Is Bernard Hopkins an ATG?

Yes.

 

:|:|:|:|

Hopkins is an ATG by accumilation. His best wins are against smaller fighters, however, he unified the titles and defended his title 20 times. That's an accomplishment. He also beat some good fighters that are being underrated here.

 

Yes, but I do agree that his opposition wasn't that special, to say the least.

The Oscar win means little IMO. Oscar was a big name, but a smaller guy who had little business at 160. At least Trinidad had destroyed the 2nd best MW in the world shortly before Hopkins took him to school.

 

Its spelt site dude.

But a very fair comment nonetheless.

 

If you don't think he's an ATG, by that do you mean he doesn't belong in the top 100 ATG P4P fighters? Who do you think belongs at 90-100? Or 50-60? I'm 100% sure he's better than the fighters you would put on those rankings.

It's easy to discredit his wins just like it is with many other great fighters. And "he is 0-3 against the best opposition he faced"? Whether you think so or not, the fact is that he only lost one fight near his prime and it was agaist the greatest H2H boxer in history at that weight. He WAS past it when he fought Taylor and that is also a fact. He was 40 years old. atsch I don't even need to mention that he got robbed by Taylor in the first match at 40 years old with his bad workrate. If he was in his prime he would destroy Taylor and stop him easily.

You have to look at how Bernard Hopkins dominated his competition over his long reign as the middleweight king. If that's not impressive I don't know what is. He would practically shut out solid B level fighters and break them down beautifully. His skills are undeniable and he has H2H style/abilities that are dangerous to any middleweight in history.. especially since he is a 15 round fighter and would have a lot more KO's in his career if he fought 15 rounders. People make his KO victories over Trinidad and DLH seem like nothing, but he did what an ATG middleweight is expected to do with them, knock them out. Both of those fighters weren't dominated the way they were dominated by Hopkins.

If you actually watched his career and didn't just look at boxrec statistics, you could see that he was a special fighter for a long time and definitely an ATG. He's at worst top 50. He is overrated right now as a fighter at 42, but history wise, he isn't overrated and should be recognized as an ATG and top 1-3 MW of all time.

 

Lets look

Glen Johnson - Hops was the only guy to stop Johnson. Johnson later on became Fighter of the Year at light heavy for beating Jones and Tarver. Not a HOFer but very well respected.

Echols - This guy was like a late 90's version of Mugabi or Miranda. Hops beat him twice.

Tito - Hall of Famer Hopkins slowly crushed.

Goldie - I really think Hops couldve molested Oscar in 7 rds or less but he took it easy on his future business partner. Most of Hopkins opponents couldve beaten Oscar.

Joppy - Turned a respectable belt holder into pumpkinhead over 12 rds.

Taylor - The majority know Hops did enough to keep his belts from the HBO milk dud.

Tarver - Borderline HOFer who was a bigger man who still got his ass beat.

Wright - Certified HOFer who woudlve still got beat by Hopkins at MW from 95- 03.

Nothing wrong with this resume. People compare Hops to Hagler who also fought a bunch of smaller fighters. Maybe Hops will get more appreciated over time.

 

I don't think he's an all time great in terms of resume, but in terms of ability? Then yeah!
Incedently, what do people think of his win over Keith Holmes?

 

I rank Hagler above Hopkins at MW due to opposition level. I think extremely high of both of them skill-wise. They were both terrific, versatile fighters who could box and brawl. Hopkins was a little slicker and quicker, while Hagler was heavier-handed and more proven in the brawling category.

But Hagler beat a slew of quality middleweights on the road to the title, was THE champion for all those defenses rather than one of the champs, and beat better opposition.