Is Hopkins the greatest fighter in terms of longevity?

I think Duran has a couple months on him. Didn't have a fight in '90 though, so I guess there's that.


Anyway...

In terms of defying age, Hopkins is #1. Definitely, for me. There's more to longevity than that though, and as such, you have to give this to Moore. He wasn't just old, he had to battle through hundreds of fights against maybe the most ridiculously stacked competition that any boxer has ever faced, doing so from middle to heavy. So yeah, it's Moore.

Hopkins is doing special things though.

 

He's at 32. He also didnt fight in '85.

 

greatest bernard i think

 

Let's not do this.

 

:good

 

I agree.

You can't just count the years. Looking at how long Archie stayed at the top despite all his fights and all his great opponents... And that in an age with inferior living conditions and health care compared to today. A marvel really. Moore probably doesn't get the recognition as the phenom he was..

 

damn, you're lucky. i got 3 and none of em are crystal.

i like your point and there's something that just doesn't impress me on an all time great standpoint for hopkins. beating pavlik and tarver i loved...beating winky meant **** and pascal was a moron. he gets outhustled by a guy like dawson and imo, twice by taylor. i scored the calzaghe fight for joe, one of my least favourite fighters ever.

hopkins is good but he damn well needs a moron, someone shot or someone small in front of him most nights to look good.

the more i read on ole archie the better he sounds in this regard

 

How about setting the record for title defenses ? Surely thats an all time thing.

 

he set the record for a titlest yeah, not for unified. and it's who he beat that counts.

don't get me wrong, hopkins is an all time great fighter. but the depth of his resume counts against him and when i watch him now i just see a very smart spoiler.

 

**** unified. King kept those belts away as best he could. Hopkins was the best MW for years even before the tourney started.

 

totally agreed...but i can't say he set a record as middleweight champion if he wasn't THE middleweight champion. it ain't hopkins fault but it's way the way it is.

 

My opinion is that Archie Moore was better.He was knockout artist even in his late 40s.I watched fight with Gulio Rinaldi and he looked impressive;no holding,fighting,fast and explosive.He was like 25 years old.Hopkins is master,also great fighter in his late 40s but Archie Moore was greater.

 

So who was THE MW champ in your eyes?

 

i don't know the era well enough to say. but in restrospect i'd say he was best in the division but not THE champ. there was no THE champ. in such a weak time for the division, he should be expected to clean house

 

:blood