BoxRec

Hi gents,

just occured to me how people rave about Bernard Hopkins being champion for 10 years and making 20 succesful defences...... yet we hear how Calzaghe has only been a paper champ for 9 years and his 19 defences are rubbish against poor opposition. We hear that Calzaghe has to beat Kessler to be the proper champ (I agree to a large extent).

But Hopkins made about 13 defences of "just" the IBF title (against some poor opposition) before he had half-a-dozen big fights and u8nified the division just in time for his 20th defence.

Therefore IF Calzaghe were to beat Kessler and have all 4 belts, surely they would be on about par?

No arguments please - just some discussion and food for thought...



best wishes

"T.M.K"

Can see what your saying.... but disagree. I cannot think of the long list of Middles/Light Middles that Hopkins didn't fight during his reign - that I can think of with Joe. Hopkins was unlucky that he the talent that is in the devision now, wasn't there during the most part of his career.

Similarly, great as achievement as it would be beating Kessler and getting the four belts. Hopkins did it by beating the 3 other champions, he did have a fighter do have his job for him.

T.M.K wrote:Hi gents,

just occured to me how people rave about Bernard Hopkins being champion for 10 years and making 20 succesful defences...... yet we hear how Calzaghe has only been a paper champ for 9 years and his 19 defences are rubbish against poor opposition. We hear that Calzaghe has to beat Kessler to be the proper champ (I agree to a large extent).

But Hopkins made about 13 defences of "just" the IBF title (against some poor opposition) before he had half-a-dozen big fights and u8nified the division just in time for his 20th defence.

Therefore IF Calzaghe were to beat Kessler and have all 4 belts, surely they would be on about par?

No arguments please - just some discussion and food for thought...



best wishes

"T.M.K"

It always legitimises you when you've beaten a rival champ. So obviously beating Lacy has done Calzaghe a lot of good.

However with Hopkins, he was locked out of unifications because Joppy & Holmes were with Don King. Not like it was Hopkins' choice - he was only roped in to accomodate Tito's rise to middleweight glory. I commend him for staying in shape, keeping focused even when he was on shit money & unattractive fights. These are things we take for granted. Also, I think it looks good for Hopkins that he probably didn't lose more than two rounds against Holmes, Tito & Joppy combined.

I agree gents,

however the unification point with Holmes/Joppy being with King is a bit like Ottke being with universum. Also, my point is more that Hopkins was only the "real" champ after about 15/16 defences when he cleaned-up the division - yet he gets credited with making 20 defences.

Calzaghe could beat Kessler to have all 4 belts yet people would say "he's only just become champ" whereas by Hopkins rules he should be credited with his entire reign (even just the chunk which was only with a quarter of the 4 titles).

best wishes

"T.M.K"

T.M.K wrote:I agree gents,

however the unification point with Holmes/Joppy being with King is a bit like Ottke being with universum. Also, my point is more that Hopkins was only the "real" champ after about 15/16 defences when he cleaned-up the division - yet he gets credited with making 20 defences.

Calzaghe could beat Kessler to have all 4 belts yet people would say "he's only just become champ" whereas by Hopkins rules he should be credited with his entire reign (even just the chunk which was only with a quarter of the 4 titles).

best wishes

"T.M.K"

I think when a guy's been around 10 years AND cleaned up other titlists eventually, then he deserves all the credit in the world. With Hopkins' showings vs Joppy, Holmes, Tito AND DLH, I think that revisionist theory is kind to BH. Also, looking at the difference between Hopkins & Joppy etc - on one side you have Hops who was a real champion. On the other side you have men who were 'mere' titlists.

T.M.K wrote:Hi gents,

just occured to me how people rave about Bernard Hopkins being champion for 10 years and making 20 succesful defences...... yet we hear how Calzaghe has only been a paper champ for 9 years and his 19 defences are rubbish against poor opposition. We hear that Calzaghe has to beat Kessler to be the proper champ (I agree to a large extent).

But Hopkins made about 13 defences of "just" the IBF title (against some poor opposition) before he had half-a-dozen big fights and u8nified the division just in time for his 20th defence.

Therefore IF Calzaghe were to beat Kessler and have all 4 belts, surely they would be on about par?

I guess though, even though there are a few caveats. Super-middleweight remains a less prestigious than middleweight, and this would probably hurt Calzaghe's all time standing relative to Hopkins. Plus Hopkins beat "the man" at 175 at the end of his career (even though Tarver was over the hill). Plus, IBF is still better than WBO. At least Hopkins had to fight decent mandatories every now and then.

This said, if Calzaghe can unify the 168 division this would certainly establish him as an ATG. If he would then go on and win a belt at 175, he would probably be completely on par with BHops.

T.M.K wrote:I agree gents,

however the unification point with Holmes/Joppy being with King is a bit like Ottke being with universum. Also, my point is more that Hopkins was only the "real" champ after about 15/16 defences when he cleaned-up the division - yet he gets credited with making 20 defences.

Calzaghe could beat Kessler to have all 4 belts yet people would say "he's only just become champ" whereas by Hopkins rules he should be credited with his entire reign (even just the chunk which was only with a quarter of the 4 titles).

best wishes

"T.M.K"

Small pedantic point: Ottke was with Sauerland, not Universum. Sauerland isn't quite as bad as Kohl's shop. Maske, Beyer, Ottke all went for unification bouts in the end.

I don't believe that Hopkins fame is primarily based on 20 defenses. It's first and foremost his cleaning up of the division. 20 IBF defenses alone wouldn't have given BHops his current status. Same would be true for Calzaghe.

I think it is undoubted that Hopkins prospered in a division which was so devoid of major talent, that there was little or no interest in unification until Tito came along and brought some interest to it. It was only when Tito expressed a desire to move up, that Don King became interested in the middleweight unification tournament.

Hopkins has to be respected for remaining a titlist so long, but without a doubt his best win remains his victory over Tito. Oscar had no business at MW as his showing against Sturm proved, and post Tito, there were few real challenges for Bernard.

You have to respect his duration at the top of the tree, I believe Bernard would have been competitive with any middleweight in history, but I don't think he would have been champion in the era of Hagler, too many tough, talented and hungry middleweights around.

Whether you think Taylor won or lost those fights, he was able to compete with Bernard on an even keel, despite the huge gulf in class.

You could argue that if Calzaghe beats Kessler, then he's on a par with Hopkins, but let's not forget that Kessler is a genuine SMW, and not a guy moving up in weight, you could argue that Calzaghe's 'tito' moment was his win over Lacy, as Lacy was a genuine belt holder and tipped by many as the future of the division, the fight was like the Tito fight meant to be a 'passing of the torch moment.'

I think it's a reactive, out of date argument that Hopkins couldn't have beaten Hagler. How can anyone be so sure, because certain ppl grew up watching Hagler? Also, Hagler's era wasn't great, neither was Monzon's -apart from the smaller fighters moving up. The post Hagler era was the most exciting, McCallum, Toney, Kalambay, Nunn, JD Jackson, Reggie Johnson, Barkley - & some lesser fighters than Hopkins won belts in that time. That's a good way to gauge Hopkins.

Hagler was a monster, plain and simple. For me, he did everything that bit better than Hopkins, higher workrate, more versatile, better power, and certainly more aggressive. He was perhaps not as smart in there, but that's because he didn't need to be, he had beautiful boxing skills, and was a master at getting to his opponents. He showed Duran too much respect, and was conned by Leonard, but I believe Leonard would have had way too much class for Hopkins.

Funny, but all of those great middleweights in your list, Hopkins didn't fight a single one of them. There are plenty of guys from Haglers list of defences who would have picked up a title today. Sibson, Hagler, Mugabe, Hearns. Hell, Duran bloody well did!

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Hagler was a monster, plain and simple. For me, he did everything that bit better than Hopkins, higher workrate, more versatile, better power, and certainly more aggressive. He was perhaps not as smart in there, but that's because he didn't need to be, he had beautiful boxing skills, and was a master at getting to his opponents. He showed Duran too much respect, and was conned by Leonard, but I believe Leonard would have had way too much class for Hopkins.

Funny, but all of those great middleweights in your list, Hopkins didn't fight a single one of them. There are plenty of guys from Haglers list of defences who would have picked up a title today. Sibson, Hagler, Mugabe, Hearns. Hell, Duran bloody well did!

Yeah, but Hopkins peaked in '95, and all those guys I listed either went up to 168 or faded away by that time. Hopkins was Toney's #1 contender in '93, but Hopkins was too raw and Toney moved up. Hopkins did, however, beat a faded JD Jackson.

Anyway, Hopkins was the only man to stop Glen Johnson. So that makes him the greatest fighter of all time in my book.

Duran was a bit lucky to beat Barkley, in most ppl's scoring.

I just think Hopkins was more versatile and smarter than Hagler. I think he's pesky enough t break Hagler rhythm, nasty enough to do some damage inside/in the clinches, and I feel his movement and grasp of ring space was more advanced.

I've watched Duran v Barkley and thought the decision was spot on, he won it fair and square, putting on a boxing masterclass and even dropping the tough bastard. For me, that was the best win of Duran's career, though old, he was actually in good shape for once, and beat a guy who really although limited, was a beast at 160.

I think that although Bernard would have gone the distance with Hagler, he would have been hurt in the clinches and physically overpowered. Hagler was physically one of the strongest men ever at the weight, and although not a massive one punch hitter, he was incredibly heavy handed and was able to really impose his authority with every shot he landed.

Admittedly Hopkins win over Glen was impressive, but Glen was a young and fairly green fighter back then, and how he ever made 160 is beyond me, because he looks ripped at 175.

Can you imagine what someone like Mugabe might be doing in today's middleweight scene?

Also, watch Hagler's footwork, he was absolutely fantastic, absolute economy of movment, and so good at making that ring seem small when he was on the offensive. He also had absolutely fantastic punch timing, watch the way his combinations flow when he's on the attack, great stuff, also had a fantastic jab too, something which is often overlooked.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I've watched Duran v Barkley and thought the decision was spot on, he won it fair and square, putting on a boxing masterclass and even dropping the tough bastard. For me, that was the best win of Duran's career, though old, he was actually in good shape for once, and beat a guy who really although limited, was a beast at 160.

I think that although Bernard would have gone the distance with Hagler, he would have been hurt in the clinches and physically overpowered. Hagler was physically one of the strongest men ever at the weight, and although not a massive one punch hitter, he was incredibly heavy handed and was able to really impose his authority with every shot he landed.

Admittedly Hopkins win over Glen was impressive, but Glen was a young and fairly green fighter back then, and how he ever made 160 is beyond me, because he looks ripped at 175.

Can you imagine what someone like Mugabe might be doing in today's middleweight scene?

I think Hagler was the far heavier puncher. Let's not forget Hopkins' speed & workrate though. BH was a very active fighter in his peak. IMO Hopkis is judged from Tito onward - this was when he was 36 and over. At tha age Hagler's wheels were coming off.

Ultimately, it could be said that a comparison dosn't do justice to either. Different eras. Hence why Hagler was slower and more methodical. I always felt that Hopkins was better at making adjustments. But in an era of 12 rounders, you are forced to be able to solve opponents quicker. I will say, there are things that Hopkins did better than Hagler - fighting smaller opponents. Small world class fighters pissed Hagler off big time.

I never rated Mugabi. Brave dangerous vs an old Hagler, but never achieved anything world class after that. His subsequent title fights were a bit of a shambles.

Small world class fighters like Hearns, Duran and Leonard you mean? These three are better than ANYONE Hopkins ever faced, we can only guess how he would have done against those three. Personally, I'd have picked Duran and Leonard to beat him, whlist he may have been able to grind Hearns down. Speed was something he didn't deal well with (who does), Roy Jones made him look like a patsy in there, and Jones, though a tremendous physical specimen blessed with superhuman reflexes wasn't a patch on Leonard in terms of overall skills, though of course the naturally much bigger man.

Interesting comparisons to be made between the two men, but for me you cannot deny that Hagler fought and beat far better men than Hopkins, whose best win remains that over Tito, who was really a poor mans hearns. Tito was totally outclassed by DeLaHoya, and should never have gotten that decision, whether or not Oscar ran the last four, he beat Tito absolutely fair and square.

Tito was dead at the weight when he fought Oscar.

I think Hopkins beats ex Lightweight king Duran at Middleweight 10 times out of 10.

As much as I respect Leonard, I think calling him the greatest ever boxer of all time is the uptmost respect, I don't think the likes of Jones and DLH were "not a patch" on him in terms of skills.

Jones, DLH and for my money Tito could have lived with anyone from any era.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Small world class fighters like Hearns, Duran and Leonard you mean? These three are better than ANYONE Hopkins ever faced, we can only guess how he would have done against those three. Personally, I'd have picked Duran and Leonard to beat him, whlist he may have been able to grind Hearns down. Speed was something he didn't deal well with (who does), Roy Jones made him look like a patsy in there, and Jones, though a tremendous physical specimen blessed with superhuman reflexes wasn't a patch on Leonard in terms of overall skills, though of course the naturally much bigger man.

Interesting comparisons to be made between the two men, but for me you cannot deny that Hagler fought and beat far better men than Hopkins, whose best win remains that over Tito, who was really a poor mans hearns. Tito was totally outclassed by DeLaHoya, and should never have gotten that decision, whether or not Oscar ran the last four, he beat Tito absolutely fair and square.

Hopkins eats Duran & Leonard for breakfast. Leonard had one fight at middle, when he gave an old Hagler the runaround. Compact fighters gave Hagler trouble. Hopkins schooled Tito and DLH when he was 36-40 years old! His peak, when he could throw quik punches freely, was 1998, after that he was very cautious, sparing etc.

Almost criminal to compare Duan & DLH, for sure. But some ppl believe that Oscar could beat Duran above 135-40-pounds.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Small world class fighters like Hearns, Duran and Leonard you mean? These three are better than ANYONE Hopkins ever faced, we can only guess how he would have done against those three. Personally, I'd have picked Duran and Leonard to beat him, whlist he may have been able to grind Hearns down. Speed was something he didn't deal well with (who does), Roy Jones made him look like a patsy in there, and Jones, though a tremendous physical specimen blessed with superhuman reflexes wasn't a patch on Leonard in terms of overall skills, though of course the naturally much bigger man.

Interesting comparisons to be made between the two men, but for me you cannot deny that Hagler fought and beat far better men than Hopkins, whose best win remains that over Tito, who was really a poor mans hearns. Tito was totally outclassed by DeLaHoya, and should never have gotten that decision, whether or not Oscar ran the last four, he beat Tito absolutely fair and square.

The best way to compare Hopkins, is to compare him w/ fighters from this era. He had to wait till his prime was 2 or 3 years gone before he got an opponent of sufficient calibre. Then he went after everyone, got some big scalps, and finished with a spellbinding performance up at light heavyweight. In this era, Hopkins is peerless. He had to work damn hard for his success.

I would of liked to see Hopkins V Toney.

Fans both say they were old school fighters.

I see more of that in Toney though.

stujones wrote:Tito was dead at the weight when he fought Oscar.

I think Hopkins beats ex Lightweight king Duran at Middleweight 10 times out of 10.

As much as I respect Leonard, I think calling him the greatest ever boxer of all time is the uptmost respect, I don't think the likes of Jones and DLH were "not a patch" on him in terms of skills.

Jones, DLH and for my money Tito could have lived with anyone from any era.

Really, you honestly think that either Jones or DLH or anywhere near the technical fighter that Leonard was, for me neither man comes close. Floyd mayweather yes, but Oscar and Jones, no way. I never said that Leonard was the greatest boxer of all time.

I think Duran was a complete fighter, ok, he got nuked by Tommy Hearns, but Tommy was a freak and caught Duran with a hell of a shot. I don't see Hopkins doing that.

Hopkins is a guy who worked very very hard for his success, and was a guy who learnt his trade over a long period of time, but in terms of overall talent and skills, I would definetly put him in a lower bracket than Leonard and Duran.

I have a lot of respect for Hopkins, and yes his prime was wasted, but I think it is also easy to overrate him based on the wins towards the end of his career. The win over Tito was pretty special, but Tito was a pretty one dimensional fighter who was able to overwhelm his opponents at Welterweight, but at the higher weight had no answers to a canny sob like Bernard.

I agree that Tito, DLH and Jones would have been competitive in any era, as would Hopkins, but I don't think they would have dominated in other eras. It's all supposition of course, and perhaps I am blinded by my admiration for Duran, Hearns, Leonard and Hagler, but those four really to my mind were exceptional fighters in every respect, combining in almost every case the qualities required to make up a champion. The weakest of them, Hearns, would have had a field day in the weakened state of the divisions he campaigned in.

a 1/4 of hopkins 20 defences came against 2 boxers and 2 of his biggest fights were aginst blown up fighter in ODLH/tito..

his record upto the taylor fight is comparable to calazghes imo..

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

stujones wrote:Tito was dead at the weight when he fought Oscar.

I think Hopkins beats ex Lightweight king Duran at Middleweight 10 times out of 10.

As much as I respect Leonard, I think calling him the greatest ever boxer of all time is the uptmost respect, I don't think the likes of Jones and DLH were "not a patch" on him in terms of skills.

Jones, DLH and for my money Tito could have lived with anyone from any era.

Really, you honestly think that either Jones or DLH or anywhere near the technical fighter that Leonard was, for me neither man comes close. Floyd mayweather yes, but Oscar and Jones, no way. I never said that Leonard was the greatest boxer of all time.

I think Duran was a complete fighter, ok, he got nuked by Tommy Hearns, but Tommy was a freak and caught Duran with a hell of a shot. I don't see Hopkins doing that.

Hopkins is a guy who worked very very hard for his success, and was a guy who learnt his trade over a long period of time, but in terms of overall talent and skills, I would definetly put him in a lower bracket than Leonard and Duran.

I have a lot of respect for Hopkins, and yes his prime was wasted, but I think it is also easy to overrate him based on the wins towards the end of his career. The win over Tito was pretty special, but Tito was a pretty one dimensional fighter who was able to overwhelm his opponents at Welterweight, but at the higher weight had no answers to a canny sob like Bernard.

I agree that Tito, DLH and Jones would have been competitive in any era, as would Hopkins, but I don't think they would have dominated in other eras. It's all supposition of course, and perhaps I am blinded by my admiration for Duran, Hearns, Leonard and Hagler, but those four really to my mind were exceptional fighters in every respect, combining in almost every case the qualities required to make up a champion. The weakest of them, Hearns, would have had a field day in the weakened state of the divisions he campaigned in.

No, it was me who have always maintained that Leonard is the greatest of all time - yet don't think he is a league above this era's greats.

Its hard to say Jones isn't a patch technically on Leonard... when before he was 34 (Leonard was completely shot at 34) Roy had hardly lost more than a handful of rounds.... against the likes of Toney, Hopkins etc.