Most impressive run: Hopkins, RJJ or Wlad?

Still, he schooled Hopkins easily in 93 at 160 lbs. He was clearly the better of the two prime for prime and his 15 yr virtually unbeaten run, discounting the DQ to Griffin, when he was on the verge of stopping Montell, should not be underestimated or overlooked because of his sudden and dramatic fall

Roy Jones relied on quickness and reflexes, and when those started to go, it got ugly.

But, he was a once every blue moon type of freak talent who thoroughly dominated his era and was always rated above Hopkins until the bottom fell out But, by then, his legacy was firmly secured..

Hopkins and Toney were extraordinarily skilled and had old School fundamentals that allowed them to excell offensively and defensively. But, Jones had the hand and foot speed to easily overcome both. Speed kills. Jones was like a faster Floyd Mayweather

 

The other factors are important, but again, only man cleaned out his division entirely. Only one man could unquestionably call himself the world champion.

Being disciplined enough to make his weight class without incident for over a decade is a huge plus point tbh.

Hopkins definitely impressed me most. He was the very definition of a champion.

 

Yes, only Bernard cleaned out his division. But it was a weak division.

How does that eclipse a former JMW going up to HW and back and easily beating Hill and Griffin along the way?

Being disciplined is a sign of professionalism. But in Bernard's case, we know that he remained at MW because he wanted an easier ride. He shrunk himself down in order to fight naturally smaller fighters in a weak division. He's actually admitted that. And not only did he do that, he wouldn't face Roy at a C-W even after he'd won King's tournament.

Although it hurts Roy's legacy that he missed Dariusz, at least his management tried to make the fight in the U.S. whereas Bernard swerved his biggest challenge to try and drag up former WW's. He was basically a bully.

 

All of the three were long term titlists in a division. Only Hopkins made a fight against every other title holder. Only Hopkins beat every other title holder.

Yes Hopkins has the professionalism to fight at his ideal weight for over a decade, never missing weight. It almost seems like you are trying to paint that as negative? He bossed the MW division in a way that no one since has done, in a way that no one since Hagler had done. This is a positive thing and one of the reasons I picked him. Former WW fighters like Tito and De La Hoya held belts in his division. Had he not knocked them both out to unify the belts I wouldn't be picking him in this debate here.

If Jones really wanted the DM fight it would have happened, he played the game enough so an argument like yours could be made, but he didn't truly pursue the fight, mainly because he gained championship recognition without having to go through DM.

So what if Hopkins was a bully, during his championship years no one was able to put the bully in his place.

He was the most impressive champion because he was the only champion who successfully beat every other claimant in his division. He didn't share his reign, he was the reign.

 

lufcrazy,

Again, it's nothing without context.

Of course it was a negative. Look at the quotes that I posted to John Thomas. He shrunk himself down to fight naturally smaller fighters in a weak division. And he did that because it was easier than fighting the best SMW's and LHW's of his time.

Bernard Hopkins - 2008:

'I'm glad that Joe (Calzaghe) feels comfortable fighting at his real weight that he could have been at a couple of years ago. I know the feeling Joe, I did it for 13 years at middleweight"

"I could've fought 3 weight classes 4 or 5 years ago. About 5 or 6 years ago I could've moved up''

"There was more money down at the small weights and the risk was minimum to going up to fight the big boys''

"At the end of the day, if I can get a guy to a weight class where I know he's not used to or hasn't been in - why wouldn't I take that advantage or take that chance?"

Now kindly tell me what is so impressive about that?

What was impressive about him beating Oscar, who was awarded a gift against Sturm? He had no business being in the ring with a true MW.

Really?

Kerry Davis of HBO says otherwise.

Are you going to use the same reasoning regarding the negotiations for a rematch between Roy-Bernard in 2002?

Bernard demanded $10m or no fight.

When his ridiculous demands couldn't be met, he then called out the champs at JMW.

How is that impressive to you?

So what?

Ha!

So that's impressive to you?

Yes, B and C class MW's and former WW's couldn't put the bully in his place.

Brilliant.

What a feat for Bernard.

Again, stats are nothing without context.

He had 2 cracks at the vacant belt that Roy left. He then defended it for 6 years against mainly B and C class guys until King's tournament, which culminated in him beating Tito to be the undisputed champ. Although I give him credit for his performance against Tito at an advanced age, Tito was still a former WW. That simply has to be taken into account.

How can that eclipse a former MW going up to HW and back, where he mostly won in style, making it look easy?

 

How is the fact that he could make weight for a decade and dominate a division possibly a negative? He weighed in at 160 or less on many many occasions, never failing to make weight. A division that he completely unified. A division that by the time he was done, no one else could claim to be a champion. A division that was completely fractured before he came along. He was a model MW champion. Nothing you've said paints that in a negative light.

Yes the same reasoning can be used. Bernard could have made the fight had he really wanted. The difference is Jones was two divisions north, DM was in the same division and was a former unified champion in that division.

Yes you claim he's a bully, so what. This isn't tiddlywinks. Anyone in the division had the opportunity to stand up to the bully, none managed it.

De La Hoya and Tito had to be defeated since they were title holders in his division. They were proclaiming to the world that they were MW champions. Of course Hopkins had to fight them. They were in his backyard waving their belts around, damn right the bully put them in their place.

And yes people from smaller divisions moved up to challenge him, again bully swatted aside those challenges. Again that's a huge positive for him.

You've made most of my argument for me here tbh. It's just that you seem to think making weight for a decade whilst completely unifying a division is somehow a negative lol.

 

A lot of Roy’s best work was pre-Griffin. Tarver, Hill, Griffin, Johnson and Ruiz were solid wins but none were perceived as unbeatable.

My gut says Wlad. An 11 year run on top at heavyweight is extremely rare.

Hopkins has a great run but it occurred in a lull after a very strong 160 class exited.

 

lufcrazy,

What on earth are you talking about?

You've either not read his comments, or you have and you haven't taken them in.

Once again:

He made incredible sacrifices in order to dominate a weak division, where the majority of his opponents were naturally smaller than he was.

What the hell is impressive about that?

Instead of him trying to fight the best guys at SMW and LHW, he chose to fight weaker, smaller guys.

Go and read his comments.

There's nothing great about shrinking down in order to fight and drag up smaller fighters.

Roy wouldn't go to Germany, but he was more than willing to fight Dariusz in the U.S.

Bernard had no intentions of fighting Roy at a C-W, yet he was happy to challenge out all of the JMW champs instead.

Again, read his comments.

Think about what he said.

He could have moved up to LHW years earlier, yet he wouldn't fight Roy at SMW?

So what?

You keep saying this.

How can the fact that he bullied smaller guys NOT be a factor here in this debate?

Basically, you're happy to ignore every factor apart from the stats.

Again, stats are nothing without context.

And this should be celebrated?

It's impressive to you that he beat Oscar, despite the fact that Oscar couldn't beat Sturm and looked awful?

Does that not affect how you rate the win?

On what planet is that a huge positive?

He wouldn't fight Roy Jones, but he was happy beat up a former LW instead?

Yet you commend that and see it as a positive?

It's truly baffling.

Of course it's a negative. Because he did it in order to fight WEAKER competition who were smaller than he was.

He stayed at MW because it was far easier for him to dominate that division than fight the best guys at the above weights.

That should be disparaged not celebrated.

 

Mate as I've said, you have made the argument for me.

He spent a decade making weight and beating every other title holder in his division.

Yes he used his frame to his advantage, big deal. Foreman used his power to his advantage. Ali used his speed to his advantage. Hopkins did whatever he needed to be a MW fighting machine. And that bully succeeded. He was the MW division for a decade and anyone who came his way tasted defeat.

Everything you have said is a huge positive for Bernard and underlines why I rated his run the most impressive.

I'd have been interested to have a debate that wasn't agreeing with me but everything you have written backs up my opinion already. He did this for a decade, he unified the division, he dominated, he bullied and he left no door unturned.

If you have any arguments that are actually in favour of the other guys I'd like to hear them, but all you've done so far is underline my choice.

 

Your reasoning is utterly ridiculous.

I've given you specific reasons as to why it's the least impressive of the 3, but you're completely ignoring them all and then quoting me his stats.

Stats are for guys like Bailey.

The circumstances simply have to matter.

If you're not going to factor in the circumstances and apply context, there is nothing to debate.

The fact that he ADMITTED to dragging up smaller fighters has to be taken into account here. If it's not, you may as well find another thread.

Once again:

How does a guy who shrunk himself down in order to fight smaller guys in a weak division, trump a former JMW going up to HW and back in style?

It can't.

Wlad's competition wasn't great. But at least he fought everyone apart from his brother. He didn't avoid his best competition in the way that Hopkins did, where he was calling out former WW's to come up and fight him.

 

If we both stand at the top of the empire state building and look out at the view from the North side of it, we will both see the exact same thing, but will potentially view it in different ways. One might see a beautiful metropolis landscape, the other might see a disgusting concrete jungle.

What is happening here is you are relaying facts about Hopkins reign. The same facts I am relaying. Because of course, we both know the same things. The difference is these facts impress me and they do not impress you. However, these facts are the facts.

We can spend time immortal debating these same facts and discussing why it impresses me but not you, the same way we can stand at the top of the empire building and discuss whether or not the landscape is impressive.

Whilst there is some merit in that, I feel we have covered everything we will ever cover.

What I am instead suggesting, is that instead of going over the same facts from two alternate point of views, why not put forth your argument for the other fighters. Don't tell me about what doesn't impress you about Hopkins, as we all know now, it does impress me. Tell me what does impress you about Jones and Wlad.

We aren't arguing here about whether or not purple is purple, we're arguing about how impressive a colour purple is. I like it, you don't. But instead of telling me how much you don't like purple, tell me about the colours you do like, and why.

 

I've already told you why the others have more impressive reigns.

I understand that Bernard's stats impress you.

What I don't understand, is how you can completely turn a blind eye to the circumstances. Is that being objective?

Stats alone aren't enough.

You can't have a debate where you're just saying: "So what?"

Every single factor affects the worth of something, whether it's in a positive or a negative way.

Statistics without context are absolutely meaningless. Otherwise Marciano was better than Ali, as he dominated more and went unbeaten etc.

Yes, Bernard was a great MW. Yes, he dominated etc. But he hid in the division in order to avoid the better comp above. Now if that doesn't in any way affect your ranking, there's something very wrong happening.

How you can praise him for swerving Roy and then fighting guys like Oscar absolutely beggars belief. The Oscar fight was a complete farce.

 

Hi fellas, enjoying the debate but I do feel Bhops is getting a bum rap for staying at middleweight which has always been the second most prestigious division in the sport after Heavyweight.

In my opinion being a great undisputed middleweight champion is a lot more impressive from an historical point of view than winning multiple alphabet titles which a lot of fighters have managed to do.

Check out Monzons record at 160. Like Hopkins King Carlos was a very big middleweight who unlike Hopkins never ventured up to 175. Griffith and Napoles were elderly ex welterweights, Benvenuti was a decent world champion but no great.

My point is that I don’t feel it’s fair to attack a fighter for being professional and making weight in what is one of boxing’s elite divisions for a decade.

Boxing is a professional “ sport “ that has always been about maximising how much money you can make so as far as I am concerned Hopkins was very smart to fight De La Hoya at a catch weight ( something nobody has mentioned and Hopkins had to have been weakened by ) and as far as Trinidad goes, well he had already destroyed Joppy, was a middleweight world champion and was the betting favourite. All things people seem to have forgotten.

Cheers All.

 

Likewise, I have also enjoyed following the debate, but found the negative take on Hopkins making 160, a touch unreasonable. It's not as though Hopkins was drying himself out to a crisp, so as to be reconstituted to 180lbs.

As far as I am aware, Hopkins didn't even re-hydrate to as much as 170lbs, by fight night. That is the sign of a disciplined sportsman who, even between fights maintained a healthy lifestyle and a high level of fitness.

Did Hopkins have to perform under the same weight-making conditions, as his opponents? Yes.
Did Hopkins ever fail to make weight or break the rules? Not that I know of.

So, if he had the discipline to follow the rules; never fail in meeting his sporting and contractual obligations, then perform successfully against opponents, who were under the same conditions, I see no problem here.