Would you rat Hopkins in your Top 5 P4P of all time if...

I am not going to **** all over your list( but others no doubt will), but your point about the best two of the last twenty years. No Roy Jones?

 

ok throw clinton mitchell in there and ya got a deal:deal

 

He certainly isn't top 5 yet.

 

Hopkins already won against Taylor twice and Calzaghe in my book, but to put him among the all-time top 5 P4P is exaggerated...

 

It is hard not to agree!

 

No.
Bernard Hopkins >> Roy Jones

But I do have Roy Jones in the top 5 of the last 20 years, alongside Hopkins, Whitaker, Mayweather and Holyfield.

 

Longevity is great...but it doesn't retroactively make him better then he really was. Roy Jones was the better P4P fighter, its not really debatable. Hopkins had the better career MAYBE and is certainly prolonging and preserving his "greatness" better and for a longer period, but he was never better and never will be better then the best Roy Jones was.

 

Size is not just height as you assume. Based on your logic Samuel Peter is the same size as Pavlik.

Pavlik is a middleweight. Putting up more weight does not benefit him. It showed in the rematch with Taylor. Pevlik does not have the structure. He fights best at 160.

Tarver is the same size and when they fought Many said that Hopkins looked bigger. Besides, Tarver was shooting the Rocky installment so he had to add like 20 pounds or something. It is really hard to go down in weight like that for a short period.

Hopkins biggest wins are against guys going up in weight like Trinidad, DLH and Pavlik or in case of Tarver someone who had to shed a lot of weight in a short peroid.

I regard Hopkins as a natural light heavyweight.

 

By self-admission he is a natural light heavy, stated he only fought at middle for career opportunities and it is a more prestigious division. Hopkins is an ATG for sure, but he has also benefitted from having the advantage in weight and size from his most notable opponents. Even Tarver, he fought at a convenient time. :deal

 

No disrespect man but that list is pretty awful. Great fighters such as Harry Greb, Sam Langford, Henry Armstrong and Ezzard Charles all deserve to be ranked higher than the majority on the list. Let's not go forgetting a man by the name of Ray Robinson as well, widely considered the greatest fighter ever (although you could argue he is lower than the the four previously mentioned fighters). The only people on their who could possibly be ranked in the top 10 are Duran, Ali and possibly Leonard (just). The rest have no place amongst them in my opinion.

Hopkins deserves to be top 30-40, and I love the man. Whitaker is definately 10-20 and Chavez is somewhere around 25-35. Roy is one of my favourite fighters ever and I'd rank him around 20-25, any higher is a bit to much IMO. Floyd's inclusion is laughable and I'd rank him around 40, along with Lewis they have no place anywhere near the top 10 (and I actually like Lennox). Lennox is great no doubt, but a fighter who was stopped brutally by two B-level fighters near his prime is not deserved of a top 10 ranking. I don't want to sound to harsh, I'm just giving some feedback on where I'd rank them.

Oh and you listed Ray leonard twice.

 

It is very dumb to do this, for example:

1. It will not work in 20 years time.

2. All era's are not equal, for example when compiling a top 10 MW list, would Kelly Pavlik be on it even if he was to dominate MW for years? No, because his limits have been shown clearly. or would Wlad be on a HW top 10 list?

3. To place hopkins above Whitaker and Jones Jr is laughable. I would explain it, but I cannot be assed. I suggest you watch some Jones and Whitaker fights in their prime and glance over their records

4. atsch at myself for even posting this, as if you will take it in.

 

Yet, he could make middleweight for 15 years and came in at 156 for the DLH fight? And he only moved up to Light heavyweight in his 40's?

There is no way Hopkins makes an all time top 10 p4p nevermind top 5 by just beating Jones and Calzaghe.

Don't know why people are hating on McGrain for saying he would make his top 30. If you think about it that in itself is a pretty amazing achievment. To be amongst the top 30 boxers to have EVER lived. Top 50 is also an outstanding achievement and isn't a bad thing.

 

:rofl

Hopkins fought the vast majority of his career at MW and was comfortable, Pavlik has fought most of his career at MW and is huge. They are the same size.

Tarver has fought most of his career at LHW and Hopkins was moving up, Tarver was bigger.

Tito fought most of his career at WW and had only one fight at MW, Hopkins fought nearly all of his career at MW. Therefore Tito is smaller

 

top 5 favorite fighters (based off whatever i like)?.....

or top 5 best fighters (based off resume)?

it would be a no for both.....but he'd shoot up atleast

 

1. It will work in 20 years, because then I'll take 2 fighters from each 24 years wise guy.

2. I agree eras are not equal. But comparing them is even more problematic. That's the fairest thing you can do for the fighters, both past and present.

3. Whitaker and Hopkins is a close call. I have no problem with putting Whitaker above Hopkins and I have no problems with putting guys just outside my top 10 like Ezzard Charles and Mickey Walker ahead of Hopkins. But Roy Jones, I do have a problem. A great fighter, but his resume is vastly overrated. Since 1995, he wasted his prime years fighting mostly bums. You can't put him ahead of Hopkins just because he beat a very green Bernard, who was 5 years before his prime and was dropped twice in his next fight by a journeyman (mercado).