BoxRec

Who wins?

Would Hopkins be able to wrestle in the ring with a light heavyweight champ who was a former national amateur wrestling champion?

We are talking boxing not wrestling right?

I have to give credit for thinking out of the box; never would have thought of this matchup.

Hopkins was certainly more skilled and the better pound for pound fighter. However, by the time he was a light heavy, he was really old. Have to favor Berlanbach against this version of Hopkins. Probably would be a very ugly fight.

Ambling Alp II wrote:We are talking boxing not wrestling right?

I have to give credit for thinking out of the box; never would have thought of this matchup.

Hopkins was certainly more skilled and the better pound for pound fighter. However, by the time he was a light heavy, he was really old. Have to favor Berlanbach against this version of Hopkins. Probably would be a very ugly fight.

Good post. Agreed.

Berlenbach was protected by Dan Hickey and Tex Rickard. He was a fairly limited, straight forward slugger with a big punch, and a lot of determination. He made the most of his ability coming into the sport late but I would favor any version of Hopkins to outpoint him.

Hopkins would win a one sided decision victory

You could try running this through the Title Bout Championship Boxing sim. I'd favour a younger, tough Berlenbach over the older Hopkins, but Berlenbach did lose to a shifty boxer named Delaney.

I would favor Berlenbach over a light heavyweight Hopkins. Going by the (admittedly very fast framed) film of him and accounts, he wasn't a crude slugger and had skills to go along with his strength and punch. That plus his work-rate and stamina would outwork a pot-shotting Bernard. Slattery and Delaney were very slick and he beat them; I don't rate Bernard at 175 near those two.

Also don't see how Berlenbach was "protected", he fought both Young Stribling and Delaney within a year of turning professional.

Hopkins was better than Slattery and Delaney as well.

Berlebach was protected because Rickard and Hickey were trying to steer him away from trouble in order to build him into a knockout attraction. They wanted a mini-Dempsey to be able to sell to the public in the LHW division. That's not an opinion its a fact. He was forced to fight Delaney because the amount of publicity and size of his purses were disproportionate to his relative experience so the public basically demanded he step up the level of competition in order to prove what Rickard was selling. Delaney was chosen because at the time he was not seen as a threat (rightly so as he had been stopped early by both Augie Ratner, and Young Fisher, who Berlenbach had stopped). Delaney was seen by Hickey and Rickard as a step up but a safe step up. It was Delaney's victory over Berlenbach that established his reputation. BUT, Delaney then went on to suffer a one sided beating at the hands of the smaller, faded, comebacking Bryan Downey. Delaney was a good fighter but an inconsistent one. Jimmy Slattery was fighting his VERY FIRST 15 rounder after having just turned 21 and had only been 10 rounds once. His longest fight besides that one ten rounder was six rounds. Also keep in mind that only two months earlier this big middleweight had been knocked out by welterweight Dave Shade in 3 rounds. So taking all that into account was Slattery really that much of a threat? This all ignores the fact that Berlenbach took his title from one of the weakest champions in history and got that shot over Greb and Tunney (both of whom had first dibs on the match). As champion he defended against Marullo and was losing that fight when it was called a NC to protect his title, Slattery which has been discussed above, Delaney who had just recovered from a severe case of blood poisoning and whose health was such that it was feared he wouldn't even pass the pre fight physical, and Stribling which was his most competitive matchup (although in hindsight we now know that Stribling could never seem to win the big ones). Berlenbach was a limited slugger (I never said crude). He had a lot of heart and determination and got the most of his ability, coming into the sport relatively late and from another sport, but he wasn't better than Hopkins and neither was his arch rival Delaney, or Slattery for that matter or Stribling.

klompton wrote:Hopkins was better than Slattery and Delaney as well.

Berlebach was protected because Rickard and Hickey were trying to steer him away from trouble in order to build him into a knockout attraction. They wanted a mini-Dempsey to be able to sell to the public in the LHW division. That's not an opinion its a fact. He was forced to fight Delaney because the amount of publicity and size of his purses were disproportionate to his relative experience so the public basically demanded he step up the level of competition in order to prove what Rickard was selling. Delaney was chosen because at the time he was not seen as a threat (rightly so as he had been stopped early by both Augie Ratner, and Young Fisher, who Berlenbach had stopped). Delaney was seen by Hickey and Rickard as a step up but a safe step up. It was Delaney's victory over Berlenbach that established his reputation. BUT, Delaney then went on to suffer a one sided beating at the hands of the smaller, faded, comebacking Bryan Downey. Delaney was a good fighter but an inconsistent one. Jimmy Slattery was fighting his VERY FIRST 15 rounder after having just turned 21 and had only been 10 rounds once. His longest fight besides that one ten rounder was six rounds. Also keep in mind that only two months earlier this big middleweight had been knocked out by welterweight Dave Shade in 3 rounds. So taking all that into account was Slattery really that much of a threat? This all ignores the fact that Berlenbach took his title from one of the weakest champions in history and got that shot over Greb and Tunney (both of whom had first dibs on the match). As champion he defended against Marullo and was losing that fight when it was called a NC to protect his title, Slattery which has been discussed above, Delaney who had just recovered from a severe case of blood poisoning and whose health was such that it was feared he wouldn't even pass the pre fight physical, and Stribling which was his most competitive matchup (although in hindsight we now know that Stribling could never seem to win the big ones). Berlenbach was a limited slugger (I never said crude). He had a lot of heart and determination and got the most of his ability, coming into the sport relatively late and from another sport, but he wasn't better than Hopkins and neither was his arch rival Delaney, or Slattery for that matter or Stribling.

At 175, yes they were. And they would've all beaten a guy who throws 20 punches per round I don't care how crafty. This isn't Pascal or Cloud, who ARE very crude.

But they problem is you are basing Berlenbach being better than Hopkins at 175 because he beat men that according to you were better than Hopkins at 175 when they didn't weigh 175:

Slattery 161
Delaney 166


Yet both of those guys were losing to sub 160 pound fighters in emphatic fashion:

Shade weighed 153 to Slattery's 162 when he knocked Slattery out 2 months prior to Slats fighting Berlenbach. You think Shade would have stopped Hopkins? Or that Hopkins couldn't go 12? Because Slattery got stopped by a welterweight and couldn't not go 12 at this time.

Delaney got hammered all over the ring and almost knocked out by Downey who weighed 158 and could make 154 given the chance, he was also past his prime, and coming off a layoff. You think Downey beats Hopkins? I don't.

Frankly Berlenbach was not much better if at all than Pascal and Cloud and he certainly wasn't as big either. I have no doubt Hopkins would beat Berlenbach at any weight they fought at. Its simply a horrible style matchup for the Astoria Assassin. The only way he wins this is if Rickard's judges protect him.

The Downey-Delaney fight took place in May of 1924. Delaney weighed 161 to Downey's 158 1/2. Jack had previously beaten a string of veterans alongwith young Berlenbach and Loughran. So he had one off night against someone he likely underestimated. After that loss he went 11-2-1, with both losses to Slattery (both 6 round decisions) in what was basically the latter's backyard. The draw with Loughran was called a split decision as the two judges split and the referee called it for Delaney, only to have the judgement changed an hour later by another party.

Then came the questionable loss to Berlenbach, which despite the hiding Delaney gave to the champion, was scored 7 rounds to Berlenbach, six to Delaney and 2 even.

Jack Delaney was a brilliant boxer. In his day, fighters trained down in weight to achieve more speed, or so the theory went. Today, he'd easily weigh 174 ringside, and the difference in height with Hopkins would be negligible. In a 15 round fight, something never experienced by Hopkins, Delaney would match Hopkins strength for strength and he'd either stop Hopkins late or win the decision, unless of course it was in Madison Square Garden instead of the Montreal Forum.

'nuff said.

Berlanbach has wins over Delaney, McTigue, Slattery, and Stribling and he is they guy whose competition is being questioned? Sure, each of these guys had their weakness, but they were all very good fighters.
How about that muderer's row that Hopkins beat?

Ambling Alp II wrote:Berlanbach has wins over Delaney, McTigue, Slattery, and Stribling and he is they guy whose competition is being questioned? Sure, each of these guys had their weakness, but they were all very good fighters.
How about that muderer's row that Hopkins beat?

Tarver's probably still his best win. It's amazing, though, that if he stays around another couple years, he'll have had almost a decade-long career at light heavy after his middle career.

Delaney didnt train down to 161 for speed to face Downey. He was a natural middleweight at the time who abandoned the division because he viewed Berlenbach as an easier route to a title than Greb, and rightly so being that he had already stopped Berlenbach. when he did finally get his shot at berl, he was recovering from a serious case of blood poisoning that was so bad they werent sure hed pass the pgysical to be allowed to fight. it was thst version of delaney that the great berlenbach beat. Mctigue was a piss poor champion, barely better than Al Mccoy, anyone who studied him would not be using him as an example of Berlenbachs greatness. Slattery was a 21 year old boy who had been beyond six rounds one time, was also a natural middleweight (his next scheduled fight was a title shot at Greb which he cancelled when Berlenbach stopped him), had never gone 15, and was basically coming off a loss to a welterweight. As if that wasnt enough we now know that he was a notoriously inconsistent fighter. As i said before Stribling was probably the best of the bunch on paper when he fought Berl but im not even as high on him as some. His record is ridiculously padded (his ko record) and he is another that seemed to be always the bridesmaid, never the bride.

Sure you can go through any fighter and find negative things about them and ignore the positives. You would not have too much trouble doing that with Hopkin's opponents.

True Slattery was only 21, and had not had many long fights, (actually he two before Berlanbach, not one.) However, it's not like he was some inexperienced kid. He already had over 70 fights and had won some fights scheduled for longer. He was considered a top contender.

If there were 4 "champions" in Stribling's era, he easily would have been a "champion". He fought a lot of tomato cans, but he also fought a lot very good fighters as well. There is doubt that he was a great fighter.

You should not just blow off Berlanbach's win over Delaney because Delaney supposedly was overconfident. You could do that with any fight. You could say that Hopkin's opponents did not take him seriously enough because he was old or some other excuse.

You have to look at both the pluses and minuses of both Berlanbach's and Hopkin's opponents.
Berlanbach fought much better competition than Hopkin's did.

Ambling Alp II wrote:If there were 4 "champions" in Stribling's era, he easily would have been a "champion". He fought a lot of tomato cans, but he also fought a lot very good fighters as well. There is doubt that he was a great fighter.

Good typo. Young Stribling an ATG? Hardly.

klompton wrote:But they problem is you are basing Berlenbach being better than Hopkins at 175 because he beat men that according to you were better than Hopkins at 175 when they didn't weigh 175:

Slattery 161
Delaney 166


Yet both of those guys were losing to sub 160 pound fighters in emphatic fashion:

Shade weighed 153 to Slattery's 162 when he knocked Slattery out 2 months prior to Slats fighting Berlenbach. You think Shade would have stopped Hopkins? Or that Hopkins couldn't go 12? Because Slattery got stopped by a welterweight and couldn't not go 12 at this time.

Delaney got hammered all over the ring and almost knocked out by Downey who weighed 158 and could make 154 given the chance, he was also past his prime, and coming off a layoff. You think Downey beats Hopkins? I don't.

Frankly Berlenbach was not much better if at all than Pascal and Cloud and he certainly wasn't as big either. I have no doubt Hopkins would beat Berlenbach at any weight they fought at. Its simply a horrible style matchup for the Astoria Assassin. The only way he wins this is if Rickard's judges protect him.

On top of being only a welterweight when stopping Jimmy Slattery, Dave Shade stopped only seventeen opponents in 249 known bouts during his career. In other words, Slattery's
durability after fighting Shade was in question, to put it mildly.

- Chuck Johnston

Slattery only got stopped 4 times in 126 fights.
Stribling was a great fighter; that is not even worth debating.

Slattery,Stribling and Delaney were better than the light heavyweights that Hopkins beat.

Ok, let's rephrase it. Does Young Stribling belong in top 100 greatest of all-time? Top 150? Top 200? If such fighters are called all-time great, then I don't know what's the point. Just call every belt-holder in history all-time great.

Not sure if he belongs in the top 100 or not. Top 200 easily.
I agree that the WBS beltholders has tarnished the sport and most aren't remotely close to being great. However, you can easily come up with 100 fighters who were great. Just take the top 10 at each of the major weight classes and you are already at 80. That is not even including fighters who were great that were at Jr weight classes or were at several weights classes but not at one for long. And of course most would consider fighters just outside the top 10 in most major weight classes to be great.

Of course Stribling was not as good as say Ray Robinson or Henry Armstrong. However, when you consider that most fighters never make it to main events, most that do never were contenders, that there have been tens of thousands of boxers in over 130 years of the sport, than "only" being one of the top 100 or so is pretty impressive.

stribling was never, at any point in his career, the best fighter in any of the weight divisions he fought in. He may not have ever been in the top five of those divisions. i have a hard time calling a guy like that "great" but as senya said the word great is bandied about loosely today that it no longer has any meaning.

Jimmy Slattery went on to have a good career, but was still considered somewhat of a disappointment. This is due to the fact he received a tremendous amount of hype before meeting his Waterloo when fighting Dave Shade. I compare Slattery to Mark Breland, another fighter who had good career, but so much more was expected of him before he suffered a crushing defeat in his first bout with Marlon Starling.

- Chuck Johnston

Stribling has Ws over 5 Hall of Famers. I would say that classifies as great. The only fighter not a natural welterweight that Bernard has beaten who is a HOFer is the ghost of Jones Jr and MAYBE Tarver (and that is extremely arguable).

Hall of Fame is what it is named - it includes fighters that have acquired "fame", not necessarily what can be called greatness. A fame of meeting or beating several other famous fighters, a fame of fighting in particular era, a fame of getting a title. That cannot be used any longer in evaluation of a fighter's greatness. And it was like that from the beginning, when more known fighters, especially heavyweight champions, were being elected ahead of more deserving, but less known smaller ones. I still can't believe the results of a recent virtual tournament on another forum, where the majority picked Joe Louis to beat Packey McFarland in a P4P match. They were on different levels as boxers. Make them the same size, and Louis would have been totally outclassed and embarassed by McFarland. But people know a lot more about Joe than they do about Packey, so they pick him. It's the same thing here (HoF thread), same thing at IBHoF (Packey was picked only in 3rd year of election), same thing with IBRO and whatever else polls or organizations you choose that are supposed to know better. An old-time champion, and I have heard about him and his opponents - he must have been great, and his opponents must have been great or at least very good. Why do I f***ing need to research them to know if that's true? I have heard their names and others have, we can't be wrong picking an old-time champion (when there were no XYZ titles and fewer weight divisions) as great, even though none of us have gone further than look up his record in a book or on this site.

P.S. Sorry if that sounds way too harsh, I haven't got enough sleep today.

Senya13 wrote:Hall of Fame is what it is named - it includes fighters that have acquired "fame", not necessarily what can be called greatness. A fame of meeting or beating several other famous fighters, a fame of fighting in particular era, a fame of getting a title. That cannot be used any longer in evaluation of a fighter's greatness. And it was like that from the beginning, when more known fighters, especially heavyweight champions, were being elected ahead of more deserving, but less known smaller ones. I still can't believe the results of a recent virtual tournament on another forum, where the majority picked Joe Louis to beat Packey McFarland in a P4P match. They were on different levels as boxers. Make them the same size, and Louis would have been totally outclassed and embarassed by McFarland. But people know a lot more about Joe than they do about Packey, so they pick him. It's the same thing here (HoF thread), same thing at IBHoF (Packey was picked only in 3rd year of election), same thing with IBRO and whatever else polls or organizations you choose that are supposed to know better. An old-time champion, and I have heard about him and his opponents - he must have been great, and his opponents must have been great or at least very good. Why do I f***ing need to research them to know if that's true? I have heard their names and others have, we can't be wrong picking an old-time champion (when there were no XYZ titles and fewer weight divisions) as great, even though none of us have gone further than look up his record in a book or on this site.

P.S. Sorry if that sounds way too harsh, I haven't got enough sleep today.

Not to mention its not just a numbers game. You can say he won over five HOFers (which you are correct in stating that that doesnt mean a whole lot either, and by the way, I count only four unless they snuck 1 in on me somewhere) but look at the details of those wins: Rosenbloom failed to win 73 of his contests. If everyone who managed a win or a draw against him is considered great then why dont we consider Fred Lenhart great also? Or Art Weigand? Or Frankie Schoell? Or Red Uhlan? Or Bob Goodwin? Or Charlie Massera? Get the point? Stribling isnt exactly in exclusive company beating Rosenbloom. Battling Levinsky was a corpse when Stribling beat him. That win is absolutely meaningless. He split fights with Slattery, who is one of the lower quality Hall of Famers, a drunk who notoriously never lived up to his early promise. The Loughran fights are Striblings best.