Bernard Hopkins's All-Time Ranking?

[Expug]

I think he belongs in the top ten at middle. He is such an outstanding technician that he matches up well with anyone in that divisions history.

I think the middles who would give him the most trouble would be,
Monzon-similar style but a little bigger puncher.
Hagler-I think Hopkins wouldnt have enough power to hurt Marvin, earn his respect. I think Hagler would outwork him.
Robinson-He was just able to do it all.

There are some others that would be tough for Bernard . I think those three listed above would give him problems.
Hagler
Monzon
Robinson
Greb
Walker
Charles
Burley
Roy Jones
Hopkins
Flowers

I suppose my list would look something like that. I have Ezzard in there I know. He beat Burley at around the middleweight limit I believe. Although I have Ezzard top 3 at Lightheavy.

[The Scranton Assassin]

I think he belongs in the top ten at middle. He is such an outstanding technician that he matches up well with anyone in that divisions history.

I think the middles who would give him the most trouble would be,
Monzon-similar style but a little bigger puncher.
Hagler-I think Hopkins wouldnt have enough power to hurt Marvin, earn his respect. I think Hagler would outwork him.
Robinson-He was just able to do it all.

There are some others that would be tough for Bernard . I think those three listed above would give him problems.
Hagler
Monzon
Robinson
Greb
Walker
Charles
Burley
Roy Jones
Hopkins
Flowers

I suppose my list would look something like that. I have Ezzard in there I know. He beat Burley at around the middleweight limit I believe. Although I have Ezzard top 3 at Lightheavy.

Ezzard should be #1 at Lightheavy and where is Ketchel and Lamotta on your list. They deserve it more than Flowers or Burley

[Autobarn]

I always liked Hopkins' style to give Monzon and Hagler problems. Monzon has what soeone described as "grim purpose", which is a nice description. But Carlos was so ponderous.

Hagler's 'two-stepper' style (as Dundee described him) was overexaggerated by a fit Leonard and Hagler's own decline. But his way of doing things one at a time, in such a steady way, would give him problems against Hopkins. Hopkins is so good at throwing a spanner in the works, stealing an opening, seeing the interval between his opponent's moves and using that gap to fornicate them up.



Hagler and Monzon were gritty greats who I admire greatly. But Hopkins was far more studied and meticulous. I'd give him a shot against either.

Don't think I'm getting overexcited just cos Hopkins won on Sat. I've been pissing ppl off saying this a few months ago on the Brit forums.

[Expug]

I think he belongs in the top ten at middle. He is such an outstanding technician that he matches up well with anyone in that divisions history.

I think the middles who would give him the most trouble would be,
Monzon-similar style but a little bigger puncher.
Hagler-I think Hopkins wouldnt have enough power to hurt Marvin, earn his respect. I think Hagler would outwork him.
Robinson-He was just able to do it all.

There are some others that would be tough for Bernard . I think those three listed above would give him problems.
Hagler
Monzon
Robinson
Greb
Walker
Charles
Burley
Roy Jones
Hopkins
Flowers

I suppose my list would look something like that. I have Ezzard in there I know. He beat Burley at around the middleweight limit I believe. Although I have Ezzard top 3 at Lightheavy.

Ezzard should be #1 at Lightheavy and where is Ketchel and Lamotta on your list. They deserve it more than Flowers or Burley

I have as I put down , Ezzard in my top three Lheavies. And Ketchell and Lamotta are just below Flowers and Burley IMO.

[barry]

I figured this would start. Hopkins beats a very overrated fighter who became champ due to lack of opposition and now that Hopkins beat hi8m he not only should be top ten middleweight, but should be considered at 175 as well...give me a break! Hopkins maybe top 15, but there are a lot of other middleweights who not only have a lot tougher records, but they won a lot of those tough matches. Hopkins is certainly top 30, maybe top 20, maybe top 15, but thats about as far as I would go.

Hopkins looked good against an old fighter in Tarver that threw no punches, and old fighter that has not been as fortunate as Hopkins in being able to turn back time, a Tarver that has always been more bark than bite, but an incredible feat beating Tarver it most certainly was not and certainly not a win that would merit naming Hop[kins anywhere near any of the all-time light heavyweights. Tarver would be lucky to be a top 50 all-time light heavy, though his record may not even merit that.

Hopkins could have competed with most middleweights in history, but guys like Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Stanley Ketchel, Ray Robinson and Roy Jones would always easily win against Hopkins, unless they were having a bad night.

[jimglen]

that's any easy one, very, very low...

and for those of you that can't see beyond full size coloured posters and HBO media 'hyped-up' darlings, well it's a sad state in boxing history!

at least the serious writers, although they HAVE to account for his ACIEVEMENTS... are equally quick to point out the comparison among the TRUE greats is, well just that, a comparison.

a series of 'drab' victories against fighters he shouldn't have been fighting and at a weight that he's just proved in a few short weeks after his last fight, He Never REALLY WAS (MW), he did redeem himself against Taylor, but he should have had the same landmark fights years ago...like the greats that he is compared too.

they fought the TOP men REGULARLY and MOVED UP in weight (as ALL people do), Not HANG around the little fellas where he found a 'niche' in the Business!

That is in fact his place in history, p4p the greatest middleweight, I mean L-HW, I mean L-HW PRETENDING to be a middleweight, Businessman in Boxing History!

[The Great John L]

...Hopkins could have competed with most middleweights in history, but guys like Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Stanley Ketchel, Ray Robinson and Roy Jones would always easily win against Hopkins, unless they were having a bad night.

I think that sums it up pretty well.

[Tantum]

Hopkins could have competed with most middleweights in history, but guys like Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Stanley Ketchel, Ray Robinson and Roy Jones* would always easily win against Hopkins, unless they were having a bad night.

All of those guys lost to lesser fighters than Hopkins is.

Also, with the exception of Hopkins Pro Debut, all of those guys lost to lesser fighters than Hopkins lost to.



*So you think if Jones fought Hopkins on 3/1/03 instead of Ruiz (at 175) he would have won?

[The Great John L]

*So you think if Jones fought Hopkins on 3/1/03 instead of Ruiz (at 175) he would have won?

Ummm, I think he’s saying that a peak RJJ at MW beats a peak B-Hop. I don’t think them fighting @ LH in 2003 really has anything to do with barry’s comment.

However, I would say that yes, RJJ would have beaten B-Hop @175 in 2003.

[HomicideHenry]

My Top Middleweights

Harry Greb

Ray Robinson

Carlos Monzon

Marvin Hagler

Bernard Hopkins

Jake LaMotta

Billy Conn

Mickey Walker

Marcel Cerdan

Tony Zale

Bob Fitzsimmons

Emille Griffith

Charley Burley

Joey Giardello

Dick Tiger


**********************************************************

I place Bernard Hopkins overall in the top 5 because possibly nobody in modern pugilism has had the most wins over the best level of opposition over the longest period of time. Save his loss to Roy Jones, Hopkins only other losses has been after the "twilight" of his career. *

His "comeback" at Light Heavyweight, at the age of 42, after a two loss streak---beating the man who beat Roy Jones, the man he couldn't beat, with ease by wide margins---is almost Formanesque. It's almost unbelievable.

Here is a man who has had 21 successful title defenses, just four shy of Joe Louis' 25 defense record. Beating such names as De La Hoya, Glen Johnson, Syd Vanderpool, William Joppy, Felix Trinidad---and then bump up to Light Heavyweight and easily wins the title against Antonio Tarver!

Hopkins is a throw-back to such men as Ezzard Charles, Bob Fitzsimmons and Joe Walcott, in the sense that they fought better as they got older.

I may be getting ahead of myself, but Hopkins may very well be the greatest fighter in the world today, if not the over-all best in the last decade. He is certainly one of the all-time greatest---though I do not believe he would have beaten the likes of Hagler and Monzon or Robinson.

[barry]

Hopkins competition has not been that good! True, in recent years he beat two fighters that will be considered all time greats in Trinidad and De La Hoya, but Hopkins was a true middleweight facing two welterweight and as is almost always the case, a good big man will always beat a good smaller man. Hopkins has a few solid names on his record, but then again, he also has several no-hopers as well and if we are to credit his trinket title fights as world title bouts then a fighter like Sven Ottke deserves the same kind of recognition...after all, Ottke had 22+ wins in trinket-title fights and he never lost a bout!

As I said, Hopkins is probably top 15...top 5, not a chance in hell. And about guys like Robinson losing to lesser fighters...yeah he did, but then again he also beat several fighters that were on par and even better than Hopkins during the 200 pro bouts he fought.

As to Jones in 2003...Jones would have beat Hopkins easily...hell he has a good chance of beating Hopkins now, even though he is almost totally shot. The bout will probably happen, but it will not matter now as it is way too late. The bout should have happened several years ago when Jones offered Hopkins the bout, but Hopkins killed the bout because he felt that he deserved a 50/50 split, which he didn't. Now, if it happens, it will just be two old men fighting several years past they're prime and it will not look favorable on either mans record!

[barry]

But there will be a lot of people that will change they're middleweight ranking of Hopkins due to his light heavyweight win.

[ferocity]

What i find funny is how now some people were clapping and hollering for hopkins when he faced tarver. this is the same fighter with the same fight that made/makes boring fights but now that he beat trinidad and delahoya all of a sudden his fighting style is worthy of an applasue, i think its funny.

And the same thing is happening with Winky, heres a guys, who for many years fought as he did with trinidad and in borring fashion he won, but now that he beat a great past his prime trinidad instead of being booed he now gets applause, its a trip and funny as hell.

Whats even funnier is hearing some people say oh, if hopkins fought taylor like he did tarver, hopkins would win? LOL. Taylor would defeat hopkins again at supper middleweight and at light heavyweight. And Taylor will get the respect he deserves after he defeats the over-rated Winky and take the numbe # 1 p4p spot.

And with all the great middleweight in boxing history i don't know if hopkins even belongs in the top ten. All I used to hear is how this erra of middleweight had no good middleweights and now to all of a sudden hes' with the all-time greats, lol. Taylor who many felt wasn't even ready for hopkins defeats hopkins, and then you hear hopkins is old, he defeats tarver and now its hopkins is young, lol.

[barry]

>>>What i find funny is how now some people were clapping and hollering for hopkins when he faced tarver. this is the same fighter with the same fight that made/makes boring fights but now that he beat trinidad and delahoya all of a sudden his fighting style is worthy of an applasue, i think its funny.<<<

No doubt! Hopkins has been one of the most boring fighters to watch, or try to watch. Certainly not fitting of his nickname...perhaps it should be “The Passive Executioner."

[BoxBuzz]

Well for me it was all about Tarver's trash talking that made it a fun outcome. barry, check out lvark's editing on the current scene...he makes it an interesting fight.