Of the filmed middleweights, who do you think belongs CLEARLY above Hopkins h2h?

i think jones, hagler, and robinson are clearly better on film (key word is clearly).

he has a ****ty mw resume, but that isn't the question

 

I did not critisize LaMotta for not facing Graziano. I just had Graziano among some of the top MWs of the 40's that Jake didn't face. But did in no way make a special point of him not facing Grazino.

But the simple fact is, you can't really make a point about him being great because he was active in a great era since he didn't dominate that era. The early 40's is seen as special because you had Charles, Moore, Burley, Williams and Robinson all fighting at MW during those years. And that is very understandable since you have at least three ATG:s among those.

But just because LaMotta was also active during that tine doesn't make him automatically great. He'd have to show himself being competitive with them to be that. And since he was 1-5 against Robinson and only faced a washed up version of Williams of the others, you can't really say he that did to a great extent.

But that doesn't mean that he wasn't a good fighter with some good wins. He was. Just not the dominant fighter of his era.

 

I never claimed that Lamotta was dominant. And there are many who would say that citing Lamotta winning one fight in 6 against Robinson is like saying that Marquez won only one of the Pacquaio fights. I'm just saying that Lamotta fight and beat most of the top guys of his era. Did he miss a few? Of course, who doesn't. But to dismiss a champion in a strong era as a 'good fighter with a few good wins' seems a vast overstatement to me at least.

 

It's a myth that Lamotta's losses to Robinson could have realistically gone the other way if you read up on them.

 

Good questions, and I'm not sure.
I think RJJ is more likely to school or dominate someone considered to be a great champion, but his actual win-loss record against the entire field I don't know.

Also, and maybe slightly on a tangent .... I really don't know if Hopkins would even get to #1 contender position in some of those old eras, even briefly. There were great fighters in the 40s, 50s and 60s at middleweight who didn't make it. And Hopkins, aesthetically, reminds me a bit of some of those fighters - good, workmanlike, technical, skilful - but they were in 50-50 fights too often.

Anyway, Marvin Hagler's another one who I think looks better h2h, and yes I'd expect him to do better against the field.
Monzon too.

 

"Beat most of the top guys of his era"? I can't really agree with that when besides Lytell there's hard to find top MWs he got the better of. Cerdan and Williams are good names, but Cerdan was injured and Williams washed up. He mixed wins and losses with Villemain and Bashora.

Most of the Black Murderers' row he didn't face at all, nor Zale or Graziano. I'm not saying this was his fault (if anything Zale ducked him and Graziano probably wasn't overly keen either- as to why he didn't face Burley, or Williams earlier, I don't know if there were any particular reasons), but the fact is that these are important scalps of the period that he doesn't have, no matter whose fault it is that the fights didn't come off.

A win over Robinson is obviously very impressive, but it gets tempered by being mixed with five losses and that Robinson was still no more than a WW who wouldn't figure in the Ring rankings at MW until six years later.

I just can't see how this is better than Hopkins, who after his loss to Jones beat all comers for the next decade, often in dominating fashion, until he came unstuck at the age of 40 in two close fights with a much younger fighter.

 

I don't think I would rate him above Hopkins either. But I put more emphasis on title reigns than most and consistency than most. That is however only without thinking about it. That is not what I am arguing anyway.

But by your standards wouldn't it be fair to criticize Wills for not fighting Dempsey? In the two years that Lamotta was champion he had beat or would beat about half of the top 10. I just don't think that looking at a young Lamotta and saying that he missed out on murderers row, when he was green for much of their heyday and despite the fact that he fought two of them is a just criticism. But I don't think it's a ridiculous argument, even if I disagree with it, since Hopkins had such a long and distinguished middleweight career.

 

Carlos Monzon, Marvin Hagler, Sugar Ray Robinson (in title regaining mode), Roy Jones Jr., Emile Griffith (when on) and Mickey Walker....if the question wasn't restricted to "filmed" then Greb would have made the list.....and a "maybe" would be Freddie Steele. I didn't include the great **** Tiger, because he was "outboxable",...but even there, I have a smidgen of doubt...and a part of me thinks that Gene Fullmer would have given Hopkins a very rough evening with that bull strength and unpredictable style, but I may be wrong.

 

I can't see your point here at all. Surely you aren't going to deny that Hopkins 2 marquee wins at Middle were against Welters in Tito and DLH?

 

Their are a few middleweights I could see beating Hopkins in his prime a middleweight but their isn't a single middleweight of all time I wouldn't give Hopkins a chance against H2H.

 

Jermain Taylor

 

Michael Nunn. Clearly.

 

Herol Graham, Kalambay and the Eubank who fought Watson all marginally, not 'CLEARLY'. McCallum is close.

Gerald McClellan blew away Baptist who Hopkins struggled with to some extent. Some food for thought.

 

Monzon would rip Hopkins a new as shole.

 

Sands looks very good on film he has a shot.:good