"Im The Greatest Middleweight of All Time"

[sues2nd]

Originally Posted by brooklyn1550

^^^

Hopkins is my favorite middleweight, no question, but I can't see him being ranked number one H2H or accomplishment-wise. His best wins at 160 (Trinidad, Johnson, De La Hoya, Echols, and Holmes) don't stack up to Monzon or Hagler's best wins IMO, and H2H, I think Jones would have always had his number. But no matter which way you match Hagler, Monzon, and Hopkins, I think you'd get very close, competitive fights.

Very true...but with his skill set (especially in his prime) I think picking anyone over him would be tough. With his ring intellegence and how unbelievable he was at every asset of the game, I think if anyone could beat those two in their primes, Bernard could.

As for the Jones thing...dont forget, after Johnson beat Roy (albeit a faded version of Roy), he creditted Hopkins with telling him "exactly how to do it". Speaks volumes to the type of preparation this man goes through and just how phenominal he is at game planning.

(also Johnson said that Bernard was BY FAR the best fighter he has ever faced in the ring...)

Thats H2H, so I agree, its a tough call. But if we delve into who is the "greatest" MW ever, longevity, skill set, achievements, and the head to head aspect (no matter what, it would be a travesty to keep him out of the top five in that right)...its easy to make an arguement for Bernard.

[acb_]

Originally Posted by Sir Amsterdam

So essentially, a fairly different sport even though it was boxing?

Shouldn't be in the same category then, IMO. Different sport, rules, set up, everything. And fighters back then weren't greater, it was just different.

So otherwise, I agree that Monzon is the #1 MW of all time going by resume and H2H and I also pick Monzon in a close decision fantasy fight over Hagler.

I agree with you in a sense.

You have three boxers that from which you can compile a database of footage and of the same relative era... and then a total wild card in the fourth. Its not his fault, and he was great, but the unit of comparative analysis is just missing here. In my reasoning (maybe flawed), including him in a discussion like this introduces variables that can't really be reconciled accurately.

[Sir Amsterdam]

Originally Posted by acb_

I agree with you in a sense.

You have three boxers that from which you can compile a database of footage and of the same relative era... and then a total wild card in the fourth. Its not his fault, and he was great, but the unit of comparative analysis is just missing here. In my reasoning (maybe flawed), including him in a discussion like this introduces variables that can't really be reconciled accurately.

Exactly. Rules different, styles different because of the rules, IMO much less evolved(but this is the constant debate), barely any politics as you needed the best fighting the best then for any draw what so ever, different culture, different gloves.

I'm not saying these guys deserve less respect, just a different category for a different time.

I also don't like how fans of fighters in this general area and shortly after penalize modern fighters because they can't tally up 20 so called HOF'ers on their resume, when the climate would never permit such to happen after this era. Not even SRL or Duran could pile that much up, but take notice of 'so called' as we have no footage.

I don't rate pre-30s anywhere in with post-30s. Langford, Greb and the like are in a separate deal.

[Sir Amsterdam]

Originally Posted by brooklyn1550

^^^

Hopkins is my favorite middleweight, no question, but I can't see him being ranked number one H2H or accomplishment-wise. His best wins at 160 (Trinidad, Johnson, De La Hoya, Echols, and Holmes) don't stack up to Monzon or Hagler's best wins IMO, and H2H, I think Jones would have always had his number. But no matter which way you match Hagler, Monzon, and Hopkins, I think you'd get very close, competitive fights.

In re-thinking Hopkins vs. all of these, considering everything he's shown in his career, I feel he could beat Hagler and Monzon and either way, it's going to be as close as Monzon vs. Hagler would be. It's a triple team of top elite's that can all win and in all probability, nearly draw each time.

[DanePugilist]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

I can guarantee you he'd have been were he to have faced a Foster or Spinks, which is essentially what Greb was doing against LHW ATG Tunney. You forgot to mention Greb was way past his prime by that point(and any of their bouts really) and had beaten Tunney just as badly in their first meeting, arguably taking 2 or 3 of the 5 bouts in their series despite officially only winning 1.

Now tell me- would Hagler have done the same against a Foster or Spinks?

Harry Greb fought bigger guys than Tunney - so it is pretty safe to say that he had no problems with bigger slower guys where his speed and tenacity would prove efficient. Regardless of that, being outboxed is something other than overpowered.

I will never compare a top athlete of modern times to a top rank boxer 80 years ago - the diffence is staggering - thinking otherwise is stupid. Having said that - yes, I don't think that Hagler would have won vs Spinks and Foster, but he wouldn't have been outboxed. Being outboxed means that your boxing ability is inferior.

And Grebs ability was inferior boxing wise, as several reports suggests, in several of his fights. However he won alot of them by overwhelming his opponents.

If you think that a crude, yet speedy swarmer belongs as a Greastest Middleweight, then by all means - but I don't share that view. Furthermore that you solely(as do I) only go by reports it is pretty farfetched claim to say that he was the greatest, or among that. No doubt his accomplishments deserves many nods of approval - but beyond that - no. Not to me at least.

[acb_]

Originally Posted by Sir Amsterdam

In re-thinking Hopkins vs. all of these, considering everything he's shown in his career, I feel he could beat Hagler and Monzon and either way, it's going to be as close as Monzon vs. Hagler would be. It's a triple team of top elite's that can all win and in all probability, nearly draw each time.

We really should add SRR to that list. He competes with any of those guys at middle.

[Sir Amsterdam]

Originally Posted by acb_

We really should add SRR to that list. He competes with any of those guys at middle.

I disagree, judging from the footage I've seen. I like SRR at WW, but at MW I don't feel he's a top 10 H2H, not from any era bias, but from what I've viewed against La Motta and the like.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by DanePugilist

If you think that a crude, yet speedy swarmer belongs as a Greastest Middleweight, then by all means - but I don't share that view. Furthermore that you solely(as do I) only go by reports it is pretty farfetched claim to say that he was the greatest, or among that. No doubt his accomplishments deserves many nods of approval - but beyond that - no. Not to me at least.

His accomplishments pretty much prove the reports, I don't see how that can be disputed. Also, you're clearly not very knowledgable on Greb based on your incredibly simply classification of him. You have a really bad habit of speaking on subjects you clearly aren't very learned in.

[Brooklyn1550]

Originally Posted by acb_

We really should add SRR to that list. He competes with any of those guys at middle.

Do you think he'd beat Hagler, Monzon, or Hopkins?

[acb_]

Originally Posted by brooklyn1550

Do you think he'd beat Hagler, Monzon, or Hopkins?

I think he'd be right there with them. A few years back I watched his 4 hour special on ESPN Classic and they showed several of his fights at 160lbs.

He had a lot of intangibles even past his best. He fought at his range and dictated the pace of most of his fights, still had two fisted power and could close the show at any time. He also had a steel chin. And, he could counter punch with anyone at that weight and still had great timing when he was on (Fullmer, for example).

I think he would beat Hagler and Bernard. Monzon would probably beat him though. Honest opinion.

[Sir Amsterdam]

Originally Posted by brooklyn1550

Do you think he'd beat Hagler, Monzon, or Hopkins?

Do you think he competes with them? I personally don't.

I think Hagler, Hopkins and Monzon would all be very bad for him at MW and have Hagler and Monzon TKOing him, with Hopkins certainly having a good chance at it prime for prime in a 15.

The Hopkins that shredded Johnson would definitely be favoured to stop Ray in a 15.

[acb_]

This footage for the most part is middleweight footage of Sugar Ray Robinson. Still great.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Brooklyn1550]

From what I've seen of Robinson at 160, as unpopular as this is, I'd pick Hagler, Hopkins, and Monzon to beat him decisively.

[DanePugilist]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

His accomplishments pretty much prove the reports, I don't see how that can be disputed. Also, you're clearly not very knowledgable on Greb based on your incredibly simply classification of him. You have a really bad habit of speaking on subjects you clearly aren't very learned in.

There are more things than meet the eye. No, it can't be disputed that he fought numberous of heavier guys, nor that he beat alot of HOFs or ATGs, but nothing I have said is wrong. He was a crude fighter, he had a swarming style, he had a great chin. Yes, he was outboxed as soon as he met a slick boxer - so what is wrong about that?

The last part - I guess you play this card every time someone disagrees with you. Fear not - every classical fan talks like this - you fit right into the mold.

[Sir Amsterdam]

Originally Posted by acb_

This footage for the most part is middleweight footage of Sugar Ray Robinson. Still great.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

I've seen majority footage of fights, the highlights naturally don't show what we need here. Against La Motta and Fullmer you can't spot a lot of things that these guys would exploit badly. Let me give you a prime example, La Motta was able to jab effectively against Ray and he had a horrible sloppy jab... granted La Motta was effective for what he was, he's no comparison to a Monzon.

I just feel that these three would eat him alive. Nostalgia isn't going to change that.