My Top 25 Fighters of the Last 25 Years- what do you think?

I agree PBF is ahead of Hopkins, that's why I have Floyd above him in my list.

Just as I thought though, debating this is pointless as we are simply on different sides of the fence. You seem to base your opinions on resume regarding your own perception of size differences.

Hopkins had only very slight size advantages over Trinidad, who was a huge welterweight. They were no greater than the normal standard size differences between two guys in the same division. Actually the size difference between Hopkins and Trinidad was far less than between Trinidad and many welterweights he fought. And it was less than the size difference between many fighters who fight in the same division naturally- Margarito v Cotto, Pavlik v Lockett, Clottey v Judah being 3 recent examples right off the top of the head.

If you are so concerned with size issues, then Morales beat a man far naturally smaller in Pacquiao, as Pac won his 1st world title at flyweight. You see, size issues don't often tell the whole story.

I do rate the wins over Tarver and Wright. Considering the circumstances surrounding the Tarver fight and the dominance of the performance, it was very impressive IMO. The old weight-drained excuse is brought up whenever anyone gets dominated- I have heard it being said about Jones v Toney and Mayweather v Corrales. "Toney was weight-drained", "Corrales was weight-drained"- **** that. If two men of a similar natural size (Hopkins had been fighting not in the same division, not 1 down either, but TWO down from Tarver) get into the ring to fight, the winner should be acclaimed. If his opponent was so so weight-drained he couldn't compete, then he shouldn't have got in the ring. **** the excuses. He turned up, he fought, he lost. Deal with it.

B-Hop lost to Jermain Taylor (and did he lose, really?) because he was 40, and he was facing a young hungry energetic and, in my opinion, quality fighter. There's no way the Hopkins of 2001 would have lost to Taylor, he would've schooled him easily.

Winky Wright was top 5 p4p at the time Hopkins beat him. You can't really argue with that fact.

I don't think his resume is as good as Pac's or MAB's either, but I think it's far better than you do, as you seem determined to discredit every single fight he's ever had.

 

This is what I really couldn't be bothered with on this thread, an argument where neither of us us going to change our mind anyway. I've heard everything you're saying before, and having considered it all before, I don't agree, so this is pretty pointless.

I acknowledge that Barrera and Pac are great, I love them both, I just think Hopkins had a great career, achieved a lot, had some great wins, and was a very very skilled fighter. You seem dead set against acknowledging this, fair enough.

Bringing up Tito-RJJ really does discredit your argument. That fight was a bad joke, Tito fighting at a weight he cannot cope at, when he hadn't fought in 3 years, hadn't won in FOUR years, and got utterly dominated in his last fight anyway. That farce is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

In his last 2 fights before B-Hop, Tito blew away Fernando Vargas (a big light-middleweight, 20-0) to unify the light-middleweight titles, then blew away WBA middlweight champion William Joppy (a natural middleweight, 32-1-1). He was favourite to beat B-Hop!!!! How you can say that win doesn't warrant much credit smacks of bias and agenda to me. Sorry, but it does. It was a magnificent win and performance.

I know people do often say it, but I don't understand at all how the hell Bernard Hopkins can be a natural light-heavyweight when he spent the vast VAST majority of his career comfortably making the weight and competing TWO weight divisions below that. It makes no sense to me at all. IMO Hopkins was a natural middleweight who could bulk up to light-heavyweight with no trouble at all because of his height - the same as Trinidad was a 5'11" welterweight who bulked up to middleweight with no trouble at all- see Joppy fight for evidence.

As I said, the Taylor loss had nothing to do with size, and everything to do with age, and the fact Taylor is a very talented fighter. It really is a silly point to be honest.
- Was Jermain Taylor naturally a substantially bigger man than Glen Johnson?
- How about Antonio Tarver?
- How about Howard Eastman?
- How about Keith Holmes (6'2" WBC champ when Hop met him)
- How about Segundo Mercado? (6'2")
And there's probably more big guys on his resume, those are just the ones I'm sure about just now.
And Hopkins beat all of them. So you are honestly wrong with your Taylor size theory mate.

You seem to be picking and choosing where size matters and where it doesn't for your own agenda. If Hopkins win over Tito is worth nothing because Tito started 2 weight divisions down, then it is illogical to the point of ridiculous to state that wins over Pac mean so much more when he started his world championship career at flyweight. Trinidad didn't stay long enough at middleweight to achieve much, but that was because he met a master in Hopkins, and his career tailed off. His brilliant KO of natural middleweight and WBA champion William Joppy is clear proof he was a powerful and effective middleweight at the time he fought Hopkins, IMO.

Of course peak RJJ would ****ing annihilate Tarver and Johnson 100 times out of 100, I would NEVER ever suggest otherwise. But the circumstances surrounding the Hopkins-Tarver fight make it a special win.

Tarver and Wright were much closer to B-Hop in age, and the fight was at a higher weight. The pace was slower than fighting a hungry young middlweight in his mid-late 20s, so age was less of an issue. Hopkins's had the disadvantage of age and diminishing stamina from 2005 on. When he lost to Taylor, it was a factor in that defeat clearly, as the 2001 Hopkins would have beaten Taylor convincingly IMO. The 2001 Hopkins would have beaten the Tarver and Wright he actually fought far more easily than he actually did when he fought them. Hopkins deserves credit for overcoming the disadvantage of age and stamina in those fights, not criticism.

Did you see the Taylor v Wright fight? Have you seen the rest of their careers? I don't think Taylor was a better fighter than Wright at all. Quite the opposite. And Wright fought Hop less than a year after he outclassed Taylor IMO. The Wright of the Hopkins fight would have beaten the Taylor of the Pavlik rematch (when they both fought at 170), definitely in my opinion.

Taylor didn't outbox Hopkins, he outworked him. I think Hopkins had more ability and achieved more than Barrera. It's close as they are both great, but I definitely give the edge to Hopkins after considering the 4 factors I set down at the thread-start.

I think by the end of his career, Pacquiao will be placed above Hopkins, but not yet.

OK, I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine, shall we leave it here??

 

Hagler only had 8 fights from 1983 on, and of that 8 one was a defeat to Leonard, and others were against less than stellar opposition- Tony Sibson, Wilford Scypion, Juan Domingo Roldan, Mustafa Hamsho. I don't think this small chunk of his career qualifies him as being part of this timeframe. If the question was greatest fighter of the last 30 years, Hagler would probably be top 3, definitely top 5.

Morales above Jones Jr?! (and Barrera and Pacquiao amongst others) I can't see that at all mate.

Hatton, Eubank and Hamed should be NOWHERE NEAR the top 25, absolutely nowhere near IMO.

But cheers for the list anyway, it's a difficult thing to do ain't it??

 

Cheers mate. But I think we have a different perception of what p4p means.

Evander fought Lewis when he was way past prime. Hopkins fought Calzaghe when he was way past prime. So those defeats don't mean anywhere near as much as if they were when both guys were peak. I think Hopkins would definitely have beaten Calzaghe convincingly when Hopkins was peak. I don't think Holyfield peak would have beaten Lewis, but here lies the difference in our p4p thinking.

Sandy Saddler beat Willie Pep 3-1. Aaron Pryor beat Alexis Arguello 2-0. Antonio Tarver beat Roy Jones Jr 2-1. Iran Barkley beat Thomas Hearns 2-0. Junior Jones beat Marco Antonio Barrera 2-0.

Each guy who lost these series was the better fighter p4p IMO.

Holyfield won the world cruiserweight title by fighting the toughest champion in the division in his 11th or 12th fight. He cleaned out the division and is without doubt the greatest cruiserweight in history. He went up to heavyweight, and despite his natural size disadvantages, was an excellent heavyweight for a long time. I think pound-for-pound he was very slightly better all-round than Lewis, taking each guy's whole career into account.

But I think they are both great fighters and it's very close, so I'm not too fussed if people think Lewis should be ranked higher.

 

He is 19th in my list.