BoxRec

Who would have won this battle of tough, intimidating Middleweights? In one corner we have Philadelphias tough, ringsmart long reigning Champion Bernard Hopkins. In the other corner we have the equally fearsome & tough Rubin Carter, the big punching, aggresive Middleweight terror of a previous age. But what would have happened if they could have met in their respective primes?

Would Hopkins be too smart and versitile for Carter and outpoint him. Or would the huge punching Carter be able to put too much pressure on Hopkins and use his higher workrate to outman and then outpoint The Executioner? Hopkins has never faced a puncher like Carter so would he be able to handle the heat?

Bernard Hopkins.
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=001414

Rubin Carter.
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=011387

Hopkins never faced a puncher like Carter ??? What about Roy Jones Jr, Felix Trinidad and Lupe Aquino for a start. Echols and Allen also had pretty good power as well.

Carter just isn't in the same league as Hopkins who's an all time great already. Since the Executioner is usually a slow starter I'd say it takes him till about the 10th round before he disposes of the Hurricane.

Hopskin very eay decision. Carters ordeal has mistakenly given people the impression that he was a great fighter. Yes he was strong and hit hard, but other than that he was an ordinary fighter. Greatest accomplishment was knocking Griffen out in the first round of thier fight.

Carter was tough and only stopped once --- due to a cut --- so I think he could last the distance with Hopkins. However, he was not in Hopkins league as a fighter, leading me to believe Hopkins takes a wide decision.

Decagon wrote:He was a fornicating murderer to boot.

The conviction was overturned. I don't think you were present at the scene of the crime, so don't slander the man's name by your opinions that are mean't to do nothing but start controversy.

Decagon wrote:The decision was overturned because of prosecutional errors, not because he was innocent. Here's a link to his prison record:

http://graphicwitness.com/carter/pdfs/R ... Record.pdf

You'll see that he was diagnosed as a borderline psychotic and that he received emergency psychological attention after a complete break with reality he had, where he was using mirrors to find "footprints." The evidence that Carter did the crimes he was initially convicted of is pretty damning. He's a bad guy that got off when he shouldn't have. I wish he were still in jail.

Just because he is a nut does not make him guilty of murder. The evidence that he was guilty was pretty scarce, as initial eyewitnesses say it was not him nor his friend. The damning evidence were that Carter and his friends were black and drove the same color and type of car. And two small time crooks who were on their way to commit a burgarly said they did it. All that plus an all white jury. Not damning IMO.

Sherlock wrote:

Decagon wrote:The decision was overturned because of prosecutional errors, not because he was innocent. Here's a link to his prison record:

http://graphicwitness.com/carter/pdfs/R ... Record.pdf

You'll see that he was diagnosed as a borderline psychotic and that he received emergency psychological attention after a complete break with reality he had, where he was using mirrors to find "footprints." The evidence that Carter did the crimes he was initially convicted of is pretty damning. He's a bad guy that got off when he shouldn't have. I wish he were still in jail.

Just because he is a nut does not make him guilty of murder. The evidence that he was guilty was pretty scarce, as initial eyewitnesses say it was not him nor his friend. The damning evidence were that Carter and his friends were black and drove the same color and type of car. And two small time crooks who were on their way to commit a burgarly said they did it. All that plus an all white jury. Not damning IMO.

I am not taking sides because I really don't care about "Hurricane," but since Carter was released and "cleared," there supposedly has been a lot of evidence that supported Carter really did do it. Again, I don't really care, it is just what has been reported. I don't have the source nor do I really desire to dig it up, but if you really want it, I am sure you can search on Google to find it.

Another good reason to watch My Cousin Vinnie.

I'd go with Hopkins, I think Bernard is an all time classic, though at the end of his run at this point.

BoxBuzz wrote:Another good reason to watch My Cousin Vinnie.

Great movie. Truly a classic.

BoxBuzz wrote:I'd go with Hopkins, I think Bernard is an all time classic, though at the end of his run at this point.

I agree. Hopkins is far ahead of Carter in every category. Hopkins by wide unanimous decision, probably 118-110 if put in the modern era.

Seamus wrote:Hopkins never faced a puncher like Carter ??? What about Roy Jones Jr, Felix Trinidad and Lupe Aquino for a start. Echols and Allen also had pretty good power as well.

"Hopkins never faced a puncher like Carter ???"

I still stand by that statement. I never said Carter would have been the hardest puncher Hopkins have faced. I said Hopkins had never faced a puncher 'like' Carter, as in the combination of physical strength, workrate, aggression and punching power.

Jones Jr's KO's were more a combination of speed, timing & accuracy and Trinidad was a great Welterweight puncher but less so at Middleweight. Also I can't see Echols or Allen etc stopping Grifffith?

However having said all that Hopkins was a much smarter fighter than Carter ever was and has the ringsmarts, toughness and stamina to outlast and outpoint Carter over 12 or 15.

Whilst on this subject I would also pick my favourite Philly Middleweight Bennie Briscoe to outhustle Carter as well. But not as convincingly as Hopkins would.