Pernell Whitaker or Bernard Hopkins? Who’s better who’s greater?

Whitaker was better and he was greater too.

I do value longevity as well but as someone already pointed out, what does longevity mean? Is it time between first and last titles or is it consistency over a period of time. I mean, Hopkins was middleweight champ for 10 years but was only the best in his division almost by default until he unified. The division was in decline at the point he picked up his first title.

I’m not trying to disparage him, but he was the best fighter in a pretty weak weight class over a five year period. If it had ended there, his reign would be about as revered as Virgil Hill’s at 175. But when Trinidad moved up and the unification started, he elevated himself to a different level and he proved he was a great one, not just a strap holder. It was only then that he was considered one of the very best (top 3) p4p fighters in the sport.

Whitaker, by contrast, was a top p4p fixture early on. He was pretty much recognised by everyone as either the best or second best fighter in the game behind only JCC in the early 90s and then beat the man to become everyone’s no. 1. His lightweight reign was shorter than Hopkins’ middleweight reign but he unifed early and had a marquee win over another great in Azumah Nelson. By the time he moved to welter in 1993, he was already recognised as a great fighter. So, yeah, he didn’t last as long as Hopkins overall but in terms of the absolute upper echelons of the sport, his time there is comparable and he was a four weight champ at the age of 30.

 

Well Said....



REED

 

I think how Whitaker stormed through divisions while in his prime is also a major factor for me in terms of his greatness. Hopkins didn’t move up till he was almost 40. Whitaker was conquering divisions coming up.

And to reiterate, I think Whitaker was more skillful and more naturally talented. Better ring IQ imo, as well.

Also Pea was more exciting to watch. Whitaker was one of those defensive counter punchers that IMO was rarely in a boring fight. We’ve seen fighters like B-Hop and Floyd win snooze fest after snooze fest. Whitaker was different. Even on offense he was almost impossible to hit cleanly and it was entertaining to watch.

 

Superb post. I think you just killed the false Hopkins "greater" narrative.

I'm surprised it was even close in the first place.

I thought it would be unanimous that Pea is greater.

 

Although there are some good points there, it seems that the post disregards several aspects on purpose. Especially the very ones that made Hopkins special.

To consider:

After his ill-advised debut, the only guy to beat Hopkins in 17 years was prime Roy Jones, and even that fight was competitive.

At the age of 41, Hopkins went up to light-heavy and dominated the undisputed champion who was highly ranked in p4p lists.

At the age of 43, Hopkins lost a SD to another p4p top-5 guy.

At 43, Hopkins shut out a reigning, undisputed middleweight champion who at the time was high on p4p rankings.

At 46, Hopkins won another light-heavy title belt.

And yes, at 40 Hopkins did lose highly questionable decisions to Taylor. At 32, Whitaker barely scrapped by Wilfredo Rivera and at 40 he was long retired.

I accept if someone calls Pernell the greater because of his higher peak, but to call Hopkins' achievements as mere 'longevity' doesn't make justice for the uniqueness of his career