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

In H2H scenario's involving Hopkins the talk inevitably turns towards how difficult it would be to beat him decisively and that's a rather misleading measuring stick for greatness IMO, not losing decisively isn't necessarily synonymous with greatness.

I do think Hopkins is great but because he's a huge MW and defensive specialist who can turn into an outright spoiler and make it near impossible to look good against doesn't mean he's the greatest fighter just because he loses the least decisively.

I'm resorting to hyperbole now to demonstrate the point but Sam Soliman is extremely difficult to look good against or beat decisively, a prime Winky couldn't do it, but he's far from elite. Hopkins style facilitates that but it doesn't necessarily indicate his overall class the way some imply it does IMO.

Definitely agree with this.

Not true Basora's last two wins over him came when Holman was shot but he did get a win and draw in 43/44 when Holman was still in his prime (or before he started to decline). Didn't realize that about the Lytell fight though.

 

Ok. I repeat, but only once more: I don't criticize him for not meeting them, I'm just stating that these are very important scalps from the early 40's he doesn't have. And therefore it's strange to say he was great for being active in a great era, when he didn't beat the men most think made the era great.

This I've said time and time again, but on certain subjects some just want to misinterpret you I suppose.

 

Just as much as Hagler's were over Duran and Hearns, I suppose. If by "marquee" you mean the fights that got the larger public excited.

But the main thing with both Hagler and Hopkins when rating them as MWs is that they cleaned out all the other top MWs of their eras.

 

No, I certainly don't think it's better than Hopkins, since most of the guys listed above wasn't ranked at MW or wasn't MWs period. He also mixed wins and losses with several of the guys listed (in Robinson's case he lost 5 out of 6). He lost to WWs (not former WWs weighing in as MWs, but actual WWs) and quite a few non ranked MWs.

It's doubtful if Williams was still ranked when Jake beat him. He wasn't at the end of that year anyhow - had lost two of his three fights before Jake and would go on to lose the majority of his remaining fights after.

In your list Cerdan is the one top MW at the height of his power that Jake beat and never lost to - but a severe injury played its part there, as we know.

What people are claiming is that he had tougher comp than Hopkins and therefore should be seen as better both h2h and be ranked higher.

I can't help but to take issue with that. If he had dominated his era like Hopkins dominated his, it would be quite reasonable to have him ahead of Hopkins. But the simple fact is that he didn't.

Personally I don't think he matches up well with Hopkins stylistically in a direct match-up either.

But I think I'll leave it at that. Never meant to make this thread about LaMotta, just couldn't let that bit about his "shark infested waters" slip. To me it alludes to that he dominated the 40's formidable gang of the Black Murderers' row and Robinson, and that is just not true.

 

Hopkins is very arguably the best middleweight for who we have useful film.

That doesn't mean that there are not some pressure fighting middleweights who we have film of, who would beat him for stylistic reasons.

 

are people confusing lamotta and graziano?

lamotta has one of the better white mw resumes going, and a full ****load better than hopkins.

he'd trouble hopkins too, probably losing a close decision due to hopkins having a high connect %

 

No

 

Hence 'started to get the better of him'. But fare enough Basora was a top fighter, I need to read up on those contests.

 

No one is an obvious choice as Hopkins size, strength, speed, defense, chin and game make him a very crafty match up for anyone. The obvious choices for a match up are Robinson, Monzon, Hagler, Jones and Toney for challanges

 

If you watched their first fight it was a complete razor close decision. Jones himself looked a bit nervous waiting for the decision. The Roy dominance is not based on reality as I learned by rewatching the fight a few times.

 

You missed off 2 pf his best wins, although they were robbery decisions. Villemain, considered once of the biggest robberies in boxing history, so much so that the commission considered over ruling the decision. Yarosz too was generally reported as a robbery although not quite as exteme.

Lytell was scored as wide as 8-2, the Holman decsion was boo'd by the crowd, the 145lb Robinson win probably could have gone the other way with it being scored 5-4-1. Then the Cerdan win, which is nearly entirely down to the illegal throw in the first that dislocated Cerdan's shoulder.

Now none of these are great middleweights, Robinson being a lightweight by today's standards, Holman being past it, Lytell being pretty green. The rest are welters or fringe contenders.

Would anyone be talking about Lamotta mixing with the greatest MWs if these had all been scored the other way? Nope

 

By razor thin I take you mean Jones won every round pretty much. The utter re****ed BS that's posted on this forum is shocking