Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Hopkins' all time ranking
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Boxing
Pages: 1, 2
STEVENSKI
Anyone that knows boxing knows we saw something special yesterday in Hopkins doing what he did. I always liked X except when he got all bitter after losing to Taylor but where do you all rank him both as a middleweight & P4P in a all time list?

I am confused on this as with high feeling & the afterglow of yesterday I could easily rate him as #1 in the middleweights & top 5 or 10 P4P. I will have to wait before I actually rank him.
BigG
He is definitely in the top 3 at Middleweight along with Monzon and Hagler.

I don't know about all time P4P. Maybe top 20.

Watching Hopkins do his thing is beautiful. Him and Toney are just throwbacks. Reminds me of the great Archie Moore.
kidbazooka1
I would say Hopkins will fall somewhere between 20-40.
Future_Champ
l
Future_Champ
I really dont like comparing fighters from different eras because its kind of unfair to the earlier generations. Athletes continue to evolve and get better but I think you rank fighter for what they did in thier era rather than who would win if they fought. At the middlewieght division the top three in my opinion are Hopkins, Hagler, and Monzon. But If You look at what Hopkins has done in his career; not only is he the best middleweight of all time, he is one of the greatest fighters of all time. period. You are talking about a man that bounced back from losing his first fight to having 21 defenses of his title. Never ducked anyone. Beat Glen Johnson, Felix Trinidad, Oscar De La Hoya, Antonio Tarver, Winky Wright, and now Kelly Pavlik. He has never been knocked out and has never really been beaten decisivley. He is inspirational the way that he can bounce back from defeat to beat the odds and his opponents. I think that he is the greatest counterpuncher of alltime. All four of the fighters that have "beaten" him have not had as great of career as he has had. You can compare his resume with the alltime greats and I think that he is the only fighter of this era that I would put in the top 10 Pound for Pound Greatest of all time list.Hate em or Love him. Hopkins is a living legend.
JonnyBlaze
QUOTE(biggeorge89 @ Oct 19 2008, 09:03 PM) [snapback]407752[/snapback]
He is definitely in the top 3 at Middleweight along with Monzon and Hagler.

I don't know about all time P4P. Maybe top 20.

Watching Hopkins do his thing is beautiful. Him and Toney are just throwbacks. Reminds me of the great Archie Moore.

P4P=around 25-30 for me..

As far as middleweights go,Sugar Ray Robinson was #1..He fought till he was 44..B-Hop would go at 3 for me after Hagler..Maybe 2 though!!I think he'd be able to trick Hagler quite a bit,but not Ray Robinson..SRR would have faster hands,faster feet,more power in my opinion,same kinda reflexes,and both are real good defensively..

Archie Moore probably inspired Toney a lot I think..Toney does remind me of him in quite a few ways..Archie is one of my all time favorites and so is Toney..B-Hop doesn't rank as high for me as them but he is up there..

Thats pretty crazy you say B-Hop would be top 5-10 Steve..I think everyone is still pumped up from the win last night and might be sayin stuff they are feeling now but might not be in months from now..Like I've said,I havent seen the fight yet but still..It just happened last night..
D-MARV
When its all said and done I think BHOP will go down as p4p top 10!!!! Maybe even top 5, I dont see too many people in history beating Bernard Hopkins!
neophyte7
A43 year old BHOP would stand a chance of whipping any version of Ray Robinson's ass... BHOP is in the top ten greatest of all times... Hagler is not on his level in terms of overall skill, ring generalship and defense.
caneman
QUOTE(damarvelous1 @ Oct 20 2008, 05:48 AM) [snapback]407791[/snapback]
When its all said and done I think BHOP will go down as p4p top 10!!!! Maybe even top 5, I dont see too many people in history beating Bernard Hopkins!



I tend to agree if you are putting them head to head(fighting each other), but it is very hard to compare but a prime BHOP would give anyone hell! It's no secret that I went against my man BHOP & picked Pavlik! It was based on activity & BHOP once again dug down deep & let his hands go. However, a prime BHOP which IMO see pre-Tito was one of the meanest guys in boxing history! Gotta go for now but I wanna see what people have to say in this thread! X is for sure top 20 & would give anyone freaking fits head to head!
Future_Champ
QUOTE(Fitz @ Oct 19 2008, 10:02 PM) [snapback]407763[/snapback]
I think it's the total opposite. I think it's unfair to the newer generations. No matter what, people will always say that they haven't fought the competition that these old timers fought. If anything, I think newer fighters are at a big disadvantage when comparing to the older fighters.



Thats actually a good point, I never looked at it that way. Well I guess it is unfair to both generations. But I still think that newer generations have the advantage of learning from older ones and that athletes evolve and become faster and stronger over time. Either way it is unfair to both generations.
Big Slim Sweet
QUOTE(Fitz @ Oct 19 2008, 10:02 PM) [snapback]407763[/snapback]
I think it's the total opposite. I think it's unfair to the newer generations. No matter what, people will always say that they haven't fought the competition that these old timers fought. If anything, I think newer fighters are at a big disadvantage when comparing to the older fighters.

I agree completely. Modern day fighters don't have records that compare to the past greats. If Sugar Ray Robinson fought in this era his record would be somewhere in the 50-1 range too.

QUOTE(JonnyBlaze @ Oct 20 2008, 02:38 AM) [snapback]407784[/snapback]
As far as middleweights go,Sugar Ray Robinson was #1..He fought till he was 44..B-Hop would go at 3 for me after Hagler..Maybe 2 though!!I think he'd be able to trick Hagler quite a bit,but not Ray Robinson..SRR would have faster hands,faster feet,more power in my opinion,same kinda reflexes,and both are real good defensively..

Archie Moore probably inspired Toney a lot I think..Toney does remind me of him in quite a few ways..Archie is one of my all time favorites and so is Toney..B-Hop doesn't rank as high for me as them but he is up there..

Thats pretty crazy you say B-Hop would be top 5-10 Steve..I think everyone is still pumped up from the win last night and might be sayin stuff they are feeling now but might not be in months from now..Like I've said,I havent seen the fight yet but still..It just happened last night..

Would SRR rank above Hopkins at middleweight though? The bulk of Robinson's prime took place at welter, no?

Also, please don't tell me you rank James Toney above Hopkins all-time?? I mean, I love JT, possibly my favorite fighter ever, and he does have more natural skills, but his career doesn't surpass Hopkins' in any way.
Big Slim Sweet
Forgot to address the original post...

I can't really compare fighters from all eras becuase the footage I've seen of guys like Robinson just isn't adequate. In my lifetime I've watched the careers of Hopkins and Hagler though and have to say Hopkins now outranks him and would, IMO, beat him head-to-head as well.

I'd also put Hopkins above Roy, Pernell, Chavez & Hearns p4p as well. Leonard would be close. Duran I'd place still above him.

Hopkins has got to be top 20 all-time by this point.
D-MARV
I know Im still high off the fight but Im tempted to put BHop in the top 5
Spyder
QUOTE(damarvelous1 @ Oct 20 2008, 05:48 AM) [snapback]407791[/snapback]
When its all said and done I think BHOP will go down as p4p top 10!!!! Maybe even top 5, I dont see too many people in history beating Bernard Hopkins!

We saw three guys beat him in the last 15 years...I'd put him behind Hagler at middle, and about even with Monzon.

P4P...eh, somewhere between 20-30.
D-MARV
QUOTE(Spyder @ Oct 20 2008, 03:18 PM) [snapback]407847[/snapback]
We saw three guys beat him in the last 15 years...I'd put him behind Hagler at middle, and about even with Monzon.

P4P...eh, somewhere between 20-30.

I dont think any middleweight in History would have beaten a Prime Bernard Hopkins!!!
Including, Hagler and Monzon
Mean Mister Mustard
QUOTE(neophyte7 @ Oct 20 2008, 07:57 AM) [snapback]407799[/snapback]
A43 year old BHOP would stand a chance of whipping any version of Ray Robinson's ass... BHOP is in the top ten greatest of all times... Hagler is not on his level in terms of overall skill, ring generalship and defense.


As much as I am a fan of Hopkins, if Calzaghe beat him at 43 I find it hard to believe Hopkins would whoop Robinson's ass.
BoxingStill#1
QUOTE(damarvelous1 @ Oct 20 2008, 12:18 PM) [snapback]407819[/snapback]
I know Im still high off the fight but Im tempted to put BHop in the top 5


I can almost agree there........but he would likly fall into the top 15......
STEVENSKI
QUOTE(JonnyBlaze @ Oct 20 2008, 07:38 AM) [snapback]407784[/snapback]
Thats pretty crazy you say B-Hop would be top 5-10 Steve..I think everyone is still pumped up from the win last night and might be sayin stuff they are feeling now but might not be in months from now..Like I've said,I havent seen the fight yet but still..It just happened last night..


I was saying my feeling right now being all high on the fight & performance. I will have to wait & assess his status in a few weeks but I would say for sure top 20.
STEVENSKI
QUOTE(Future_Champ @ Oct 20 2008, 01:45 PM) [snapback]407803[/snapback]
Thats actually a good point, I never looked at it that way. Well I guess it is unfair to both generations. But I still think that newer generations have the advantage of learning from older ones and that athletes evolve and become faster and stronger over time. Either way it is unfair to both generations.



I think the old timers were better fighters (the more you fight the more you learn). The gene pool was much much much deeper 50 years ago as well. Today most athletes do not consider boxing due to the risk vs reward. You can be a average ML baseball player & make a million+ a year or a average world class boxer & make 1/2 that at best running the risk of permanant damage. The popularity of MMA will further dilute the gene pool. Heavyweight division is a prime example.
BigG
I also think Manny Pacquiao could be in the top 40..just my opinon
STEVENSKI
QUOTE(Fitz @ Oct 20 2008, 10:25 PM) [snapback]407875[/snapback]
Still not sure about that yet. UFC events make just as much through the gate as boxing and sometimes more. It's just a matter of time before fighters realise hey, I'm getting paid in the thousands, boxers are in the millions. When that point comes, you will probably see UFC events with a good headline and mediocre undercards. MMA is still a fresh new sport and in the honey moon years.



I agree but I am talking about at a grassroots level MMA is far more popular with the kids.
Spyder
QUOTE(damarvelous1 @ Oct 20 2008, 04:01 PM) [snapback]407849[/snapback]
I dont think any middleweight in History would have beaten a Prime Bernard Hopkins!!!
Including, Hagler and Monzon

I like you man, so I hope this doesn't come off sounding "dickish"...but when exactly was Hopkins' prime?

Was it when he lost to Roy Jones at middleweight? Or was it one of the times that he lost to Jermain Taylor?

dntknw.gif
JonnyBlaze
QUOTE(damarvelous1 @ Oct 20 2008, 11:18 AM) [snapback]407819[/snapback]
I know Im still high off the fight but Im tempted to put BHop in the top 5

You're high off the fight..
JonnyBlaze
QUOTE(STEVENSKI @ Oct 20 2008, 04:54 PM) [snapback]407868[/snapback]
I was saying my feeling right now being all high on the fight & performance. I will have to wait & assess his status in a few weeks but I would say for sure top 20.

You're the man for admitting that..This thread was rushed man..Ya should of waited..Everyone is sounding real crazy..I still haven't seen the fight but still!!It's one fight!!You guys were never sayin this shit before..

B-Hop would lose to SRR..Neophyte you are insane..SRR is #1 P4P best ever,HANDS DOWN..Go back and watch his fights..Yes,SRR's best was at welterweight but his skill allowed him to dominate at middleweight and even fight at light heavyweight and do well..When ya look at B-Hop's and SRR's record,SRR fought way better guys..Shit,he had 200 chances to fight better guys,not that all were better but he fought 200 fights..SRR like I said had superior skills all around..That's not even taking anything away from B-Hop,cause I bet he knows it too..It's been known that B-Hop doesn't handle crazy speed well..SRR and Roy would be the fastest guys he's ever fought if they did..
D-MARV
QUOTE(Spyder @ Oct 20 2008, 11:23 PM) [snapback]407891[/snapback]
I like you man, so I hope this doesn't come off sounding "dickish"...but when exactly was Hopkins' prime?

Was it when he lost to Roy Jones at middleweight? Or was it one of the times that he lost to Jermain Taylor?

dntknw.gif

I consider Hopkins Prime to be when he made his run as middleweight champion! The first fight I noticed him slowing down was the Oscar fight! His style started changing...
But even this version of Hopkins would have beaten most middleweights in any era! Maybe not the Elite but certainly most!
D-MARV
QUOTE(JonnyBlaze @ Oct 21 2008, 12:36 AM) [snapback]407895[/snapback]
You're the man for admitting that..This thread was rushed man..Ya should of waited..Everyone is sounding real crazy..I still haven't seen the fight but still!!It's one fight!!You guys were never sayin this shit before..

B-Hop would lose to SRR..Neophyte you are insane..SRR is #1 P4P best ever,HANDS DOWN..Go back and watch his fights..Yes,SRR's best was at welterweight but his skill allowed him to dominate at middleweight and even fight at light heavyweight and do well..When ya look at B-Hop's and SRR's record,SRR fought way better guys..Shit,he had 200 chances to fight better guys,not that all were better but he fought 200 fights..SRR like I said had superior skills all around..That's not even taking anything away from B-Hop,cause I bet he knows it too..It's been known that B-Hop doesn't handle crazy speed well..SRR and Roy would be the fastest guys he's ever fought if they did..

I think Bernard Hopkins would have beaten Sugar Ray Robinson!!!!

Too big too strong.
Spyder
QUOTE(damarvelous1 @ Oct 21 2008, 06:27 AM) [snapback]407905[/snapback]
I think Bernard Hopkins would have beaten Sugar Ray Robinson!!!!

Too big too strong.

HAHAHAHA

This is where the conversation ends...

laugh.gif

JonnyBlaze
QUOTE(damarvelous1 @ Oct 21 2008, 05:27 AM) [snapback]407905[/snapback]
I think Bernard Hopkins would have beaten Sugar Ray Robinson!!!!

Too big too strong.

How is he too big and too strong??We are talking about at middleweight..SRR was only 2 inches shorter than B-Hop..SRR never was KO'd and his only TKO was in the Joey Maxim fight were he collapsed from the heat..SRR was also winning that fight and he weighed 157 and Maxim was 173-175 I think..I think size or strength wouldn't be a issue here at all..How do you see it effecting the fight at all??SRR would normally come in under weight by quite a bit sometimes and it seemed to bring him a long way in 173 wins..B-Hop couldn't handle Roy while he was around his prime years soo what makes ya think he'd be able to neutralize SRR's speed??SRR would catch B-Hop a lot I think..He'd be on the level of Calzaghe's punches landed on B-Hop..Except these punches would be harder and faster..
Mean Mister Mustard
Seriously, most people were picking Hopkins to lose to Pavlik and now he easily beats Robinson? You guys are easily impressed, no wonder you all picked Pavlik to KO Hopkins.
thehype
Hopkins beat Robinson?

Not in my opinion.

Hey, Hopkins looked great on Saturday, but let's not blow it out of proportion. I think a lot of people, well, at least me, were picking Pavlik to win by decision simply because of the number of close decisions that Hopkins has lost recently and the fact that he hasn't looked very active in those fights. I, for one, wasn't even sure if Hopkins could put on a performance like that anymore...that was the Hopkins that I had grown accustomed to. Fortunately, Pavlik was so basic in there that Hopkins looked even better than anyone could have imagined. Don't get me wrong...impressive, dominant and fantastic performance by the old man...but if anything, I think that performance says more about the current state of talent in boxing than anything else. Just my opinion though.
D-MARV
SSR was a natrual Welterweight!!! Bernard Hopkins "looks" natrual at Light Heavyweight!

Yes I was one who thought that Pavlik would Stop Hopkins late after Bernard took the first half of the fight. ! I based my decision on what I saw against Calzaghe, What I saw from Bernard on Saturday was unbeleivable! Also I think this lifts Calzaghe up as well.

But back to the matter at hand! I do Think Bernard Hopkins would beat SRR. I think a few guys in "our" era would beat SRR. What SRR did in "his" era was legendary! He deserves to be mentioned among the greatest of all time. But this is a new era and I believe that if SRR had to fight prime fighters such as Bernard Hopkins, Roy Jones Jr, Marvin Hagler, Sugar Ray leonard, then he would have more L's on his record.
Spyder
QUOTE(damarvelous1 @ Oct 21 2008, 10:42 AM) [snapback]407920[/snapback]
I do Think Bernard Hopkins would beat SRR. I think a few guys in "our" era would beat SRR. What SRR did in "his" era was legendary! He deserves to be mentioned among the greatest of all time. But this is a new era and I believe that if SRR had to fight prime fighters such as Bernard Hopkins, Roy Jones Jr, Marvin Hagler, Sugar Ray leonard, then he would have more L's on his record.



The CEO
I'm not letting this performance cloud my judgement on his all time ranking...he moves up without question though....

If Hopkins would have retired after losing to Calzaghe....I'd say they put him anywhere between 30-40...but since he didn't retire and showed out like he did against young Pavlik, I'm thinking he's guaranteed a spot somewhere between 20-30....regardless if he loses any further bouts....

IF he ends up fighting and beating Jones or Calzaghe in rematche, he could crack the Top 20....
thehype
LOL. By the time some of today's "fighters" reach 30 or 40 fights and start talking retirement, Robinson already had 80 or more fights.

I seriously doubt any of today's "fighters" would have the "great" resumes they have if they actually fought as many times a year as someone like SRR did. Hell, the way some of them have already faded by just fighting once a year, I think there's a lot of other guys other than Robinson that probably would have beat them.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.
timing
Let's not get carried away with this win over pavlik and use it to suggest that hopkins was better than a prime hagler let's be realistic here, pavlik is a very limited fighter with virtually zero versatility consider the fact that he was fighting 10 pounds above his natural fighting weight and never even tested the waters at that weight and you have an even more handicapped, limited, flawed fighter, and you have the outcome that you saw saturday night, a dominant performance by bhop, the older wiser bernard hopkins is one of the most calculating, analytical fighters of his era, and believe me he took all these things into account before signing to fight pavlik he knew the outcome before even going into the fight that's why he was so confident.

So let's not blow this victory out of proportion it was a great win for bhop, but it has to be put in it's proper perspective, and incidentally I predicted that hopkins would win, bottom line pavlik does not compare to a prime hagler who could do it all box, counter, punch, great foot movement, great combination puncher, great lateral movement, and the list goes on if you want to get an idea of how great a boxer hagler was when he wanted to be just watch the 1st hamsho fight that was hagler's underrated boxing ability on full display and that display is comparable to the best performances of any pure boxer that I have ever seen, the truth of the matter is that hagler was a boxer puncher and one of the most complete fighters in the history of the sport.

And in a matchup with hopkins in all honestly could have beaten hopkins in the role of the boxer or pressure fighter the truth of the matter is that hagler was better in virtually all depts than the physically prime bhop, the older version of bhop is in fact the better of the two in terms of defense, intelligence, and strategy you yourself admitted as much, and I agree with that assessment, and it is not far fetched to suggest that hagler could have played the role of boxer in that match up much like he did when he fought duran, many thought that duran would be the better boxer, but hagler turned out to be the better boxer in that fight, a fight in which he beat duran convincingly in the role of boxer and banger.

Only al bernstein was calling that fight right that night when he stated that hagler was suprisingly dominating duran in the role of boxer and banger the fight with duran was not nearly as close as many would claim or as the biased judges that night would suggest, a scenario with hopkins in my opinion would have been no different prime for prime, now a prime hopkins with the defense and savvy of the older hopkins would have been a much more competitive fight in my opinion, but I still see hagler winning in either scenario, hopkins is a great fighter who got a great win over a very limited kelly pavlik but let's not use that win to suggest that he would have beaten a true all time great a complete, versatile, destructively dangerous fighter like hagler, let's keep the win in it's proper perspective.

Hagler is the greatest MW in the history of the sport bar none when you consider a fact that many like to overlook, that hagler didn't get his first title shot until his 49th fight which is absolutely crazy and unheard of now, when fighters get their first title shots in there 19th and 20th fights, can you imagine the defenses hagler would have racked up if he had gotten his shot and won the title 20-29 fights earlier? factor in the antufermo robbery in the first fight, as well as the leonard fight and 25-30 defenses for hagler in his career is not at all unreasonable.

And angelo dundees statements carry very little weight because they are obviously biased and considering the fact that he is one of the most overrarted trainers in the history of the sport, and one who no one enlist as a trainer, what also needs to be noted is and has been argued by many and is something I agree with is that hagler may have very well peaked well before he won the titles, and was on a steady decline after he won the titles, because of his long road to the titles, it is very possible that we never really got to see the best marvin hagler, the peak, prime hagler , which would make his accomplishments even more amazing, and would, should definitely stamp him as the best MW in the history of the sport period, but a great win and dominating performance by the great bernard hopkins never the less.

GMAN73
QUOTE(timing @ Oct 21 2008, 02:50 PM) [snapback]407941[/snapback]
Let's not get carried away with this win over pavlik and use it to suggest that hopkins was better than a prime hagler let's be realistic here, pavlik is a very limited fighter with virtually zero versatility consider the fact that he was fighting 10 pounds above his natural fighting weight and never even tested the waters at that weight and you have an even more handicapped, limited, flawed fighter, and you have the outcome that you saw saturday night, a dominant performance by bhop, the older wiser bernard hopkins is one of the most calculating, analytical fighters of his era, and believe me he took all these things into account before signing to fight pavlik he knew the outcome before even going into the fight that's why he was so confident.

So let's not blow this victory out of proportion it was a great win for bhop, but it has to be put in it's proper perspective, and incidentally I predicted that hopkins would win, bottom line pavlik does not compare to a prime hagler who could do it all box, counter, punch, great foot movement, great combination puncher, great lateral movement, and the list goes on if you want to get an idea of how great a boxer hagler was when he wanted to be just watch the 1st hamsho fight that was hagler's underrated boxing ability on full display and that display is comparable to the best performances of any pure boxer that I have ever seen, the truth of the matter is that hagler was a boxer puncher and one of the most complete fighters in the history of the sport.

And in a matchup with hopkins in all honestly could have beaten hopkins in the role of the boxer or pressure fighter the truth of the matter is that hagler was better in virtually all depts than the physically prime bhop, the older version of bhop is in fact the better of the two in terms of defense, intelligence, and strategy you yourself admitted as much, and I agree with that assessment, and it is not far fetched to suggest that hagler could have played the role of boxer in that match up much like he did when he fought duran, many thought that duran would be the better boxer, but hagler turned out to be the better boxer in that fight, a fight in which he beat duran convincingly in the role of boxer and banger.

Only al bernstein was calling that fight right that night when he stated that hagler was suprisingly dominating duran in the role of boxer and banger the fight with duran was not nearly as close as many would claim or as the biased judges that night would suggest, a scenario with hopkins in my opinion would have been no different prime for prime, now a prime hopkins with the defense and savvy of the older hopkins would have been a much more competitive fight in my opinion, but I still see hagler winning in either scenario, hopkins is a great fighter who got a great win over a very limited kelly pavlik but let's not use that win to suggest that he would have beaten a true all time great a complete, versatile, destructively dangerous fighter like hagler, let's keep the win in it's proper perspective.

Hagler is the greatest MW in the history of the sport bar none when you consider a fact that many like to overlook, that hagler didn't get his first title shot until his 49th fight which is absolutely crazy and unheard of now, when fighters get their first title shots in there 19th and 20th fights, can you imagine the defenses hagler would have racked up if he had gotten his shot and won the title 20-29 fights earlier? factor in the antufermo robbery in the first fight, as well as the leonard fight and 25-30 defenses for hagler in his career is not at all unreasonable.

And angelo dundees statements carry very little weight because they are obviously biased and considering the fact that he is one of the most overrarted trainers in the history of the sport, and one who no one enlist as a trainer, what also needs to be noted is and has been argued by many and is something I agree with is that hagler may have very well peaked well before he won the titles, and was on a steady decline after he won the titles, because of his long road to the titles, it is very possible that we never really got to see the best marvin hagler, the peak, prime hagler , which would make his accomplishments even more amazing, and would, should definitely stamp him as the best MW in the history of the sport period, but a great win and dominating performance by the great bernard hopkins never the less.



Reasons Marvin Hagler could never beat Bernard Hopkins: Boxing IQ not even in the same ballpark as B-Hop, Hopkins is a much bigger, stronger and versatile fighter than MMH ever faced and he was much easier to hit than was/is Hopkins. Hagler's resume included some great names, but Hearns was chinny and a Welter, SRL was a Welter(he befuddled Hagler after 4 years in retirement), Duran was a lightweight(and really extended Hagler), Mugabi was a Jr. Middle and not even close to as polished as Pavlik. Hamsho, Obel, Sibson, Minter ant Antuofermo were all 2nd rate contenders who were in the 5'8"-5'9" range. Yes Hagler was a great 160lb. champion, but never really put on a display lik Hopkins did vs. Tito, Tarver, Pavlik and Wright. One sided schoolings, each and every one of them. He made RJJ look ordinary when RJJ was simply incredible, he easily beat JT in the 1st fight, rematch was debatable, And made 45-0 Calzaghe look like a bum.

Hopkins would make Hagler fight "HIS" fight like he does everyone else. IMO a fight between them at any point in either's career would be a one sided whitewash win for Hopkins, too slick, too tall and simply too smart for Hagler and the Petronelli brothers to deal with. Plus MMH was done by the time he was 33, B-Hop seems to still be a top 3 P4P fighter when he is closing in on 44!

If you look at their careers you can see so many paralells it is somewhat uncanny(to a point): Both had losses and draws early, Both were unsuccessful in their original attempts for the title at 160, each had numerous defenses before being recognized as great fighters, Hagler fought posterboys Hearns and SRL, Hopkins got Tito and Oscar, both unified the titles and both beat whoever they fought wherever they fought them for a long time. Hopkins took his career one step further by venturing into the higher weight classes and beat up on Tarver, Wright and Pavlik and almost squeaking one out vs. Calzaghe. Depending on how well Pavlik does in the rest of his young and promising career, and if Tarver maybe has a decent return, he is still fighting and beating(mostly) H.O.F. candidates one after another at the ripe age of 43, Hopkins is a legend, and so is Hagler, but when it is all said and done their resume's IMO are miles apart. Hopkins' is much more extensive.
Mean Mister Mustard
QUOTE(timing @ Oct 21 2008, 03:50 PM) [snapback]407941[/snapback]
Let's not get carried away with this win over pavlik and use it to suggest that hopkins was better than a prime hagler let's be realistic here, pavlik is a very limited fighter with virtually zero versatility consider the fact that he was fighting 10 pounds above his natural fighting weight and never even tested the waters at that weight and you have an even more handicapped, limited, flawed fighter, and you have the outcome that you saw saturday night, a dominant performance by bhop, the older wiser bernard hopkins is one of the most calculating, analytical fighters of his era, and believe me he took all these things into account before signing to fight pavlik he knew the outcome before even going into the fight that's why he was so confident.

So let's not blow this victory out of proportion it was a great win for bhop, but it has to be put in it's proper perspective, and incidentally I predicted that hopkins would win, bottom line pavlik does not compare to a prime hagler who could do it all box, counter, punch, great foot movement, great combination puncher, great lateral movement, and the list goes on if you want to get an idea of how great a boxer hagler was when he wanted to be just watch the 1st hamsho fight that was hagler's underrated boxing ability on full display and that display is comparable to the best performances of any pure boxer that I have ever seen, the truth of the matter is that hagler was a boxer puncher and one of the most complete fighters in the history of the sport.

And in a matchup with hopkins in all honestly could have beaten hopkins in the role of the boxer or pressure fighter the truth of the matter is that hagler was better in virtually all depts than the physically prime bhop, the older version of bhop is in fact the better of the two in terms of defense, intelligence, and strategy you yourself admitted as much, and I agree with that assessment, and it is not far fetched to suggest that hagler could have played the role of boxer in that match up much like he did when he fought duran, many thought that duran would be the better boxer, but hagler turned out to be the better boxer in that fight, a fight in which he beat duran convincingly in the role of boxer and banger.

Only al bernstein was calling that fight right that night when he stated that hagler was suprisingly dominating duran in the role of boxer and banger the fight with duran was not nearly as close as many would claim or as the biased judges that night would suggest, a scenario with hopkins in my opinion would have been no different prime for prime, now a prime hopkins with the defense and savvy of the older hopkins would have been a much more competitive fight in my opinion, but I still see hagler winning in either scenario, hopkins is a great fighter who got a great win over a very limited kelly pavlik but let's not use that win to suggest that he would have beaten a true all time great a complete, versatile, destructively dangerous fighter like hagler, let's keep the win in it's proper perspective.

Hagler is the greatest MW in the history of the sport bar none when you consider a fact that many like to overlook, that hagler didn't get his first title shot until his 49th fight which is absolutely crazy and unheard of now, when fighters get their first title shots in there 19th and 20th fights, can you imagine the defenses hagler would have racked up if he had gotten his shot and won the title 20-29 fights earlier? factor in the antufermo robbery in the first fight, as well as the leonard fight and 25-30 defenses for hagler in his career is not at all unreasonable.

And angelo dundees statements carry very little weight because they are obviously biased and considering the fact that he is one of the most overrarted trainers in the history of the sport, and one who no one enlist as a trainer, what also needs to be noted is and has been argued by many and is something I agree with is that hagler may have very well peaked well before he won the titles, and was on a steady decline after he won the titles, because of his long road to the titles, it is very possible that we never really got to see the best marvin hagler, the peak, prime hagler , which would make his accomplishments even more amazing, and would, should definitely stamp him as the best MW in the history of the sport period, but a great win and dominating performance by the great bernard hopkins never the less.


When many people imagine Hagler they remember the Hagler of the Hearns, Mugabi and Leonard fights. A guy who plodded foward and ate a lot of punches. The younger Hagler had nice hand and foot speed and his defence was much better than later in his career.

Part of the reason why you have so many people going into hyperbolic overdrive is because none of them expected Hopkins to beat him. Of course they come out and say they knew it all along and those who were picking Pavlik all of a sudden come out and say Pavlik was exposed and overrated. It's amazing what one fight can do to people.
D-MARV
QUOTE(Mean Mister Mustard @ Oct 21 2008, 06:30 PM) [snapback]407944[/snapback]
When many people imagine Hagler they remember the Hagler of the Hearns, Mugabi and Leonard fights. A guy who plodded foward and ate a lot of punches. The younger Hagler had nice hand and foot speed and his defence was much better than later in his career.

Part of the reason why you have so many people going into hyperbolic overdrive is because none of them expected Hopkins to beat him. Of course they come out and say they knew it all along and those who were picking Pavlik all of a sudden come out and say Pavlik was exposed and overrated. It's amazing what one fight can do to people.

Pavlik is still a Monster!!!! He will be back in the P4P ratings again, no doubt about it. He is "still" the best Middleweight in the world! He just ran into a Legend!
D-MARV
QUOTE(GMAN73 @ Oct 21 2008, 06:28 PM) [snapback]407943[/snapback]
Reasons Marvin Hagler could never beat Bernard Hopkins: Boxing IQ not even in the same ballpark as B-Hop, Hopkins is a much bigger, stronger and versatile fighter than MMH ever faced and he was much easier to hit than was/is Hopkins. Hagler's resume included some great names, but Hearns was chinny and a Welter, SRR was a Welter(he befuddled Hagler after 4 years in retirement), Duran was a lightweight(and really extended Hagler), Mugabi was a Jr. Middle and not even close to as polished as Pavlik. Hamsho, Obel, Sibson, Minter ant Antuofermo were all 2nd rate contenders who were in the 5'8"-5'9" range. Yes Hagler was a great 160lb. champion, but never really put on a display lik Hopkins did vs. Tito, Tarver, Pavlik and Wright. One sided schoolings, each and every one of them. He made RJJ look ordinary when RJJ was simply incredible, he easily beat JT in the 1st fight, rematch was debatable, And made 45-0 Calzaghe look like a bum.

Hopkins would make Hagler fight "HIS" fight like he does everyone else. IMO a fight between them at any point in either's career would be a one sided whitewash win for Hopkins, too slick, too tall and simply too smart for Hagler and the Petronelli brothers to deal with. Plus MMH was done by the time he was 33, B-Hop seems to still be a top 3 P4P fighter when he is closing in on 44!

If you look at their careers you can see so many paralells it is somewhat uncanny(to a point): Both had losses and draws early, Both were unsuccessful in their original attempts for the title at 160, each had numerous defenses before being recognized as great fighters, Hagler fought posterboys Hearns and SRL, Hopkins got Tito and Oscar, both unified the titles and both beat whoever they fought wherever they fought them for a long time. Hopkins took his career one step further by venturing into the higher weight classes and beat up on Tarver, Wright and Pavlik and almost squeaking one out vs. Calzaghe. Depending on how well Pavlik does in the rest of his young and promising career, and if Tarver maybe has a decent return, he is still fighting and beating(mostly) H.O.F. candidates one after another at the ripe age of 43, Hopkins is a legend, and so is Hagler, but when it is all said and done their resume's IMO are miles apart. Hopkins' is much more extensive.

You brought up some good points clapping.gif
Thegreatequalizer
QUOTE(GMAN73 @ Oct 21 2008, 06:28 PM) [snapback]407943[/snapback]
Reasons Marvin Hagler could never beat Bernard Hopkins: Boxing IQ not even in the same ballpark as B-Hop, Hopkins is a much bigger, stronger and versatile fighter than MMH ever faced and he was much easier to hit than was/is Hopkins. Hagler's resume included some great names, but Hearns was chinny and a Welter, SRR was a Welter(he befuddled Hagler after 4 years in retirement), Duran was a lightweight(and really extended Hagler), Mugabi was a Jr. Middle and not even close to as polished as Pavlik. Hamsho, Obel, Sibson, Minter ant Antuofermo were all 2nd rate contenders who were in the 5'8"-5'9" range. Yes Hagler was a great 160lb. champion, but never really put on a display lik Hopkins did vs. Tito, Tarver, Pavlik and Wright. One sided schoolings, each and every one of them. He made RJJ look ordinary when RJJ was simply incredible, he easily beat JT in the 1st fight, rematch was debatable, And made 45-0 Calzaghe look like a bum.

Hopkins would make Hagler fight "HIS" fight like he does everyone else. IMO a fight between them at any point in either's career would be a one sided whitewash win for Hopkins, too slick, too tall and simply too smart for Hagler and the Petronelli brothers to deal with. Plus MMH was done by the time he was 33, B-Hop seems to still be a top 3 P4P fighter when he is closing in on 44!

If you look at their careers you can see so many paralells it is somewhat uncanny(to a point): Both had losses and draws early, Both were unsuccessful in their original attempts for the title at 160, each had numerous defenses before being recognized as great fighters, Hagler fought posterboys Hearns and SRL, Hopkins got Tito and Oscar, both unified the titles and both beat whoever they fought wherever they fought them for a long time. Hopkins took his career one step further by venturing into the higher weight classes and beat up on Tarver, Wright and Pavlik and almost squeaking one out vs. Calzaghe. Depending on how well Pavlik does in the rest of his young and promising career, and if Tarver maybe has a decent return, he is still fighting and beating(mostly) H.O.F. candidates one after another at the ripe age of 43, Hopkins is a legend, and so is Hagler, but when it is all said and done their resume's IMO are miles apart. Hopkins' is much more extensive.


i disagree. who on hopkins win list pre-trinidad (a welter) is miles apart from hagler? glenn johnson? he's pretty much the only one who rose above b-level status. after that he mixed in comeback wins with lackluster losses. i'm not trying to put down b-hop, but record vs. record it's not that much different. except i would say that the two star welters that hagler fought (srl and hearns) are on a different level compared to the one's that hopkins fought (dlh and tito).
Mean Mister Mustard
QUOTE(Fitz @ Oct 21 2008, 07:16 PM) [snapback]407950[/snapback]
Then you have people like me that has been saying this since his first Taylor fight, lol.

Also I'm not going to laugh at damarvelous1 for picking him over some greats. Rating someone over Robinson on an all time list and picking someone to beat him in a mythical match up are 2 totally different things.
If he was rating him over, sure that's stupid. To pick him, I don't see what's so funny about that. This is exactly what I meant a few days ago when in a thread, I said that it's unfair for newer generation to compare with older guys.
I really don't see what the laugh is all about, it's not like people are picking Pavlik over Robinson.


Yeah you're one of the people who didn't think he was the monster many made him out to be. And you make the good point about people simply picking B-Hop over Robinson not being that big a deal. But I think if you're going to pick Hopkins over Robinson the argument whould be a little stronger than "He's too big and strong". That being said Hopkins is one of the few fighters who would be competitive or the man in any era. He's supremely skilled, conditioned and he has a thing that will always give people trouble which is an outstanding defense. Actually his stamina (back in the day) and his defense are 2 reasons why strong tough pugs like Council, Echols, Allen and others were never able to figure him out.
JonnyBlaze
QUOTE(thehype @ Oct 21 2008, 01:54 PM) [snapback]407938[/snapback]
LOL. By the time some of today's "fighters" reach 30 or 40 fights and start talking retirement, Robinson already had 80 or more fights.

I seriously doubt any of today's "fighters" would have the "great" resumes they have if they actually fought as many times a year as someone like SRR did. Hell, the way some of them have already faded by just fighting once a year, I think there's a lot of other guys other than Robinson that probably would have beat them.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Hype you got it competely right..
Sugar Q
QUOTE(thehype @ Oct 21 2008, 10:23 AM) [snapback]407919[/snapback]
Hopkins beat Robinson?

Not in my opinion.

Hey, Hopkins looked great on Saturday, but let's not blow it out of proportion. I think a lot of people, well, at least me, were picking Pavlik to win by decision simply because of the number of close decisions that Hopkins has lost recently and the fact that he hasn't looked very active in those fights. I, for one, wasn't even sure if Hopkins could put on a performance like that anymore...that was the Hopkins that I had grown accustomed to. Fortunately, Pavlik was so basic in there that Hopkins looked even better than anyone could have imagined. Don't get me wrong...impressive, dominant and fantastic performance by the old man...but if anything, I think that performance says more about the current state of talent in boxing than anything else. Just my opinion though.



Which is the reason why Hopkins would not have beaten SRR, Hagler, Roy Jones or Ray Leonard.
JonnyBlaze
QUOTE(damarvelous1 @ Oct 21 2008, 09:42 AM) [snapback]407920[/snapback]
SSR was a natrual Welterweight!!! Bernard Hopkins "looks" natrual at Light Heavyweight!

What about Floyd Mayweather then??How do ya explain him??He started as a lightweight and went up to jr. middleweight and took apart DLH..He didn't look natural to me at jr. middleweight but DLH did..SRR would beat guys when they had as much as 15+ lbs on him..He beat Lamotta weighing 144 and Lamotta was 160..
neophyte7
People are trying to berate people for being proud of Hopkins and his great performance. One Writer in the New York Post stated that it was one of the greatest in recent ring history, so enough with this hyper drive talk or going over board. What we witnessed was really surreal, in terms of the age, and the fact that Hopkins was a 4-1 underdog--- It is not fantasy talk to have Hopkins beating Sugar Ray Robionson... Hopkins and what he brings to the ring even at 43 would not allow him not lose to guys with the skill sets, or dimension, of Turpin, Giardello and Fulmer... Robinson did lose to and struggle with these guys. HOPKINs is a boxing scientist who would confound Ray Robinson...
GMAN73
QUOTE(Thegreatequalizer @ Oct 21 2008, 06:14 PM) [snapback]407949[/snapback]
i disagree. who on hopkins win list pre-trinidad (a welter) is miles apart from hagler? glenn johnson? he's pretty much the only one who rose above b-level status. after that he mixed in comeback wins with lackluster losses. i'm not trying to put down b-hop, but record vs. record it's not that much different. except i would say that the two star welters that hagler fought (srl and hearns) are on a different level compared to the one's that hopkins fought (dlh and tito).


How much better are SRL and Hearns than DLH and Trinidad? They are almost even in terms of accomplishments. All 4 are sure fire first ballot HOF'ers.

The difference in resume's is post Taylor: where Hopkins is 3-1 and the loss is questionable. Against Tarver, Wright, Calzaghe and Pavlik. They both did extensive work, and if Bernard would have hung up his gloves in 2005. I firmly believe he barely cracks the top 25 P4P of all time. Right now I think he squeezes into the top 10, and as far as 160, he is top 3.

Ponder this what if he fights and beats Dawson next? Is he top 3 p4P all time? Just a thought. dntknw.gif
GMAN73
QUOTE(JonnyBlaze @ Oct 21 2008, 07:52 PM) [snapback]407963[/snapback]
What about Floyd Mayweather then??How do ya explain him??He started as a lightweight and went up to jr. middleweight and took apart DLH..He didn't look natural to me at jr. middleweight but DLH did..SRR would beat guys when they had as much as 15+ lbs on him..He beat Lamotta weighing 144 and Lamotta was 160..


Blaze, of SRR's 19 losses, 17 were at middle, you can erase 10 of those and say he was old, but the truth is if you could maul him and avoid his huge punches you could give him trouble(i.e. Basilio, LaMotta, Fullmer and Turpin). So if Hop and him were to fight, you better damn well believe Bernard would be in his chest and roughing him up for the entire length of the fight. Keep one thing in mind, SRR like to mix it up a helluva lot more than RJJ did, so he would be right there for Hop to get some serious work done as well. Not saying Hopkins is a better fighter than was SRR(no one was/is), but his style would have been the right kind to beat the hard partying Robinson.
D-MARV
Maybe it's not fair for me to rate B. Hopklins over SRR! I wasn't alive in SRR era. I never saw one of his fights live. all I have on SRR is film! And their Highlghts at that. To me, B. Hopkins will go down as one of the greatest fighters to ever walk the face of this planet. As a sports fan, He is the most influential athlete in my life!

I will never question whether or not SRR is great. I'm aware that he is p4p top 5 of all time. I give him that credit! But me choosing B. Hopkins over SRR should not be that big of a deal. Bernard Hopkins carries speed, quickness, toughness, Boxing IQ, feet movement, Strong Chin, Great Defense, the list goes on and on.

I don't understand this old school logic. Why do fighters get to be favored over a fighter because they fought in "old times". I used to use this logic until I started to understand that as boxing moved on over the years, the fighters became more skilled. Sure, guys like Joe Louis and SRR were ahead of their time but do we just give them passes to be the all time greatest out of respect or do we really feel that these guys are truly the greatest to ever do it?

As I mentioned before... I agree that SRR is one of the greatest of all time, But I like B. HOp, (even before the Pavlik fight) and feel that he will go down as an all time great! 50 years from now Bernard Hopkins will be talked about in a way that we talk about SRR. Thats my opinion and I'm sticking too it.
D-MARV
QUOTE(JonnyBlaze @ Oct 21 2008, 08:52 PM) [snapback]407963[/snapback]
What about Floyd Mayweather then??How do ya explain him??He started as a lightweight and went up to jr. middleweight and took apart DLH..He didn't look natural to me at jr. middleweight but DLH did..SRR would beat guys when they had as much as 15+ lbs on him..He beat Lamotta weighing 144 and Lamotta was 160..

Floyd is not SRR and Oscar is not Bernard Hopkins!!! 4 completely different styles!
streetlion1
QUOTE(damarvelous1 @ Oct 20 2008, 04:48 AM) [snapback]407791[/snapback]
When its all said and done I think BHOP will go down as p4p top 10!!!! Maybe even top 5, I dont see too many people in history beating Bernard Hopkins!

No Doubt!! B-Hop would have done very well in any era. He is no question a top 5 P4P and one of the (if not the greatest) Greatest middleweights of all time!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.