Hopkins Measured Against All Time

[Crold1]

Measured Against All Time: Bernard Hopkins

by Cliff Rold

Just a week ago, the rumors became signatures . The deal is done. The newly crowned leader of the Light Heavyweight division, 27-year old Jean Pascal (16-1, 16 KO) will attempt to follow a career best win over Chad Dawson by accepting the challenge of one of his leading contenders.

That he is still a leading contender is incredible in it’s own right. That he will be seen as having a very real shot at winning his second Ring Magazine belt at 175 lbs. is as well. After all, at 45, fighters who are not retired are usually being begged to head towards the gates.

Not every 45-year old is Bernard “The Executioner” Hopkins.

It does not look like the sort of potential war capable of forcing every fan to the edge of their seats at the opening bell, but as part of the ongoing story of a master of the fistic craft, Pascal-Hopkins is fascinating. Is this the moment, the fight, when Hopkins finally gets old?

It is not the first time the question has been uttered. Almost a decade ago, Hopkins was an already long reigning beltholder at Middleweight who the oddsmakers expected to be too old to hold off a streaking Felix Trinidad. The oddsmakers were wrong.

A little over four years ago, fresh off two narrow losses to Jermain Taylor for the undisputed Middleweight crown, Hopkins was again the oddsmakers underdog against Light Heavyweight leader Antonio Tarver. The oddsmakers were even more wrong.

This time, they appear to be hedging their bets. Hopkins has earned that respect. Many of the reasons why are apparent as the question is asked:

How good is Hopkins, measured against all-time.

In answering the question, five categories will be examined:
1) Accomplishments
2) Competition Faced
3) Competition Not Faced
4) Reaction to Adversity
5) What’s Left to Prove

It begins with…

The Tale of the Tape
Age: 45
Height: 6’1
Hailed From: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Turned Professional: October 11, 1988 (L4 Clinton Mitchell)
Record: 51-5-1, 32 KO
Record in Title Fights: 21-4-1, 13 KO, 1 No Contest
Lineal World Titles: World Middleweight (2001-2005, 6 Defenses)
Other Major Titles: IBF Middleweight (1995-2005, 20 Defenses); WBC Middleweight (2001-05, 7 Defenses); WBA & Ring Magazine Middleweight (2001-05, 6 Defenses); WBO Middleweight (2004-05, 1 Defense); Ring Magazine Light Heavyweight (2006-08, 1 Defense)
Current/Former Lineal World Champions Defeated: 5 (Simon Brown TKO6; Felix Trinidad TKO12; Oscar De La Hoya TKO9; Ronald “Winky” Wright UD12; Kelly Pavlik UD12)
Current/Former Lineal World Champions Faced in Defeat: 2
(Jermain Taylor L12, L12; Joe Calzaghe L12)
Current/Former Alphabet Titlists Defeated: 8 (Lupe Aquino UD12; John David Jackson TKO7; Glen Johnson TKO11; Keith Holmes UD12; Carl Daniels TKO10; William Joppy UD12; Antonio Tarver UD12; Roy Jones Jr. UD12)
Current/Former Alphabet Titlists Faced in Defeat: 1 (Roy Jones Jr. L12)

Read the rest at: http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=31188

[prodigious1]

I find it very difficult to say "this middleweight would beat Hops more times than not" with any confidence.

Monzon may have been long, tough and awkward enough, but even then, Hopkins has a few advantages over the guy many consider to be the greatest of them all.

I think prime Hopkins would have used his legs and quickness on Tiger, taking advantage of the Nigerian's slow feet.

Hagler could be countered and I don't think he could hurt Bernard.

Greb could have outworked him, certainly.

LaMotta may eek out a generous decision here and there.

I think he and Gene Fullmer would have been very interesting for those of us who are into the clinch.

Of course, there are those who will say that they are not convinced he would beat a guy on Bennie Briscoe's level. Forget about that "level", I'm not convinced he would beat Bad Bennie or Rodrigo Valdez either, strictly from a stylistic view.


Whatta you guys think?

[mrbig1]

Hopkins has stood the test of time. He is a great champion no doubt about it. Can he beat Monzon,Hagler or Robinson? I think he's just a hair below them and that's nothing to be a shamed of. The MW division is so rich with great fighters it would be great just to be in the top ten of all time. Without a doubt he belongs in the top ten maybe even the top 5.

[hagler04]

Top 15. Definitely not top 10.

[walshb]

I do believe that Berard's size and style would be hell for any middle.
I could see him beating many greats, including Marvin. He's so cagey, tough, slick and cute. He may bore a decision win out of all them

[hagler04]

I do believe that Berard's size and style would be hell for any middle.
I could see him beating many greats, including Marvin. He's so cagey, tough, slick and cute. He may bore a decision win out of all them

Wow going a little overboard there. He was dominant in a very weak era. Hopkins competing from the 20s through the 60s is a completly different proposition.

[walshb]

Wow going a little overboard there. He was dominant in a very weak era. Hopkins competing from the 20s through the 60s is a completly different proposition.

It's the guys style, size, chin, resilience, brain and overall durability. He could well eek out wins over any man. It's also his adaptability.

Take him and Hagler for example. It is most likely going 12 rds. Bernard has that nack of winning rds, individual rds. Takes it one at a time. What distinct advantage would Hagler have? Both are very good boxers. I think what would separate these two is the edge in cuteness to Bernard. Obviously, his size advantage will aid him. He can box with the best, and rough it up with the best.

Him being dominat in a weak era has nothing to do with how he fares individually against
any man. It's akin to saying that if Ali were around today dominating the heavies, that he
wouldn't be competitive in a better era...It was not Bernard's fault that he was so
dominant in his era. That argument puzzles me.

Fair enough, one could speculate how he'd compete against better opposition, but
to claim that he could not, just because his era was weak, is illogical...


Edit: I do realise that you are not saying that he could not compete in the 20s-60s.

Bernard Hopkins is one of many fighters from recent times that would be
a threat, a challenge and a possible lineal champ in ANY era...

Barerra, Morales, Nelson, Pea, Floyd, Pacquiao and some others are the same...

Guys like Gatti, Kotelnik, Ruiz, Rahman, Richie Woodhall etc would be examples
of guys that would be simply average to good in the golden eras