Thoughts on this top 5 @ 160

As i said in above post, Hopkins isn't great just because of his win over Tito, but because of his decade of dominance where he beat everyone who counted.

Likewise, Hagler shouldn't be seen as great purely for beating Hearns, but for dominating and cleaning out the decision for much of the 80's.

 

Bivins was 14-0-0 and had 7.25lbs on Burley .

 

Yeah, apparently missed 11 of his fights. Sloppy of me, sorry. It was his first years as a pro, though.

And, yes, Bivins was bigger, but he was a MW. So it was a MW that Burley lost to, even though he was smaller.

Maybe in a p4p sense one should factor in that Burley was small for the division a big chunk of the time that he fought at MW, but if we're talking his standing at MW, his results against other MWs should count just as much even if he's giving up weight imo.

Bivins was bigger, but he was a MW and in his first year as a pro.

 

Bivins was 14-0-0 and had 7.25lbs on Burley . Charles had 25 &26 fights under his belt when he beat Burley ,he wasnt green at all.Yes I do think Burley is better than Lamotta,I think he's better than Jones and Hopkins too. At near level weights Burley lost a split dec to Zivic and drew with him ,Jake receiving weight lost one and won two close decs.Lamotta won a very debatable dec over Lytell. I never said Burley was better than Williams,they are probably on a par.Lamotta has a better resume than either Jones or B Hop at 160lbs,imo.

 

I agree with you that Williams and Burley is pretty much on par (the praise from Moore might well give Burley the edge, though) and that they and LaMotta have better MW resumes than Jones.

If LaMotta is below Williams and Burley... Not decided personally, would be interesting to hear others on this.

But I do think that Hopkins clearly have the best MW resume of this lot, with more wins over top 5 ranked MWs (and most likely top 10) of any of them and fewer losses.

 

Something I and others should always take into consideration, the fact that Hagler and everyone before weighed in the day of the fight and couldn’t rehydrate to 175lbs as they do now, they were coming in at 160lbs the same in which they weighed in at so I rank them in different categories
Jones
Toney
Eubank
Nunn
Hopkins
Same day weigh in era
Hagler
Robinson
Fitzsimmons
Greb
Monzon

 

Yes, Hagler had slowed down, but he was fighting a past prime WW. Leonard would never have a great performance after that one. Jones would go up in weight and outclass a top p4p fighter the year after beating Hopkins. The gap in quality between Leonard in '87 and Jones in '93 was large.

As for Hagler's opp, you have thrown out a lot of names, but surely you don't consider any of them a great MW? You keep saying how great Duran was, but you must know that greatness was primarily based on what he did four weight classes below MW?

 

Hopkins opponents were out of their prime? He was 36-40 when he fought his best comp at MW, so he was the one out of his prime if anything.

Again, with the smaller guys. Hopkins fought only two major opponents that were coming up in weight, just like Hagler, so it has kind of astounded me the whole time that you keep mention this just on Hopkins's part.

On the whole both of them beat natural MWs. Yes, both have their two most known wins over fighters that came up in weight, but they both beat a lot of MWs. Yet you obsess on the fighters coming up in weight, but only in Hopkins case. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

And GGG.... Look at the rankings for 1995-2004 and you'll see that Hopkins cleaned out most of the guys in the top 5. If you look at 2010-2019 you will only see Jacobs (which was really close) and one ore two more on GGG:s record of guys in the top 5. If you think he beat Canelo (which many agree with), it looks better, but in just wins over top ranked opponents he lags behind Hagler and Hopkins.

 

Hopkins never beat Pavlik at middleweight. As a matter of fact he didn't even beat him at Super Middleweight.

Jones level by your standards at middleweight is a green half a decade from peak Hopkins and Tate.

We wouldn't know if he'd beat some of Hagler's lot either.

Common sense and half a brain however indicates he probably would, just like Hopkins.

 

We will have to agree to differ on Hopkins resume.

 

I agree, and Jones beatingToney at Super Middle isn't relevant to this discussion either.

 

This whole "he's at the level of the best fighter he beat" seems to be a reasoning that's almost solely applied to Hopkins. No one is saying that Louis is on the level of Schmeling/Walcott or Tyson is on the level of Tucker/Ruddock.

Beating someone heavily suggest that you're above their level, especially if you beat him emphatically. Hopkins generally beat the **** out of the best he faced at MW, so whether you rate them or not he's quite clearly a level or two above them.