Rank these guys in terms of ability... HOPKINS, DLH, LOPEZ, MARQUEZ ?

On the word 'god' in your post, if you meant that spelling mistake as a play on words, then that is very clever indeed, i like that.

I understand a good amount of people had Joe by a similar margin, my point was just that in the early rounds that Hopkins won clearly, i think labelling what went on there as a schooling is not out of order. To me it was.

 

John-JMM was close but JMM has problems with movers. Many thought Hopkins beat Taylor and he was ofcourse 39

Ability is a different matter, Hopkins is the best boxer of the lot by a distance. DLH may well be second I think he has flaws but his natural speed/rangyness is an underrated ability. Plus JMM who everyone wanks off about his technical ability often drops his right hand and can be horrible defensively. Lopez is very hard to compare, in terms of P4P ability he may be above these 2 though not sure he had the worst comp

 

Hopkins was 40 though. The Hopkins of 2001 would have convincingly beaten Taylor. The first fight could easily have been scored for Hopkins anyway. Those losses were not as damaging as the defeats which people have mentioned for JMM.

Looking at each man's peak performances, Hopkins is a clear winner here.

 

The Hopkins of 2001 was still a cautious fighter. I doubt that the Hopkins of that year would have convincingly beat Taylor. Lets not forget, Hopkins's punch output was very low against Trinidad until around the 6th round.

It's not as if the Hopkins of 2001 was miles better than the 2005 version. I think Hopkins's speed and timing against Eastman that year was pretty sublime, even during the late rounds.

If the Hopkins of 2001 starts against Taylor like he did against Trinidad, he certainly wouldn't beat him convincingly. IMO, Taylor is far more athletic and less one dimensional than Tito.

 

Haha, what the hell am i talking about??! Hopkins beat John!

It seems logical that JMM would have problems with movers because he doesn't employ much lateral movement himself, but it doesn't always play out that way, he counters so well with punches in bunches. Sometimes when people exploit his not great defense it works well, but as we know, it never seems to quite get the job done (well it flat out doesn't).

I agree with you that Hopkins is the best for ability, but for effectiveness it's close and Marquez is a solid shout there imo.

 

The featherweight Marquez was a very nimble and sharp fighter on his toes. He was better as a featherweight than he has been over the last 2-3 years. While he's been fighting better competition recently. Pacquiao, Barrera, Casamayor, Diaz, etc, and probably been more exciting, his overall ability and slickness has slowly went downhill.

Some may well disagree, but his prime was at 126lbs. His movement was certainly far better there, IMO.

 

It was, the way he had to chase Derrick Gainer around the ring certainly proved that. I still don't know if it means he was at his best there, it probably does though.

 

if your judging heart then marquez needs to be at the top of this list.

 

I see Hopkins as a bit like Arguello and Louis when it comes to punching technique and the basics. But he's far more mobile around the ring than those guys.

McGrain?