Now, if Hopkins a complete fighter that blew superstars Oscar De La Hoya and Felix "Tito" Trinidad away would defend his crown against these guys of the past. What if these guys were contenders and challengers for his crown?
1. Gene Fullmer
2. Rodrigo Valdez
3. Emile Griffith
4. Marcel Cerdan
5. Bobo Olson
6. Mickey Walker
7. Nino Benvenutti
8. Dick Tiger
9. Paul Pender
10. Joey Giardello
11. Bennie Briscoe
12. Tony Zale
Would he still be the undisputed middleweight champion of the world with 20 title defenses or one of these guys would have taken his title?
Bernard Hopkins vs the all-time greats
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 15678
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Nope. Basilio was tough and viscous as hell, Fullmer was tough and strong as an ox and never stopped throwing bombs, Cerdan had more skill, Walker was the gamest opponent you could think of taking on Heavyweights when he started out as a welterweight, Tiger would knock Hopkins out....should I go on?
Really the only guy I think Hopkins could have beaten would have been Bobo Olson.
Hopkins laid back style wouldn't have worked against these men, they had such a great work rate, were competitive as hell, these men's lives were boxing and were constantly proving themselves in what was the greatest era of all time in middleweight history...Hopkins more or less had journeyman as his challengers.
Overall Hopkins is a ring marvel, being this old and still winning against top flight guys as a LHW now, having 20 defenses as a middleweight, but I can't say I favor the middleweight Hopkins over the majority of those men on that list.
Sure Hopkins could split wins over them all. But I don't see him being undisputed champion against them, but even if he did win the undisputed title, he wouldn't have held it for too long. Maybe I am just being biased, but oh well, that's my opinion.
Really the only guy I think Hopkins could have beaten would have been Bobo Olson.
Hopkins laid back style wouldn't have worked against these men, they had such a great work rate, were competitive as hell, these men's lives were boxing and were constantly proving themselves in what was the greatest era of all time in middleweight history...Hopkins more or less had journeyman as his challengers.
Overall Hopkins is a ring marvel, being this old and still winning against top flight guys as a LHW now, having 20 defenses as a middleweight, but I can't say I favor the middleweight Hopkins over the majority of those men on that list.
Sure Hopkins could split wins over them all. But I don't see him being undisputed champion against them, but even if he did win the undisputed title, he wouldn't have held it for too long. Maybe I am just being biased, but oh well, that's my opinion.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
He only beat De La Hoya on account of the size difference. A fighter with Hopkins' attributes, pound-for-pound, would not beat De La Hoya if they were identical in size. Hopkins was a great fighter & would probably make it tough, but would not beat someone like De La Hoya. Trinidad maybe, since he was a puncher-first & Hopkins had a great chin.
But there are better fights to point to for Hopkins than listing the big names of dramatically smaller opposition.
But there are better fights to point to for Hopkins than listing the big names of dramatically smaller opposition.
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
Bernard Hopkins vs The all time Middleweights
Bernard Hopkins would rank somewhere between 15 and 20 on the all time Middleweight ranking. The top fighters of this division would have had little trouble with him. I do not think he would have been stopped but decisioned easily.