What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

I got into this debate after the Hopkins/Wright fight, when some people were, foolishly, comparing the resumes of these three fighters, so I thought I'd bring the topic back, and pick their records apart.

Obviously all three of these fighters fought a lot of elite fighters who moved up from the weleterweight division, but when you compare what they actually did at 160, it's incomparable.

Hopkins beat De La Hoya and Trinidad. These wins put him on the map in the mainstream. However, who did Tito and DLH beat themselves?

De La Hoya struggled with, and despite being a big DLH fan, probably should have lost, against Felix Sturm. right after that, DLH gets beaten by Hopkins. Big ****ing deal :roll:

Tito, again, despite being a favourite of mine, has no names on his record at 160. He looked fantastic at that weight, but it was clearly decieving. His best win was over Joppy, and he later proved his power, his main attribute, didn't carry to 160lbs against Mayorga. The other win was against the garbage Cherifi, and the other two fighters against elite opposition lasted 24 rounds and he probably won less than 5.

Winky Wright, His latest win, was flabby and out of shape at 170lbs. He, a naturally 154lber, could NOT carry the weight. He was gassed by the 9th round despite an usually low punch output.





Now, lets look at Hagler.

His three best wins are over Hearns, Leonard and Duran.

With Hearns, people always talk about him bein a natural 147lber. Nonsense. He was 154lbs at his best and carried weight very well. He DID defeat some big names at higher weights than that, and took a belt over the really good Virgil Hill at 175lbs.

People say Duran was a lightweight. Whilst true, he was also a top class fighter at the higher weights too. He beat a really tough Iran Barkley, who is better than anyone Hopkins has beaten, at 160lbs, despite being old and fat.

Leonard also won a light heavyweight belt, beating the tough Donny Lalonde in spectacular fashion. Had he oved up in weight before he was shot, he would have done a lot more at 160 or higher.

The point is, the people Hagler beat WERE good at 160lbs or higher, unlike Hopkins' light opposition.





Monzon beat Valdez, who was a class act himself, and beat other ATG middleweights.

Napoles, a welterweight, had a career much like Tito at middleweight, but was better.

Emile Grittih manages to beat Briscoe at 160, which was a really good win. Again, another Tito but better.

Benvenuti shouldn't need any justification, just look at is record. He may be better than Hopkins himself and definetly anyone Hopkins beat.









My point is, Hopkins best wins are against Tarver, Eastman and Johnson. Better than Monzon or Hagler? No chance. People get too tied up in his defences. Put me against 30 spastics, and I'd have a 30-0 record too :good

Plus he also has his losses to Jones and the lacklustre Taylor. Struggling with Mercado doesn't help either.



Hopkins is a fighter who scrapes into the top 10 at middleweight. Anything higher is overrating his resume.

 

I don't care how good Mayorga's chin was. It's pretty clear that his power wasn't as reliable as it was at 160lbs. As his main asset, if his power was as good at 160lbs as it was 147lbs, he would have achieved more, but it obviously wasn't.

Fair enough. I hope you have this same stance if I claim Bernard Hopkins is inferior to Jermain Taylor, because he lost to him twice.

Better than DLH or Tito P4P? absolutely no way. Ranks higher H2H at middleweight? Absolutely. He also ranks above Wright at 170lbs, head to head, and would beat Tarver and Johnson.

Fair enough.

A fair point I suppose, but it isn't something I said anyway. My point was the welterweights Hagler and Monzon were elite and proved themselves at higher weights. Like I said, Johnson is one of Hopkins' best wins.

There's a bit of difference in saying a welterweight won a light heavy title, and a light heavy did. This kind of argument would work if if it was De La Hoya who collected a belt at 175lbs.

Bollocks. By doing what? What you've done is fnid a few things I wrote which you disagree with, yet if you are right about them, which you aren't, it still isn't enough to say that hopkins is better than either. Instead of picking apart the small, somewhat asinine points, why not challenge the bulk of my argument which states that Hopkins hasn't surpassed either? You clearly disagree with my main opinion, so why don't you challenge it?

And Boyd, thanks, mate. Just seeing your name I remembered about that wallpaper I'd said I'd do for you. 'Cause you haven't been around, or I just haven't seen your posts, I forgot atsch I'll sort it out soon for you :good

 

No, he didn't. Name the 10 best fighters all three men fought, and tell me with a straight face Hopkins opposition was the best.

And just for you, dickhead, Roy Jones > Bernard Hopkins