Who were the best fighters Hopkins beat at MIDDLEWEIGHT ?

Glen Johnson, John david jackson, keith Holmes, Howard eastman, Oscar De La Hoya, William Joppy

 

Probably Echols, because he had huge power if little else.Not a fan of him as far as being a good effective pure puncher goes, but he was noentheless a dangerous fighter.

John David Jackson was the best natural middleweight, but he was almost totally shot when he fought Hopkins and just went through the motions in a poor fight.

After that maybe DLH, past prime Joppy, Lipsey, Holmes, Johnson, Allen....though i wouldn't call any of them really good, or even good for that matter.

 

The Trinidad is underrated, people talk like Trinidad wasn't established at 160, he's a great win to have at 147 and 154, he is a good win to have at 160.

 

Yeah, he absolutly obliterated the consensus number two middleweight at the time, Joppy, and was a big fav to beat Hopkins. Very good win IMO. Not much worse than Hagler´s win over Hearns, if at all.

Joppy probably is up there, Echols, Glen Johnson was undefeated and a decent contender at the time, Hopkins derailed his career but he got back on track later on. Lipsey was heralded as the next Hagler, Hopkins took his heart. Jackson was very much past it but still a decent name to have on your resume. Eastman was better than given credit for, a very similar career to Hopkins, albeit on a lower level, at the time.

 

Lipsey wasn't that good imo.As much the next Hagler as jeff lacy was the next Tyson.

 

Well, Hopkins proved that.

 

And the fights i saw him struggle in before he fought Hopkins...

 

The Delahoya 1 for me is underrated, yes he got a gift the fight before, but at 154 he beat Vargas, Castellijo and for most people Mosley. And we all know he beat Trinidad at 147. Not Oscars weight class but an underrated win, especially with bernard coming down to 156 for the fight

Its hard to know how good the rest of the contenders were. Holmes looked good to me. Echols was a dangerous banger but limited. Allen gave NArd a few problems so I tend to think he may be decent on that basis

I wonder if Hopkins ruined a few fighters in his pre-Tito years, if not he certainly demoralised plenty, Tito quiting has to be up there, Pavlik turned to drink, the pre-Tito guys are considered sub-par but maybe they weren't I'm not sure

 

Hopkins would make Hagler look like Joe Lipsey :yep

 

Glen Johnson was an overhyped prospect with a horribly padded record at the time he fought Hopkins- I don't think he beat a single top 30 MW going in to that fight.

Afterward, the padded record did help secure Johnson more fights with contenders and titlists (particularly overseas on the latter), where he really developed himself. It still took some time after the Hopkins fight for him to start beating contenders, though, and until that time he was viewed as a pretty record to have without being a huge threat.

Fast forward about 5 years, and he was the polar opposite- a tough opponent whose record belied what he was capable of. Funny how that works.

 

It does help if you watched them in fights other than against Hopkins.It's not as if it's a Ricardo Lopez situation where it was often tough to see more than a couple of fights of a lot of challengers, so sometimes you had to gauge a lot from how they looked against a major talent alone.

Unfortunately for the likes of Holmes there are plenty of fights to see them look average in before they fought hops

 

This 'at the time' **** is something that you guys should be consistent with, meaning that Hearns was a nobody at 160 at the time he fought Hagler, so all you advocates of this 'at the time' theory, be consistent with it, no double standards please.

 

I thought it was the opposite with Eastman.

He was very hyped at the time by a section of the Brits, and him picking up a piece of the title pie seemed a mere formality to them.

Im positive I heard people saying he was one of if not the best fighter not hold a world title going around at the time.

I didnt see it personally..and I think for all his physical gifts he just lacked the skillset or the mental game to take that next step from dominating domestic and second tier Euro competition to being able to hang with world class opponents.

 

DLH is a better win than it´s often amde out to be but still not a very good one. Hopkins did ruin a few fighters, Lipsey for examle, Mercado and even Johnson got his career derailed.

:huh

Yes and no. Glen Johnson certainly wasn´t as good as he later would be but he was a decent and able contender who showed heart and gave a good effort but was outclassed by Hopkins who coincidently gave his career best performance in that fight.
IMO Hopkins took away Johnson´s confidence and that´s why Johnson´s career drailed later somewhat.

True. That´s why I tend to think that Hopkins´win over Tito is as good, maybe even better than Hagler´s over Hearns.

Hm, I think Eastman was world class, just not good enough for the very top, or too old when he reached it. The Brits hype every of their fighter that has a somewhat decent record. That those fighters are really that good or get knocked out is 50/50 at best.