Is Bernard Hopkins the greatest Middleweight of all time?

I don't think they were strong eras.
Hopkins resume at 160 is THIN that's a fact. I don't care if he fights till he's 60 , we are judging him at middleweight, and his challengers are only so / so.

 

But if Monzon, Hagler and Hopkins aren't really all that since they only dominated weak eras, who was really all that?

 

I didn't say Monzon or Hagler were not all that , both were superior to Hopkins imo. I just said I don't think their eras were particularly strong.

 

Haven't read the back and forth ..

however, this part is simply not correct.

I'd say anyone (everyone) who is older than BHOP (anyone about 50+ today who grew up watching Clay/Ali & Frazier, Quarry, Foreman, etc. in real time) and had followed his career (i.e., BHOP's) expected Trinidad to be destroyed. I sure did. Thought it was an unbelievable mismatch and the punditry was apparently a bunch of guys who started following boxing a generation or more later.

That said, by the fall of 2001 I felt that BHOP at nearly 37 years of age was past his best and particularly so at middleweight as keeping his weight down that low was coming at the expense of the power and aggression he had in his early 30s. There was a tradeoff. It is simply out of the norm to be heading toward middle age when you are 6'1" (185 cm) and maintaining 160 pounds (a little under 11 1/2 stones). He should have been just as powerful (albeit past prime, not as quick, agile, etc., etc.) at 36 1/2 years as before by adding a few pounds (thus having to move up). I thought he looked weaker and weaker (comparatively) from his mid-30s on and he was fortunate to have rather weak comp in his biggest money fights of his career at middleweight. Because, by the time the high profile fights (in terms of opponent name recognition not middleweight historical quality or accomplishment to be sure) came he sure would have had a tougher time being past his best and having to face younger prime athletic talent (instead of a couple ex-welterweights for example - regardless of their resume). As it was, the sport had been dead for so long in the US there was no such fighter to bring his day of reckoning and frankly, the dead boxing scene has meant that he has even been able to continue his career up 'til today (as he approaches his what .. sixtieth birthday <g>).

His longevity is not merely better sport science, medicine, conditioning, food, attention to craft, etc. It is also a terrible era (covering many generations now) in which a sport has been on the whole dropped by a large country and major sport nation from the kind of incredible growth that was occurred in the other major sports pursued, supported, encouraged, and followed here. An obvious reduction in quality of participants and participation itself has allowed for his skill and experience to offset his other declining attributes (speed, aggression, energy, stamina, etc., etc.) enabling him to reach these Archie Moore levels.

 

good post, it says a lot about the sport in these last 30 years or so.
A shame really that hundreds of guys can be overlooked and forgotten all because of modern exposure and push, and of course contrite bull****.

there's a new and vary serious thread in the British today glorifying Joe Calzaghe as Britain's greatest ever fighter. :bart

God forgive us for the hundreds of fighters we are letting go, for so much less.

 

his resume obviously lets him down but his achievements match those of anyone. Lock for the top fifteen.

 

Trinidad was a very good middleweight at the time. He was not that small, he was decent size in any era. Yes Hopkins had a size advantage but Trinidad was expected to win.

It was only then B-Hop was really mentioned in P4P lists and whatnot.

I find that win is easy to dismiss and gets dismissed way too much for my liking. Not one of the greatest wins of all time but a win over a solid no.1 contender and well regarded superstar of the time.

 

I'm going with a definitive NO. I would say he's top 10 though. Monzon and Hagler are clearly better than him.