Bernard Hopkins, 7 years older.

Evil Romulan renegades from the future create an alternative time line, because they're, like, pissed at Spock or whatever. Lets say Hopkins comes onto the scene about 86 and peaks about 91 or so.

In 1990-91 (equivalent 97-98 Hops) how does he do against

Michael Nunn
James Toney
Saul Kalamby
Mike McCallum

 

he has loads of trouble with every one of those guys but I think he beats Kalambay and Toney and is driven nuts by Nunn to the point of possibly losing... I could see him using his trinidad-blueprint against McCallum, but I don't know that he would win

He could beat all those guys and he could lose to them... either way, the winner or loser is in for a difficult night

 

Good question, will have a think

 

Pretty much the way I see it. He's on the same level as those guys, not Monzon & Hagler (which is still great).

 

Yes this is another of my 'perspective' MM threads ::

 

I think Nunn may edge him. He beats the rest.

 

pretty much

though, it's hard for him in all of the matchups

I also think that if you were to have a league of all the best middleweight fighters since 1940, at the end of the "season" Bernard Hopkins would have a better overall record than Nunn, though he may very well lose to him more often than not

 

exactly... one of the things that is most misconstrued around here is that you can still be truly great even if you are not the number one or two guy all-time at your weight... people act as if it is a disgraceful slap in the face to call a guy "the 5th or 6th best ever in his weight class" ... this is ridiculous, especially if you are talking about one of the 8 traditional classes

 

Bit like QPR-Nottingham Forest

 

Peak Hopkins is live against ANY middleweight, including Hagler and Monzon.

 

yes, he is a tough fight for anybody, still doesn't necessarily mean he'd beat either of them and it damn sure doesn't mean he's greater

 

word.

 

Perhaps not at middle, but I rate him higher all-time than both.

 

I disagree emphatically

you are a fat lip and a big mouth... I'll see you in Liverpool

 

steve_dave is an all time great poster.

 

A win over Antonio Tarver ain't all that.

 

I never saw Hagler or Monzon do the equivalent.

In beating Jones and Johnson, Tarver was the consensus 175lb champion when Bernard fought him. Tarver was also a decent sized fighter.

 

I'll shit upon you like Bernard does the resume of Carlos Monzon. :nono:

 

The body of work as an old man is, however. Maybe it doesn't mean anything to you guys - and I really don't care what you think of Pascal (he's not great but he CAN fight) - but being the oldest man to win a legit championship is big in my eyes.

The guy has old man wins over Tarver (he was supposed to get killed, big win at the time), Wright, Pavlik (he was supposed to get killed, big win at the time) and Pascal.

He was a very good/great fighter before his old man wins.

 

word. Well said.

Michael Moorer wasn't a great Heavyweight, but Foreman's win over him was a great achievement given Foreman's age and what not.

 

Yep. :bears: