Jake Lamotta vs Bernard Hopkins at 160lbs

I meant robinson.

 

I don;t think he is... And I don;t think he'd have beaten him either

 

Head to Head it would have been a close fight. Hopkins size, smarts and elusiveness vs Robinson's speed and workrate.

But Hopkins was a more dominant champion than Robinson was and quite frankly would have beaten Fulmer, Lamotta, Turpin, Basilio and all them other white bleeders of the 50s. ::

 

although Turpin was "half caste" of course.

 

Hopkins over Robinson at MW? C'mon ::

I guess someone had to stop the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse --- Trinidad, Echols, Joppy, & Holmes.

 

Robinson was 54-2 in Middleweight contests when he retired after the Maxim fight; both loses avenged (and both under remarkable circumstances in the first place).

 

this

but, you see, Hut, He only fought "white bleeders" because everybody knows that White guys in America are all created equal and there was no such thing as a population of Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish and East European immigrants who lived in squalor and fought in the streets (where the lion's share of good fighters have come from forever) ...

Nope, those guys were all pampered and protected from real fights... They were just like Baby Joe Mesi

Carmen Basilio clearly sucked and was protected from real black fighters, hence his being matched real easy with guys like Ike Williams, Kid Gavilan, Johnny Saxton, Gil Turner, Robinson... you know, white pussies like those guys

And, oh how he bled... you know, stopped on cuts zero times in his career...

 

I was kidding about the "bleeders" comment...hence the emoticon usage you dense Irishman.

 

Robinson's opposition takes continuous unending shits on Hopkins'

 

It's really odd how dominated by whites the middleweight division was at that time. Barely a black middleweight contender worth mentioning between Burley and Henry Hank.

 

Yet, Lightweight, Light Heavyweight and Heavyweight were dominated by black fellows

Welterweight and Featherweight had a blance of power

 

Frazier's opposition pre-Foreman (Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena, MUHAMMAD ALI) shit on Foreman's pre-Frazier.

If matchups were decided by who each had fought...Frazier would have dominated Foreman. So stop being ignorant, you're a smart guy.

Hopkins is a big middleweight with great defense, stamina, ring generalship, balance, height and reach. He's PROVEN his talent by dominating the division while facing a huge variety of styles...and further proved it by being successful at lightheavy.

I do not care that Robinson has HOFers on his resume. Hall of Fame is filled with FAMOUS fighters....not all of the were better than those not in the HOF. Fighters in past years would be by defintion more famous that more reent fighters.

Like I said before..take Hagler for example:

Hamsho, Minter, Roldan, antuofermo and all these guys look good now (famous names)...but back then..the magazines weren't all that impressed with his resume.

 

Revisionist nonsense, every word of it

The magazines had Marvin as the consensus pound-for-pound number one for basically 4 years, his comp was very good

You always do this... (you are saying his opposition is good because its famous, yaddayaddayadda) ... I'm saying it's great opposition because it WAS great opposition... I am not interested in the hall of fame or any of it, I don't care about it, I'm interested in good fighters versus not good fighters

You want to tank Hopkins ahead of Robinson historically at middle, what does that have to do with guessing who would win between Joe Frazier and George Foreman? We aren't grading the level of comp for a prospect against a champ, we are grading the comp of two guys whose entire work is done, there to be seen. Hopkins middleweight opponents were absolutely godawful... Who's the best middleweight he beat? Keith Holmes? After that, Antwun Echols? Hopkins was a terrific fighter, a great middleweight, but his comp is likely the weakest of any guy that would be in the discussion for top ten middlewieghts ever, he'd have to make up for that gulf with his lengthy reign and his tricky style... I think Hopkins gives anybody problems in a one-on-one fight, but I think it's nuts to rate him as the best middleweight ever... his comp flat out does not warrant it

 

Seeing that you were 7 or 8 years old when Hagler fought Antuofermo, Minter and Hamsho...I'm gonna call bullshit on your supposed first hand "experience" viewing Hagler's career. During Hagler's career, his title defense opposition was mostly recognized as quality opposition who were unfortunate to have such a dominant and gifted champion in their midst. In reality (not your biased revisionist version)...Hagler was considered the # p4p fighter for years.

Man...every time you post, you show how little you actually know. Like cdogg said...nothing here but revisionist bullshit from you.

 

Absolutely. Terrible analogy from Stafford. It continues to amaze he how he thinks he can float bullshit like this past anyone with a brain.

 

Seems pretty obvious that Sly is just making the case for a less black and white ranking criteria. His point is that you can be better than a guy who has beaten better opposition & that that isn't the end of the discussion.

 

Exactly. Again I think that Cdogg and Bwjoe try hard to not understand the points I'm making.

By the way....pity you had to quote the latter for now I can see his post. ::

 

At the same time I think you often try hard to fully understand theirs. Round round baby round round spin around on me don't need no man get my kicks for free! Doo dooby do.

 

Please, take the ignore function away, I already miss your e-fights:kidcool:

 

To summarise - it IS important that Floyd's opposition has been so shit. It's extremely important context. OTOH, it doesn't necessarily mean he loses to Ray Leonard.

I mean he would, but it doesn't follow in syllogism from Victor Ortiz being a hungry lion crap.

 

I really, really don't ::

 

This is the thing:

I agree that Quality of opposition is important. However UNTIL a fighter has been EXPOSED in any category we can't denote that just because his QOO isn't as high as another's that he'd therefore lose. I know you agree with this but it bears mentioning again.

Floyd hasn't shown a weakness yet...regardless of his QOO not being on the fab four level...unless there's something that I've missed.

Logically, in 42 fights over 12 years in 6 weight classes...a weakness should have been exposed by now?

 

:giggle:

I can't abide bwjoe. He's the type of personality that I find repulsive. He doesn't argue logically: it's all emotion, labels and miscontextualizing. I'm happy to have him ignored....and the forum is a better place for it.

 

every fighter has weaknesses, all of them

 

I agree. No one is perfect. Just saying that Floyd's weakness hasn't been exposed yet...unless I'm missing something.

 

Floyd had considerable trouble with Castillo's aggression, Oscar's height and Judah's speed, he was rocked by Mosley... the fact that none of those fighters were good enough to press the advantage all the way to victory is in no way an indication that much better fighters with similar skills/attributes would fail to do so

If SHane Mosley can get to Mayweather and stun him, I have no doubt in my mind that Donald Curry could do that and a whole lot more

 

But that's ignorant way of thinking (and I'll address the rest of you post after)

"If Henry Cooper can get to Clay and floor him, I have no doubt in my mind that Sonny Liston could do that and a whole lot more"

With your logic Liston should have finished Clay in the 1st round, mismatch. Of course that's what 99% of people thought going into that fight...and were WRONG.

Liston didn't hit clay with that punch. If your retort is clay was just messing around with Cooper but was more serious with Liston then...Ali-Frazier-Foreman. Same thing.

You are a smart fella cdogg and you've often talking about "1 in a million shots"...Barkley-Hearns for example. The shot that Shane hit Floyd with that caused the brief wobbly legs..WASN'T the first hard right hand he landed..which was a conventional hard straight right hand. Floyd took that one just fine. The crowd went "ooooooo" because it was a very hard shot and people weren't used to seeing Floyd hit flush....but Floyd wasn't hurt by that. It was the second punch which put him on queer street.

The second punch was an overhand right hand (with all of Shane's mustard behind it btw copywright Double L) at close range when Floyd was (uncharacteristically) completely out of position. That punch is rarely thrown in boxing and rarely lands and when it does land it usually means game over.

I submit to you that Curry NEVER lands that shot and that Shane lands that shot ONCE in 10 fights with Floyd. Besides what's missed is that Floyd recovered in seconds and went back on the offensive anyway.

As for Castillo's agression giving him trouble myth. Hatton, Corrales, Ndou even Ortiz were agressive fighters. They gave him no trouble. It's too simplistic to label it as Castillo's aggression which gave Floyd trouble. In the first fight it was Floyd's injury perhaps combined with a stylistic nuance that was specific to Castillo.

Oscar's height? Nonsense. Corrales is taller than Oscar. I happen to believe that Floyd had a bad night vs Oscar, anyway. Simple as that. If they had a rematch Floyd would have dominated him IMO.

Judah's speed? Sure. Who doesn't have trouble with that level of speed? But it wasn't just the speed, it was also the southpawedness. And whatever trouble he had was gone after he solved the puzzle..which it only took four rounds to do.

I don't see any flaws exposed in those examples.

 

It's not ignorant at all... Liston and Cooper are totally different fighters

Ali had a major flaw-- LEFT HOOKS

The Cooper fight was one of many Ali fights against left hookers that illustrated this flaw

Ali's ability to overcome this weakness does not mean the weakness doesn't exist

It's pointless talking to you about this... the rest of your post is so littered with missing the point that it isn't even worth addressing

 

i like how mayweather jr is judged on his entire career. fights when he had been a pro for 15+ years and extremely inactive like against mosley. meanwhile curry is judged on his very brief prime.

i think curry would win at welterweight, but some of the reasoning is faulty.

 

::