Where Does Bernard Hopkins Rank Among History's Boxing Greats?

Boxscout · 03-12-13, 04:19 AM

I'm honestly not much of a boxing historian, but that sounds maybe slightly high. Top 5 seems reasonable. I've seen some calling him a top 20 ATG, which is just ridiculous. Thankfully, boxing people don't go crazy for stats piled up at the end of a career, like baseball people do.

Here's SI's list. Some pretty big names for him to get past:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0911/boxing.top.ten.greatest.middleweights.alltime/content.10.html

Sportsbetting123 · 03-12-13, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Boxscout

I'm honestly not much of a boxing historian, but that sounds maybe slightly high. Top 5 seems reasonable. I've seen some calling him a top 20 ATG, which is just ridiculous. Thankfully, boxing people don't go crazy for stats piled up at the end of a career, like baseball people do.

Here's SI's list. Some pretty big names for him to get past:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mul...ontent.10.html

Cool link. Thanks for sharing. I would give Bernard top 5 also

Reload · 03-12-13, 07:35 AM

He's way up there - even before Saturday's triumph. He showed up in good shape. Looking forward to seeing his next fight.

You mad bro · 03-12-13, 07:46 AM

idk like 93th or something

so many light weight mexicans are better

PhillyFlyers · 03-12-13, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Boxscout

I'm honestly not much of a boxing historian, but that sounds maybe slightly high. Top 5 seems reasonable. I've seen some calling him a top 20 ATG, which is just ridiculous. Thankfully, boxing people don't go crazy for stats piled up at the end of a career, like baseball people do.

Here's SI's list. Some pretty big names for him to get past:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mul...ontent.10.html

I think you are severely underrating Bernard. At a time when most boxers can't even think about lacing up the gloves, he went out a won a championship.

That is just off the charts ridiculous. That link you provided doesn't tell the whole story. For example, Greb was a truly great fighter, but he was middleweight champion for only 3 years, from 1923 to 1926. Bernard was middleweight champion from 1994 to 2005.

Monzon was another great fighter on your list but he defended the middleweight title 14 times compared to Bernard's record 20. Monzon was also a murderer and a wife beater.

I think boxing historians are going to have to take a long hard look Bernard's legacy when he is finished and determine how truly awesome it is. For some reason, he seems to be severely underrated at the moment.

iQon · 03-12-13, 11:26 AM

Ranks irrelevant. But in hindsight, he stuck around TOO long. Had a great run at 160 and arguably beat Taylor both times. Jumped to 175 and easily beat Winky Wright and Antonio Tarver. No shame in the Calzaghe loss. Forgettable rematch with RJJ.

I forget which came first, RJJ or Pavlik, but he should have retired after the Roy Jones fight. There's been nothing gained for him, since.

Pascal and Cloud do nothing for his resume. Him ducking and eventually getting his ass handed to him by Dawson doesn't help. The longer he sticks around, the further his great run gets buried in my mind.

Grits n' Gravy · 03-12-13, 12:43 PM

In their primes, Hagler, Toney and Hearns all would have beat Hopkins. Jones beat Hopkins easily with 1 good hand at 160. Hopkins is a physical freak and extremely intelligent in ring but not in top 5 at 160.

Rubber Guard · 03-12-13, 12:44 PM

Too hard to rank boxers. Too much history, too many fighters.

All I know is B-Hop is impressive. He may have not had 200 fights like some of the guys on the list. But he wasn't fighting in the 1920s either.

Too hard to compare eras in any sport.

bobby heenan · 03-12-13, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by iQon

Ranks irrelevant. But in hindsight, he stuck around TOO long. Had a great run at 160 and arguably beat Taylor both times. Jumped to 175 and easily beat Winky Wright and Antonio Tarver. No shame in the Calzaghe loss. Forgettable rematch with RJJ.

I forget which came first, RJJ or Pavlik, but he should have retired after the Roy Jones fight. There's been nothing gained for him, since.

Pascal and Cloud do nothing for his resume. Him ducking and eventually getting his ass handed to him by Dawson doesn't help. The longer he sticks around, the further his great run gets buried in my mind.

listen...the only thing to gain is that which has driven him...to prove people wrong....this is a dude that had the warden tell him "hell be back" when he was released...same prison that bears a mural of him.....theres no shame in losing to dawson no matter what you may think...dawson had all the advantages and used them....but he took two fights he and nazim probably knew he wasnt going to win...but he took them as a challenge....a guy like cloud was tailor made for him...but he got some revenge on don king ...and it must have felt real good.....the guy said something like this...."i look at two other guys i grew up with in the 90's...roy jones and james toney...and i was the the third guy in the house....now I can turn the light on"......i have nothing but respect for 'nard

bobby heenan · 03-12-13, 05:15 PM

i understand the premise of the thread was to rank bhop...something that is probably not really possible....and as grits mentioned roy beat him with 1 hand....but then again....at that time...was anyone beating roy??? roy had probably the sickest set of phyiscal gifts of anyone ever....but what seperates a guy like roy from nard...is the same as what seperates a guy like floyd from roy or the rest of his current pack....when the physical gifts erode....did/do you have the dedication to master the craft of the sport...to be able to perform after your physical peak....had a guy like roy learned to master the nuances of the game....hed have still been able to compete and be a step ahead of guys even after his physical prime....he didnt...his whole game/style was predicated off of those gifts...and he never learned how to fight in a basic/fundamental sense....and thats why a guy like 'nard is still around

MD · 03-12-13, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by bobby heenan

i understand the premise of the thread was to rank bhop...something that is probably not really possible....and as grits mentioned roy beat him with 1 hand....but then again....at that time...was anyone beating roy??? roy had probably the sickest set of phyiscal gifts of anyone ever....but what seperates a guy like roy from nard...is the same as what seperates a guy like floyd from roy or the rest of his current pack....when the physical gifts erode....did/do you have the dedication to master the craft of the sport...to be able to perform after your physical peak....had a guy like roy learned to master the nuances of the game....hed have still been able to compete and be a step ahead of guys even after his physical prime....he didnt...his whole game/style was predicated off of those gifts...and he never learned how to fight in a basic/fundamental sense....and thats why a guy like 'nard is still around

Horrendous misconception.

bobby heenan · 03-12-13, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by MD

Horrendous misconception.

really? do you think?

bobby heenan · 03-12-13, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by MD

Horrendous misconception.

why was a guy he once easily outclassed like 'nard, able to easily beat him years later??? other than guys like 'nard and toney...who he soundly beat early in career.....there wasnt much else out there for him....and thats just how the landscape of his division was....but after that...i mean he beat john ruiz....which i thought was still a tremendous accomplishment....but it was still john ruiz.....after that there wasnt much else to write home about....his style was predicated off of those ridic physical gifts...and when the eroded...he looked human....look at floyd....isnt even close to his physical peak...but he still dominates guys off of experience and ring iq....id like to hear you back up your statement....not saying im right and you are wrong...

MD · 03-12-13, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by bobby heenan

why was a guy he once easily outclassed like 'nard, able to easily beat him years later??? other than guys like 'nard and toney...who he soundly beat early in career.....there wasnt much else out there for him....and thats just how the landscape of his division was....but after that...i mean he beat john ruiz....which i thought was still a tremendous accomplishment....but it was still john ruiz.....after that there wasnt much else to write home about....his style was predicated off of those ridic physical gifts...and when the eroded...he looked human....look at floyd....isnt even close to his physical peak...but he still dominates guys off of experience and ring iq....id like to hear you back up your statement....not saying im right and you are wrong...

Faulty premise. A fighter losing their abilities with age isn't indicative of what you're claiming. I can name a dozen MMA fighters who have declined considerably who never relied on physical ability, and twice as many boxers.

Grits n' Gravy · 03-12-13, 05:59 PM

Roy's career was effectively over when he beat Ruiz. The weight gains and drops after can mess an athlete up. In his prime, Roy was best boxer of his era. Nobody had his combination of speed and power.

Jetsfan · 03-12-13, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by MD

I can name a dozen MMA fighters who have declined considerably who never relied on physical ability, and twice as many boxers.

Get out of this thread. We should be able to report dumb ass posts like this. Dont even compare MMA fighters to the elite boxers we are discussing. Step back because you dont know a damn thing, and you should apologize to Bobby.

MD · 03-12-13, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Jetsfan

Get out of this thread. We should be able to report dumb ass posts like this. Dont even compare MMA fighters to the elite boxers we are discussing. Step back because you dont know a damn thing, and you should apologize to Bobby.

Nick Diaz would KO Floyd Mayweather in a boxing match bro.

bobby heenan · 03-12-13, 06:09 PM

grits...i dont claim to know mma....but i do know that fighters have to have many facets...same to mr MD or whatever.....and im sure you can name guys...but look at roy...look at what you saw...and look at how he fought....and when he was forced to fight a thinking mans game....he wasnt the same....maybe you can find a fault in my premise....but i didnt say it applied to all fighters...in fact i showed you two guys(floyd and nard) who take that premise away......the fact is...when looking at it isolated...it applies to roy

bobby heenan · 03-12-13, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by MD

Nick Diaz would KO Floyd Mayweather in a boxing match bro.

jesus...i hope you are kidding...anyways....ahh..nevermind....i wanted to actually have a logical debate...its obvious it isnt possible here

MD · 03-12-13, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by bobby heenan

jesus...i hope you are kidding...anyways....ahh..nevermind....i wanted to actually have a logical debate...its obvious it isnt possible here

I don't even think Nick Diaz is a great MMA boxer. So, yeah, mostly trolling.

Anyway, the idea behind my post was to display that the fact that RJJ lost a step due to age doesn't prove that his skills were built around his physical gifts.

Jetsfan · 03-12-13, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by MD

I don't even think Nick Diaz is a great MMA boxer. So, yeah, mostly trolling.

Anyway, the idea behind my post was to display that the fact that RJJ lost a step due to age doesn't prove that his skills were built around his physical gifts.

Since you admitted you don't have a clue I'll break it down for you.

Roy losing a step isn't what bit him in the ass in his later years. It was defense. Like they say in football defense wins championships. Floyd might not be as quick but he's the smartest boxer in the ring and has impeccable defense, applies to B Hop also. Guys with incredible talent, speed and power and decent ring IQ, aren't usually exposed early in their careers. Thats why.

bobby heenan · 03-12-13, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by MD

Faulty premise. A fighter losing their abilities with age isn't indicative of what you're claiming. I can name a dozen MMA fighters who have declined considerably who never relied on physical ability, and twice as many boxers.

explain to me then...why a guy at floyds age( i consider floyds physical peak probably around the time he fought gatti) and a guy like 'nard can still compete at the level they do....and like i said...a guy like nard really had no chance against chad dawson if dawson fought him using the advantages he had...and dawson did....but other guys without dawsons physical gifts(no matter what you think of bad chad he has some ridic gifts and advantages) arent able to capitalize against a guy like bernard......floyd is always a step ahead of anyone hes fighting because his ring iq is pretty much unparalleled.....if roy had a ring iq like that he would have been able to compete beyond his physical prime...but he couldnt.....and grits...i agree about the weight loss/gain...but still...roy looked like shit after that....just shit....

watch his ko with tarver...he missed a hook on tarver and tarver had already launched that hand at roy...if he hits tarver with that hook tarvers punch probably doesnt land cleanly or on the same spot and who knows.....floyd missed a hook on shane too and got hit with a bomb....almost identical....except floyd took the bomb and had the ability to tie up shanes hand so he couldnt get the right off again(thats not something you see from fighters everyday...especially one who gets hit like that very rarely

bobby heenan · 03-12-13, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by MD

I don't even think Nick Diaz is a great MMA boxer. So, yeah, mostly trolling.

Anyway, the idea behind my post was to display that the fact that RJJ lost a step due to age doesn't prove that his skills were built around his physical gifts.

sure it doesnt prove anything....like we can rarely prove anything in the world of fighting....i cant prove someone would beat someone if theyve never fought or fought in different eras.....but if you watch the way roy fought...i think it was obvious his gifts were built around his ridiculous gifts.....if he mastered subtle stuff...and defense...he could have lasted beyond the point of erosion

MD · 03-12-13, 06:30 PM

Jetsfan gettin' mad.

Originally posted by bobby heenan

explain to me then...why a guy at floyds age( i consider floyds physical peak probably around the time he fought gatti) and a guy like 'nard can still compete at the level they do....and like i said...a guy like nard really had no chance against chad dawson if dawson fought him using the advantages he had...and dawson did....but other guys without dawsons physical gifts(no matter what you think of bad chad he has some ridic gifts and advantages) arent able to capitalize against a guy like bernard......floyd is always a step ahead of anyone hes fighting because his ring iq is pretty much unparalleled.....if roy had a ring iq like that he would have been able to compete beyond his physical prime...but he couldnt.....and grits...i agree about the weight loss/gain...but still...roy looked like shit after that....just shit....

watch his ko with tarver...he missed a hook on tarver and tarver had already launched that hand at roy...if he hits tarver with that hook tarvers punch probably doesnt land cleanly or on the same spot and who knows.....floyd missed a hook on shane too and got hit with a bomb....almost identical....except floyd took the bomb and had the ability to tie up shanes hand so he couldnt get the right off again(thats not something you see from fighters everyday...especially one who gets hit like that very rarely

Are you saying that every fighter whose in-ring abilities have diminished with age, has relied primarily on their physical gifts? Very simple question. I don't see the parallel between what you're claiming and what you're using to justify it.

bobby heenan · 03-12-13, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by MD

Jetsfan gettin' mad.

Are you saying that every fighter whose in-ring abilities have diminished with age, has relied primarily on their physical gifts? Very simple question. I don't see the parallel between what you're claiming and what you're using to justify it.

no...im saying if you watched roy and watched how he fought....im saying in his case i believe it to be true...but in fact ive given examples of a couple of guys who have proven that wrong(one of them inspired this thread)....in fact...i could add juan manuel marquez to that....another guy...at his age...who can fight with almost anyone(besides floyd)....because he was a student of the game....roy wasnt...he could get in the ring with anyone and outclass them because nobody could penetrate with his speed and reflexes

bobby heenan · 03-12-13, 06:36 PM

i cant sit here and say that ive seen every roy jones training camp sparring session...but i would almost bet that in most of them he ****** with dudes and enjoyed it...instead of taking it completely seriously....and taking something from it...he enjoyed penetrating with dudes and embarrassing them because he could...now a guy like floyd can do the same...but he does it in a more technical way by mentally breaking a guy down

MD · 03-12-13, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by bobby heenan

no...im saying if you watched roy and watched how he fought....im saying in his case i believe it to be true...but in fact ive given examples of a couple of guys who have proven that wrong(one of them inspired this thread)....in fact...i could add juan manuel marquez to that....another guy...at his age...who can fight with almost anyone(besides floyd)....because he was a student of the game....roy wasnt...he could get in the ring with anyone and outclass them because nobody could penetrate with his speed and reflexes

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I feel differently, but it is what it is. My only argument was with the premise it seemed like you were using to justify it.

As for Marquez, yeah, he's pretty incredible. I had money on him in the fourth Pacq fight, and I was about as happy as anyone to see him win. Guy is a real stud. A 'roided stud, but a stud non-the-less.

15805 · 03-19-13, 01:04 AM

Go to boxrec.com most complete site on subject. As for middleweights no one compares to Ray Robinson at one time his record was 117-1 when he loat to Turpin who he KO'd in a rematch. Top 5 middleweights at boxrec.com

1

Sugar Ray Robinson

2412

173(108)-19(1)-6

1940-1965

orthodox

Harlem, New York, USA

2

Carlos Monzon

1597

87(59)-3-9

1963-1977

orthodox

Santa Fe, Santa Fe, Argentina

3

Dick Tiger

1568

60(27)-19(2)-3

1952-1970

orthodox

Amaigbo, Nigeria

4

Harry Greb

1484

104(48)-8(2)-3

1913-1926

orthodox

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

5

Marvin Hagler

1331

62(52)-3-2

1973-1987

southpaw

Brockton, Massachusetts, USA

NYSportsGuy210 · 03-19-13, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by bobby heenan

i understand the premise of the thread was to rank bhop...something that is probably not really possible....and as grits mentioned roy beat him with 1 hand....but then again....at that time...was anyone beating roy??? roy had probably the sickest set of phyiscal gifts of anyone ever....but what seperates a guy like roy from nard...is the same as what seperates a guy like floyd from roy or the rest of his current pack....when the physical gifts erode....did/do you have the dedication to master the craft of the sport...to be able to perform after your physical peak....had a guy like roy learned to master the nuances of the game....hed have still been able to compete and be a step ahead of guys even after his physical prime....he didnt...his whole game/style was predicated off of those gifts...and he never learned how to fight in a basic/fundamental sense....and thats why a guy like 'nard is still around

This is a good post right here.

NYSportsGuy210 · 03-19-13, 03:10 AM

I've watched Marvin Hagler fight on Youtube videos....guy beat some legends in the sport in their primes (including Tommy The Hitman Hearns) in one of the greatest fights I have ever seen. He out experienced and fought John Mugabi too (and Mugabi was no slouch at the time).

Hagler was one of the most versatile boxers I had ever seen and had very quick hands too. Always in tremendous condition too.

Hagler would have KILLED Bernard Hopkins if they both fought in their primes.

Grits n' Gravy · 03-19-13, 04:01 AM

Nobody post Hagler's era aside from Jones would have even been competitive with him at 160.

rocky mattioli · 03-19-13, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Rubber Guard

Too hard to rank boxers. Too much history, too many fighters.

All I know is B-Hop is impressive. He may have not had 200 fights like some of the guys on the list. But he wasn't fighting in the 1920s either.

Too hard to compare eras in any sport.

perfect.....and heenan dead on as usual.....also,as a big kessler fan(and after watching his 1st fight with froch for the 2nd time ) ,i`m playing froch straight in the u.k. and probably in a par or two....i wasn`t thrilled with kessler in "froch 1"....froch seems to be fighting at a consistently high level....had a pretty penny on kessler in the 1st and i was scared to death watching kessler late in the fight....home town revenge...