Fighters with short arms that could fight well on the outside.

Jermain Taylor beat Hopkins two consecutive times.Just put that in your computer when you think Hopkins can beat Monzon or Hagler. Utterly ridiculous. It is like saying rainbows are ugly OK. Thanks for the opinion.

 

Hopkins was well past his physical prime when he lost to Taylor - many think Hopkins won those fights, in any case. You might as well cite Hopkins losing to whoever he fought in his first pro fight, it's about as relevant - or Hagler losing to Boogaloo Watts & Willie Monroe. I haven't seen those fights but by all accounts, Hagler won those as well. Had you been around then, I'm sure you would have argued that Hagler sucked and that the only reason he lost was because he was so boring and negative (actually, that's what you'd say now, too).

I would probably pick Hopkins over Monzon, though I don't think it's a certain win by any means. I would pick Hagler over Hopkins, though.

I agree with Sly that RJJ probably beats Hagler.

Unless you started watching boxing in 2004, Hopkins belongs right there in discussion with Monzon and Hagler. Even if he lost both of those fights, he would give them both hell and he'd be the best middleweight either of them ever fought.

 

Hagler was apparently robbed blind vs Watts but I remember reading that Monroe deserved the decision.

 

Ummm...I know all this, thanks. I wasn't saying that I dock Hopkins a lot for this loss, but rather that he catches more shit about this loss than to RJJ, one of the greats. And, of course, that Stafford didn't mention it.

 

Hopkins was a very good middleweight. Losing when you're 40 doesn't change that.

 

Yes and yes. Although Hagler was still an up and comer at that point taking on two more experienced contenders on the road. And he took care of both of them in rematches.

 

Yeah it was one of those losses that builds you, and Marvin won the rematch with The Worm comfortably. I read that Petronelli (forget which one) said the Monroe defeat was the only fight Marvin ever really lost in his eyes, and that Willie fought "the fight of his life". It always tends to get lumped with the Watts defeat as a robbery though.

 

Based on what? If you think his competition is anywhere near that of either Monzon or Hagler, you are on crack. Yes, it does matter because the age argument, decline argument is completely nullified by the Tarver victory SUBSEQUENTLY!!!!!!!!

I know many of you have trouble with critical thinking(not you in particular).

Hopkins could both be the best middleweight in his era and not an all time great fighter.

He does not deserve credit for fighting no one in his prime and then getting to explain away the losses because he is old. That is a completely biased way of looking at it.

I fail to see what is wrong with my analysis.

Hopkins reigned over a poor division.

The majority of his best wins at 160 came against completely shot B level fighters or blown up welterweights.

For the sake of argument, let's take his best possible opponents at 160.

Oscar:blown uo welter and bhop still lost at least 4 rounds.
Tito:at middleweight he was what 3 and 2 wins versus Mayorga, Joppy, Cherifi and losses to Wright and Hopkins. He was not a middleweight
Roy:lost a clear cut decision
Glen Johnson: he was a solid B level fighter who on an off night could beat an A lister.
JERMAIN Taylor : a basic 1-2 fighter, represented the best opponent Hops had fought since Glen, a guy who never beat anyone of note before or after and he lost 2 times.

His best win is Tarver. That is what it boils down to.. His loss, a clear wide loss to Calzaghe all but nullifies that as well. Pavlik and Pascal are not great fighters. Winky was made to fight at 175 fro 160. Hopkins gets way too much credit for beating down smaller fighters. He gets none of the criticism that say, Calzaghe got, when there levels of opposition during their respective title reigns was pretty close. Add to that, when they did fight, in Slopkins back yard, he lost a wide decision, even with a paid off judge.

Hopkins, to me, I think, a clear level above a Hearns, Hagler, Srl or Monzon. He has a lesser resume. He has repeatedly not shown the grit of a champion quitting or attempting to quit in the Robert Allen, Dawson and Calzaghe fight. He even lied and said he dislocated his shoulder against Echols, yet used it. In terms of just plain talent, he isn't at the level of any of them.

 

Hopkins is lucky if he makes the top 5, frankly... top ten, I don't dispute

He was a dominant champ, but against a most hideous array of challengers almost unrivaled in the history of the division and he lost, inexcusably, to a nervous leap amateur not once but TWICE (though I felt he could have gotten the nod in fight #2)

Robinson might have been a lock for 2 or 1 had he not retired for three years, but when he came back he was inconsistent, losing and regaining the crown twice (albeit against a terrific pair of fighters in Fullmer and Basilio) ... Still, a spot for him at 3-5 would be perfectly reasonable, I think in my mind

 

Personally, I don't think you rate fighters all-time that way. Realistically, any guy top ten all time is good enough to beat the number one guy at least once in several tries. Dick Tiger could certainly beat Robinson, Monzon or Hagler under the right circumstance, so too could Emile Griffith, LaMotta, Hopkins, Fullmer a few others. I think the difference is how often would they? If you had a league with the top ten middleweights ever, at the end of the "season" the guy in first place would probably be Monzon (IMO)... I loved Hops during his middleweight days, but I don't envision any scenario where he's beating those guys more often than they beat him. Even then, though, it's close. It's always close. Nobody is blowing any of these guys out at their peaks, they were the best of the best.

 

The only indisputably legit loss or draw Hagler suffered was that fight against "The Worm" Monroe (of course, he got revenge)

 

Willie Monroe, Boogaloo Watts, Bennie Briscoe, Hearns would all be the best names on Hopkins' middleweight resume by a country mile and Hagler beat three of those guys before he ever fought for the title

 

The thing is, the reverse would be even more true by a pretty huge margin.

 

Wilfredo Gomez is my pick.

Most of the guys he fought had the reach on him, particularly the great bantamweight champion Carlos Zarate.

Gomez destroyed him by timing, beautiful timing and counter punching.

 

This is directly contradictory to your argument in the Joe Louis thread. Either you're being overly easy on Louis or being excessively hard on Hopkins. Hopkins was 40 years old when he lost to Taylor, btw. He was visibly not the same fighter by that point, he was far less aggressive and far more negative than he had been in the past.

 

Yep, Nard WAS a late bloomer, no doubt, I think he was at his best in his mid 30's. Not unlike Martinez who probably peaked around 34 to 36, I guess in large part to his late start in boxing.

But by the time he fought Taylor there's no question he was past his prime, you can't hold those losses against him.

For some weird reason though, I think Taylor would have always troubled Hopkins, something about Taylor's stupid jittery style somehow worked against Hopkins.

 

But wait a minute here, One of these is an argument against EXCLUDING Louis from the TOP TWENTY FIVE... this one is about INCLUDING Hopkins in the TOP THREE. Apples and Oranges. In my opinion, BOTH are ridiculous assertions. I am making no argument against Hopkins being in the top ten. In my opinion, he belongs. But here, the pro argument is asking that Hopkins be either elevated above or equated with Hagler and Monzon. To me, THAT is ridiculous. And the fact that his opposition was largely HORRENDOUS during his title reign (worse than Louis's in my opinion) has to be taken into account. I would say the same to someone wanting to place Louis above Muhammad Ali.

I also think that Hagler's best opponents (Hearns, in particular) and Monzon's best (Griffith and Valdez, especially) would give Hopkins HELL. I don't see how anyone would argue otherwise.

Listen, I loved Bernard as a middleweight, he was one of my favorite fighters, but we aren't asking if he's a top ten middleweight (he clearly is, in my estimation... the longevity, dominance and his cagey skill mark him as a great middleweight in spite of the lousy challengers) ... we are asking if he's NUMBER ONE. To me, it's a ridiculous joke to claim he's number one or better than Monzon/Hagler/pre-retirement Robinson. I'm not even sure I like the idea of putting him above a guy like Dick Tiger or Griffith, whose opposition was so much tougher, it's laughable. Who's to say Hopkins doesn't get an extra L or three on his record fighting in the divisions those two competed in?