Hopkins, by a substantial margin IMO. Very quick reasons why as I have to knock off: - Hopkins was a better fighter ability-wise/h2h at his own weight - Although Oscar's resume may be slightly stronger/deeper overall, B-Hop's best wins are comfortably better - Slightly superior longevity
I'm going to play devils advocate a bit... Oscar was/is the first ever 6 weight world champ in the sport.
Nope Having said that, it perhaps means something... Take Fitzimmons for example: he gains much kudos for being the first guy to go from Middle to Heavy. Perhaps to a lesser degree Roy Jones for doing something similar... On another note... Did Oscar use the same dirty (some would say illegal.. headbutts etc) tactics as Bernard? Why is it when Ruiz hugs he gets absolutely slated, but when Hopkins does similar it is called great skill*? *not comparing their overall game as fighters - or them as fighters (that would be ridiculous).
I can't really answer this post because I strongly disagree with your p-o-v. I am a Duran man. Anything that the referee doesn't outlaw is legitimate. And I have always and will always view strategic holding as a defensive art form, no matter who is doing it. It is effective, that's all that matters IMO. Is Hopkins's tactics really any more important in rating overall greatness than the fact Oscar has been stopped twice, once from a rather dubious and innocuous looking bodyshot and once by quitting against a former flyweight world champ? Or that Oscar lost the majority of his biggest fights (not all of course, but a slight majority)?
Also, for all Oscar is a 6-weight world champ, he did not beat Sturm so 1 of them is not valid, and another was a WBO superfeatherweight belt won by beating J.Bredahl, no more than a trinket on the way up IMO. Oscar's weight-jumping was superb, from light to light-middle his title wins were superb, but I don't know if the term "6-weight world champ" tells the full story. And to use weight-jumping as the key reason against a higher-weight fighter is not always that fair. It's far easier to jump from winning titles at superfeather/light up to welter/lightmiddle than it would be to win titles from middle to cruiser - far easier. Better to rate them primarily on best comp beaten.
I follow your view. I'm not someone who has problems with fighters using rough house tactics. Those guys are some of my favourite fighters. My point was more about how some get credited for it and others totally ridiculed. Anyway, I'm not too hot on Oscar's career, so I'm not going to argue a case for him - hopefully someone will. I was just interested to read how most people place these two. If you went back 12 months I think views would have been different... with Oscar possibly coming out on top... now Bernard's probably a clear winner.
Depends on your definition of champion. Winning a WBO belt at 160 against a guy that no one considered champion and then losing that belt in his verynext fight to the guy that everyone really knew was the champion does not count. With as many titles as there are floating around now it would not surprise me to see a 7division champ in the future.