very, very close, and possibly the source of your confusion

Most damaging losses - Hopkins, but it's close.

Then you leave your list at the mercy of opinion rather than objectivity. If you flip two very, very close cards from losses to wins for the purpose of your assesment you risk looking bias, with reason.

Yes. It is one of the reasons that Leonard is a clear 20 odd places above Hearns. But please note that you will find it very, very difficult to find a good list that places Jones in Leonord's class. Hearns lost to one of the 12 best fighters who ever lived (my list) 15 inarguably. Jones is 25. In short, losing to Leonard whilst inexperienced is less hurtful than losing to an inexperienced Jones.

You seem to be arguing that because, according to you Hopkins is rated higher in his "home" division than Hearns is in his "home" division, that Tommy's wins being better is not enough to see Hearns ranked above them...this is not logical, at all. To make a p4p list, you don't look at your individual lists at the given weights and stick em together. Again, I feel you lose sight of what p4p is. Hearns doesn't have a home division like Hopkins does because he foraged from 147-200. Winning titles throughout.

He did more in more weights, he has the better wins. This should be pretty easy, I think.

I agree that Hopkins could be regrarded as more skilled, but that is not taking into account Tommy's superior physicality (i'm usually on the other side of this argument).

Yes, the fighter with less pound for pound achievment and the inferior win resume by a nose.

It's not that close. It's Hearns.

 

All losses are relevant here. Hopkins' took place at his home weight before one of his career best performances, Hearns took place 4 weights north of his home weight and he has nothing like a career's best performance after the second loss to Barkley.

 

Cherry picking much? How about the other 9 points in this post?

My point is - Trinidad got dominated and stopped by a great middle coming up from 147.

Duran comes up from 135, avoiding being knocked out by a great middle is an avhievment in and of itslef.

Given that this thread is about Hopkins being a top 30 fighter, and you're unable to provide a top 30 list, i'd be careful about throwing around words like "lame".

 

Well, there ARE paralleles. I don't think Calzaghe ranks anything like as high, but there can't be to much between them...