BoxRec

hopkins in his prime v benn/eubank/watson late 80's/early 90's

(in a newcastle accent) who wins you decide

Hopkins would have beaten Benn.

Hopkins against the other two is quite tough to call, I would though favour the American against both.

Hopkins vs Collins at Super Middle would have been interesting - the Irishman had a great engine and wouldn't have punched himself out, unlike Benn who would have had to have been the old dark destroyer to stand a chance (Bernard would have picked off the Benn who fought Eubank in the rematch).

Collins might have had too much strength for Bernard, after all, Bernard isn't exactly a huge middleweight, and Collins had sounds enough technique and tremendous workrate.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Collins might have had too much strength for Bernard, after all, Bernard isn't exactly a huge middleweight, and Collins had sounds enough technique and tremendous workrate.

Well maybe, but Collins failed in middleweight contests with Mike McCallum, Reggie Johnson and Sumbu Kalambay. He was strong enough to go the distance in each case but he lost them all, I think Hopkins has proved he probably would have done better.

I think Hopkins would beat Watson because he's slightly better than him in every department but it would be a close fight and would go to points.

I think he'd get beaten by Benn because he'd be drawn into a brawl and get stopped late on.

And finally I'd pick Eubank to beat him aswell as I could see Eubank frustrating him for a few rounds, tiring Hopkins out before coming on strong late on for a points win.

I think that Hopkins is a bit over-rated, he's a very good fighter but there's just something about him which puts me off thinking he's a great fighter, I can't explain what it is but he just doesn't seem to have the x-factor.

Hesketh wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Collins might have had too much strength for Bernard, after all, Bernard isn't exactly a huge middleweight, and Collins had sounds enough technique and tremendous workrate.

Well maybe, but Collins failed in middleweight contests with Mike McCallum, Reggie Johnson and Sumbu Kalambay. He was strong enough to go the distance in each case but he lost them all, I think Hopkins has proved he probably would have done better.

Johnson, Kalambay and especially McCallum were all sound Middleweights who would certainly have given Hopkins one hell of a contest.

stujones wrote:Johnson, Kalambay and especially McCallum were all sound Middleweights who would certainly have given Hopkins one hell of a contest.

They certainly were, but would Hopkins have lost all 3 contests? Personally I reckon he would have won 2 of them, if not all 3. Steve Collins was teak tough, but a more limited fighter than Hopkins, who fights smarter than Steve did.

stujones wrote:

Hesketh wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Collins might have had too much strength for Bernard, after all, Bernard isn't exactly a huge middleweight, and Collins had sounds enough technique and tremendous workrate.

Well maybe, but Collins failed in middleweight contests with Mike McCallum, Reggie Johnson and Sumbu Kalambay. He was strong enough to go the distance in each case but he lost them all, I think Hopkins has proved he probably would have done better.

Johnson, Kalambay and especially McCallum were all sound Middleweights who would certainly have given Hopkins one hell of a contest.

I actually meant at Super middlweight. McCallum was one of the best fighters of his era, he did drop a decision to Kalambay, but kalambay was a pretty tasty fighter himself who with better management could have been a much bigger name.

Hagler and Hearns both avoided McCallum like the plague, he was probably at his best at Middleweight where he never really got the big fights, at SM and LH he was still very good, but wasn't really a genuine big guy. Like Hopkins he was never really a big middleweight, but his technical ability was incredible, plus he had a cast iron chin, and probably a bit more of a dig than Hopkins too.

Hopkins propsered in a far weaker era for middleweights, not his fault, but it's a fact.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Hopkins propsered in a far weaker era for middleweights, not his fault, but it's a fact.

I think that is a valid fact that Hopkins will have to live with when his name starts coming up in Hall of Fame discussions. One criticism that I think could be levelled at Hopkins is that he has stayed at middleweight rather than seeking more competitive fights elsewhere. That is his prerogative of course but his comtemporaries like Jones Jr, Toney, Trinidad and De la Hoya have all traversed the weights in search of big fights. Hopkins has talked about it but has always stayed at 160 where he normally holds the advantages.

Hopkins is an hall of famer no doubt. It is a shame really that Toney went a bit crazy after the RJJ fight I am sure he was a big enough name to pursuade Hopkins to fight.

One factor that might play in his advantage in future discussions is the future of Jermain Taylor. If (and its a big if) Hopkins prevails but Taylor takes over then it will bode well, as it did for Roy Jones Jnr after he beat Bernard.

Its also a pity that Harry Simon went off the rails too, a cracking fighter possibly the most underated champion in recent memory.

Hopkins' final 3 fights should involve Winky Wright and hopefully Antionio Tarver.

A huge ask though is that Winky Wright fight and one that could damage his legacy alot if he loses (people will question would he ever beaten him).

That would be fantastic - Hopkins beating Taylor, then facing Winky and Tarver. Personally I don't see the Tarver fight happening though, if Bernard was the kind of guy to move up in weight for a big fight and put himself at a natural disadvantage he would have done it long ago. As pointed out he isn't a massive middleweight even.

I wouldn't criticise him for staying in his weight division, in these days of belt hopping, i actually find it quite admirable, and the truth is, Hop couldn't have gotten any big fights until late in his career, and i think deep down he knew that at age 37 moving up to SM or LH just wasn't a good idea, he just wouldn't have had the power to deal with the bigger men.

Earlier in his career, when he was really beating the shit out of guys like Glen Johnson who are real tough nuts, he could have done, but he was virtually unknown even in america.

However, when discussing his place in history you have to take into account the era he fought in. If he beats Taylor, and Taylor then goes on to become a dominant champ, which is a very big if, then you would have to reckon Bernard a very special fighter indeed.

Rather like Joe louis, Nard has outlasted all of his contemporaries, held the title for years but not faced great opposition. Louis had the advantage of facing and beating everyone who was around, Hop lost to Jones Jr but never got a rematch to prove a point. Louis got Schmelling back and whooped his ass proving himself the best of his era unequivocally.

Rating champs is a tricky business, too many people rate it based on who they THINK would have beaten who, which is plain stupid, as it's just conjecture. Eras vary, but often rating an era can be difficult, as a lot of fighters are rated highly based on fights with others of their eras, it's a messy complicated business.

I will always rate anyone highly if they remain on top of their division for a long time, and they face everyone around, which Hopkins certainly did, he didn't duck anyone and he's still going and may record one or two more impressive wins. even if he loses to winky, at the age of 40 that's not a big knock.

I think he would be nuts to face tarver, Tarver would have so much weight advantage come fight night he wouldn't have a hope.

Hopkins can seal his career by beating Jermain Taylor and Winky Wright. I am sure he has stated he will not fight past age 41, which gives him until Jan 2006, and that doesn't leave much time for any other fights. Of course boxers are notorious for hanging around longer than they say, but I think Hopkins is smart enough to know 41 is pushing things a little even for him.

i did add the option of hopkins not beatting any of them but it's disappeared?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Collins might have had too much strength for Bernard, after all, Bernard isn't exactly a huge middleweight, and Collins had sounds enough technique and tremendous workrate.

what like eastman did, what a load of cobblers.

to compare collins in the same breath as Nard is an insult.

Hopkins would have beaten Benn (and maybe stop him), Eubank (Points), Collins (Points) and Watson (Points). I think he would win all of these fights comfortably.

J wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Collins might have had too much strength for Bernard, after all, Bernard isn't exactly a huge middleweight, and Collins had sounds enough technique and tremendous workrate.

what like eastman did, what a load of cobblers.

to compare collins in the same breath as Nard is an insult.

To compare Eastman with Collins is equally as bad mind.

One major difference between Eastman and Collins - Pace.

not really a comparison as such, was meant to be size wise.

i certianly think eastman is closer to collins level than collins is to Hopkins.