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

Collins was a much bigger name in America than Hopkins at the time.

 

But Steve based himself in London under Barry Hearn after the Kalambay fight, fighting on Eubank and Benn undercards.

 

Hopkins didn't emerge in 1995. That's when he challenged for a vacant title FOR THE THIRD TIME and finally won it.

In March 1992, (the month the magazine I referenced published its ratings) Hopkins was the fifth-ranked IBF contender. In 1993, when he faced Jones, Hopkins was the #1 contender. He had time to fight more than just Roy Jones.

But my point wasn't why Hopkins didn't fight them. That's not why I posted the list.

People were focusing on fighters like Monzon and Emile Griffith.

I just wanted to throw in some names who were also at the top of the division in the early 90s when Hopkins was a top-tier contender.

I don't know if he beats the middleweight versions of the guys who were his actual peers, let alone fighters from the 50s, 70s, etc.

The division Hopkins came up in ... and the one he FINALLY won a title in and dominated ... were quite different.

But even putting him in mythical matchups against his peers from the early 90s, he doesn't appear to be a dominant force.

Head to head, a lot of top middleweights from the early 90s would do just fine against him.

(If anyone's interested, the guys rated above Hopkins in the IBF ratings in March 1992 were - Champ: James Toney #1. Reggie Johnson #2. Mike McCallum #3. Steve Collins #4. Lamar Parks #5. Bernard Hopkins)

 

I agree. I was just adding more names to consider.

People talk about the 70s heavyweights. But the early 90s might've had the greatest collection of middleweights ever. You had all those guys I listed. Plus there were the guys who had recently moved up to the new Super Middle division - like Eubank, Benn, Watson, Nunn.

From 160-168, that early 90s era was ridiculously talented. Hopkins was in there, but I wouldn't put him at the top of the heap head-to-head.

In one-on-one mythical matchups just among those guys, he might end up around the tenth spot.

All-time, he's probably lower than that.

 

Barkley was at super-middle too!

 

And talented contenders Littles and Liles

 

If you take the decade 1985-1995 at MW, then it's just ridiculous. Hagler, Graham, Hearns, Nunn, Kalambay, McCallum, Jackson, Toney, McClellan, Watson, Jones and Hopkins. Leonard also, if his one night only at the weight qualifies him for the discussion. Benn, Barkley and Mugabi were also guys that could spell trouble for anybody.

Must be one of the very best decades for any division ever in terms of pure quality.

 

Thats what I said.

He had just "arrived" in 1992 but within a year or so of that time most of those big names you mentioned were gone for one reason or another. The window on almost every one of those fights was relatively narrow.

 

I've always thought this was one of the best break downs of a fantasy hypothetical that I've read on this site. I can see all of the points you've made, and I think it just underlines what a close fight this would be.
I can't really add much that you haven't already dissected...but here are some very general observations.
- Monzon is more active than given credit for.
Mainly it's the jab. Whether meaning to inflict some damage, or using it as the ****off punch you described. Hopkins is a very highly reactive fighter, the term 'defensively responsible gets toss out there commonly enough, but it suits Hopkins...if Monzon gets Hopkins' respect...chances are Hopkins would react and pay attention to Monzon's **** off stuff...
- I think that both fighters would prefer to have the other lead. Hookins IMO would adapt better if he were forced into a more aggressive role. But whether Monzon would be forced to lead or not, he would consistently be throwing multiple jabs, for offense and defense.
- Monzon is not as limited offensively as some would think...Meaning he changes levels well. Conception is he is a very basic one two fighter. Not true. He sets up traps for body and head shots very well. Your observation that Monzon is 'looser' than Pavlik is appropriate. He is looser, and follows no set patterns. Pavlik would at times fall into patterns with his one two threes...Hopkins preyed on that. Monzon wouldn't present that same familiarity.
- It would be interesting to know who is actually the physically stronger man.
- I can't see either having a psychological edge in this. Monzon is a crazy mean mother****er though...not above rabbit punching or thumbing. I think he thumbed Napoles to get the edge. Hopkins hits low...Monzon rabbit punches...
- Each are multi faceted, and adaptable.
- Here is possibly the main thing that I think would give the (slight) edge to Monzon...in his fight with Kovalov, Hopkins commented that Kovalov didn't stay in place to be countered...he took that littel half step back. Monzon absolutely excelled at this tactic. Granted Hopkins was fifty y/o in that fight. would it still be relevant, as a tactic to offset Hopkins just that little bit? I think it might.

Anyway, thanks for bringing that old post back up...Nice reading. Cheers.

 

:deal I'll add that Emile Griffith also gave Minzon fits in their first fight prior to the 14th round stoppage. Benvenuti was no walk in the park in their first fight either.

 

And you're wrong again.

 

Exactly.

 

And you are extremely biased towards Monzon, so I take anything you say regarding him with a pinch of salt.

The only way you could reason that I wasn't as high on him as you are is that I am somehow biased towards South American fighters....which pretty much everyone knows not to be the case.

Weak era, weak competition, lots of hipsters try to act cool by showing their appreciation for him=overrated.

And no, 'overrated' doesn't mean 'completely without merit'.

 

Also, how the HELL can my prediction be 'wrong'? Prove it.

 

You've given you opinion, and I've given you mine...And I'm not a "hipster" you sour old ****.