Thoughts on this top 5 @ 160

Hearns/Tito is basically a pick’em at Middleweight, though I’d favor Hearns. I’d favor Tito over every other fighter you listed.

 

Burley had quite a few more losses, which makes the difference for me. I don't see what great MWs he beat either. Moore flourished as a LHW and was a good rather than great MW.

 

I don't see anything in Roldan, Sibson, Vito etc that I don't see in Hopkins opp. I don't think they were anything special as contenders. And in Duran's last title fight before Hagler he was well beaten at 154 and hadn't even had a fight at 160. Hearns blew hot and cold at 160 and I can't see why that would be much better than Tito.

 

Yeah, this is something that completely eludes me too. And it's not a bash on Hagler, who's probably in my top 3 MW and could well be nr 1. But neither dominated a great era in my eyes. And nothing wrong with that,. Very few, if any, fighters have.

 

yeah, I don’t even want to bash Hagler who is one of my favorites. Of course I seldom bash any fighters anymore. But I do think consistency is a key. The criteria needs to be applied consistently or you just end up with a list of guys you like above guys you don’t like. If Hopkins had lost to one of the WW’s of his era he would be ripped to shreds. If he went to the cards with DLH/Tito ala Hagler/Duran he would get ripped. Personally I don’t rip either guy....and even as a Hopkins fan I rate Hagler above Hopkins (even though I would pick Hopkins H2H).

 

I assume you meant eludes

 

Yes.

 

I think it's kind of funny the times I defend Hopkins here without being a particular fan (more than I am of any great fighter), but it just that he gets so weirdly underrated imo. Even 15 years after he left the MW division.

And the times the Taylor losses get mentioned is also quite nuts. A 40-year old losing two razor close decisions that well could have gone the other way to a very talented fighter in his prime... How can that be a knock on him?

 

I don’t think anyone is saying you can’t pick RJJ or anyone else. I think the issue is verbiage and terminology.

top 5/10/25
Is generally seen as who is greater (most separate greater and better...just as quick and fast are not quite the same thing, neither is better and greater in most discussions), who accomplished the most. In this case at 160 most (not all lol) would rate Hopkins higher than RJJ at 160 but most would rate RJJ higher/greater in a P4P sense. We can contrast who is greater by what they accomplished (ranked opposition, title fights, perhaps longevity or at least dominant longevity)...even for guys we lack film of, we can still contrast what they accomplished against their era.

RJJ chose to move up...Hopkins, Hagler, Monzon chose not to. By virtue they naturally have the greater MW accomplishments.

better is more arbitrary who do I think would win a hypothetical imaginary fight that will never happen and can never be fully proven. But it is still fun most of the time. I think Hopkins is better than Hagler (unprovable) yet I think Hagler is greater (slim but by my consistent...not to be confused with correct lol. But I do try to be consistent in the way I view a fighters record)

feel free to pick who you want where you want. I think the terminology is the sticking point.

P4P RJJ > Hopkins
160 Hopkins > RJJ

better...take your pick

 

You can pick him head to head, sure. I didn’t say Tito rated higher than those men as Middleweights all time.

You don’t seem to grasp the distinction. Or you do, and you’re just fighting against the “head to head” terminology for some reason. That’s the only reason this debate has been ongoing. We gave you an out on the first page. Instead, you’ve chosen the way of pain. We’ve delivered.

 

If its a H2H discussion I think Gearld the Gman needs a mention, Hagler, Monzon and Jones make sense I think not mentioning D1ck tiger could be a mistake his body of work is superior then Jones at MW but I do not think he is H2H Roys master, I think swap out Greb for Sugar Ray Robinson and Charley Burley for Tiger.