Home News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia
The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 51

Thread: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

  1. #1
    MANAGING EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    In an undisclosed bunker deep in the weird, wild, woods of the Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    11,450
    vCash
    500

    Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite
    By Mike Casey from Boxing Scene

    Heart and soul. Mind and attitude. Probably none of us would ever doubt that Bernard Hopkins possesses these most admirable and essential of fighting qualities in abundance.

    BHop has never been anything less than totally committed to his profession, which undoubtedly has much to do with why he is still bounding around like a spring chicken at forty-one and feeling confident about taking a pop at a heavyweight ‘champion’ who has been knocked out five times in 38 fights.

    I have enormous admiration for Bernard and I will tell you why. He learned his trade as thoroughly as he could in the tough and honest gyms of Philadelphia. He forged a terrific will to win and has made the very most of his physical and mental assets. To my recollection, he has never expected anything for nothing. He has made boxing his life and has never joined the ranks of the shallow and the vain, who fail to see the irony of spouting macho nonsense whilst dressed in skirts or the damn cheek of then chloroforming us all to sleep by doing little or nothing for twelve rounds.

    In short, Bernard Hopkins is one of the genuine, throwback tough guys, in much the way of Marvin Hagler before him. Blue collar, no fuss and no frills. Just a lot of hard work, three squares a day and maybe ripping up the occasional telephone directory to exercise the finger muscles.

    Before beginning his autumnal mischief-making among the bigger boys, Hopkins held on to his middleweight crown for a decade and defended it twenty times. We will proceed to examine the depth of that achievement, but let us say right here and now that it is no mean feat to reign for such a length of time, irrespective of whom you happen to be knocking over.

    We add up all these ingredients and we would appear to have one of the elite middleweight champions of boxing history. We certainly reach that conclusion when we examine Hagler, Carlos Monzon, Ray Robinson or Harry Greb.

    Yet it is here that I must reluctantly part company with Bernard at the grave risk of upsetting him, and I will explain my reasons before I make hasty tracks for a remote cave in deepest Mexico. I think Hopkins was a very good middleweight champion. I do not think he was one of the greats. I have already compared him to Marvin Hagler. Now, in a different vein, let me compare BHop to Harold Johnson. Harold was an excellent light-heavyweight craftsman who was more technically varied than Hopkins and certainly fought a far superior level of opposition.

    Johnson was accomplished, polished, all those fine things we say about fighters who possess no truly alarming weaknesses. He was a very good fighter and a very good world champion, but he never stepped up to the gold standard. To this day, when his name is mentioned, the conversation quickly moves on to his great nemesis, Archie Moore. In much the same way, BHop has never escaped the shadow of Roy Jones Jnr. One fight, one loss, a long time ago. But it still resonates with significance and follows Bernard around.

    Hopkins and Johnson, in an all-time perspective, were princes among kings. For all they had in the prime of their lives, there were too many question marks to enable them to assume the ultimate rank of the royals.

    Opinions

    When you fish around the fight beat for opinions on Hopkins the middleweight, a regular pattern quickly emerges. It is one where tributes of profound respect and admiration conclude with that most hurtful of words, ‘but’.

    Understand that fighters do not make a practice of cheaply soiling each other’s legacies, save for those rare occasions when a bitter and deep-rooted rivalry is at play. Their summations are always tempered with respect and more than a little uncomfortable hesitancy.

    Typically measured and honest in his comments is former fighter and referee, Ron Lipton, who shared some frightening company in his days as a sparring partner, going head to head with Dick Tiger, Rubin Carter, Emile Griffith, Holly Mims, Lloyd Marshall, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, Jimmy Dupree, Charlie (Devil) Green, Jose Monon Gonzalez, Freddie Martinovich and Frankie DePaula.

    Rumour has it that Ron also tried for a face-off with the Incredible Hulk, but the big green fella thought better of it.

    Asked for his thoughts on Bernard Hopkins, Ron says: “I respect Bernard’s accomplishments and have seen all his fights from the beginning of his career until his last one with Antonio Tarver. He has dealt with whatever has been placed in front of him without ever being completely subdued by anyone. By his own explanation and my close observations, he has truly mastered the basics of boxing.

    “It is because of his uncanny sense of radar, timing, balance and reacting accurately and with uncanny instinct to his opponent’s every move, that he is very hard to set up with clean power shots to his body or vital areas of his head.

    “Being a crafty pro fighter with a strong sense of safety first, he conserves his energy and stays relaxed. He comes into the ring at all times minus any fat on him, and his efforts in training camp via roadwork, sparring and watching his diet have given him boxing longevity.

    “He was always a tough thinking man and a survival-minded street kid, and the bit he did in the joint only tempered his mental attitude on a blacksmith’s anvil. By bringing this whole package into the ring, you have a tall and rangy middleweight in front of you that is always in shape and is the quintessential definition of ring generalship.

    “Rating Bernard with the great middleweights of the past is no problem for me, as he deserves recognition for his record number of title defences. Yet his cautious style is not exciting and quite boring at times for the average fan. I study his moves and enjoy his boxing abilities and techniques, yet yearn for a Hagler v Hearns middleweight shoot-out, which has not been part of the Hopkins portfolio.

    “It is understandable for him to keep winning, make money and have career longevity, but when people are paying to see a middleweight title fight they deserve to see some real action. It costs him in my opinion in obtaining a more illustrious echelon with the lions and tigers of the division’s rich history. What was lacking was the big explosive punching power with both hands early in the fight, that real killer instinct to rumble early on.”

    Ron Lipton also shares this writer’s opinion that the generally poor quality of BHop’s middleweight opponents must stack against him in an historical perspective. “In any era, it is the job of the champion to defend against the best contenders. It is not Bernard’s fault that the ranked fighters pitted against him were not the most formidable in boxing history. Yet this has to be considered when rating a champion against other boxing legends in his division.

    “One can only wonder how he would have fared in a division stacked with rugged men like Joey Giardello, George Benton, Florentino Fernandez, Jose Monon Gonzalez, Holly Mims, Rubin Carter, Emile Griffith and Dick Tiger.

    “I rate Tiger, Zale, LaMotta, Ketchel, Cerdan, Robinson, Monzon, Walker, Greb, Hagler and some other greats over Bernard. But Bernard would have given any man at 160lbs a great fight. He was a courageous, dedicated middleweight champion who deserves a world of credit for beating Tarver at light-heavyweight.”

    Equation

    Ron Lipton’s last point brings another interesting point into the equation. BHop did indeed surpass the expectations of many when he stepped up in weight to dethrone Antonio Tarver. It was an excellent achievement. If Bernard goes a step further and takes a portion of the heavyweight championship from Oleg Maskaev, people will doubtless argue for a big re-assessment of the entire Hopkins portfolio. At a grand old age, he will suddenly be an unlikely triple weight champion. How could we possibly deny him his place at the main table?

    I would only ask that we all calm down a little at this point and take a deep breath. Firstly, let me say that Bernard gave away significant poundage to Tarver and got the job done mightily well. I predicted that he would do so in a poll of Boxing Scene staffers, and I certainly do not offer that fact in the way of a boast. My batting average in calling fights is as wildly topsy-turvy as that of most other so-called experts.
    I based my prediction on two simple beliefs: that Hopkins would fight with his usual dogged commitment and that Tarver, with visions of Hollywood stardom still swimming in his head, would be out to lunch in much the same way as Lennox Lewis went AWOL in the first Rahman fight.

    In the run-up to Hopkins-Tarver, we heard so much about Bernard’s attempt to succeed where Ray Robinson failed in making the championship transition from middleweight to light-heavyweight. We heard nothing of Dick Tiger crossing that line with his great feat of dethroning Jose Torres in 1966. Tiger was creaking a lot more than Hopkins at that similar stage in his career, having had twice as many fights against opponents of a much higher calibre. Look up Dick’s record when you have a moment and count the number of fighters on it you’ve never heard of. You won’t get too far. The only other opinion I would offer on this little matter is that Jose Torres would have fancied his chances very strongly against Antonio Tarver.

    In going back over BHop’s middleweight title defences, Ron Lipton told me, with not a trace of sarcasm I might add, that he was reminded of the old adage, ‘In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king’.

    This is the crux of the matter, surely. In the kingdom of the blind, a lot of one-eyed men can become kings and the best of them can become kings of two or three divisions when there are countless ‘champions’ to aim at.

    Now, what if BHop does indeed knock off Oleg Maskaev for the once meaningful WBC heavyweight title? That would undoubtedly be some feat on Bernard’s part, if only because of the weight differential. But in terms of magnitude and historical significance, would it really be as indelibly printed on our minds as little Carmen Basilio beating Robinson, Robbie taking out LaMotta with such class and fire or the triple slam of Henry Armstrong? You might frown at one or two of those examples, but I am talking about men who stepped up to dethrone undisputed champions who were indisputably all-time great fighters.

    It is so tempting to magnify everything out of proportion when we are swimming in a docile sea without sharks. Roy Jones Jnr was ranked the fifth greatest heavyweight of all time in one readers’ poll after seeing off the stunningly moderate John Ruiz. So where do all those people rate Roy now?

    Oleg Maskaev was knocked out by Kirk Johnson and Lance Whitaker and stopped by Oliver McCall, David Tua and Corey Sanders. Yes, Oleg has become a much improved fighter. But really, would he have even got a look-in twenty or thirty years ago? This isn’t misty-eyed romanticism. It is surely a stone cold fact to anyone with eyes and even a basic understanding of world class talent. Much like his fellow title claimants, Maskaev is a modest plodder making some very nice hay on a very barren farm. Take McDonalds and Burger King out of the fast food chain, and the rest of us would profit handsomely from selling burgers.

    The proliferation of ‘world’ titles and the creation of pointless weight divisions went unchecked despite all the protests of the usual few good men. The ensuing poison was always going to significantly dilute the overall quality of the product. The cynical splintering of the world heavyweight championship, the richest and most glorious prize in sport, was the biggest desecration of all. The resultant mediocrity leaked down through all the weight divisions, cheapening the achievements of even our greatest and most deserving stars.

    Thomas Hearns, undeniably an all-time great and one of this writer’s sentimental favourites, was officially a world champion in six weight classes. Yet Thomas was never the undisputed master of any of them. Deep down, that must surely rankle with such an intensely proud warrior.

    To many fans, the current mess is no big deal, because it is all they have ever known. They never lived in the comparative Garden of Eden that was there before. They hear about the great fights at Madison Square Garden and the monumental events in Kingston and Zaire. But they can never taste or feel the atmosphere.

    I can understand the sense of resignation. Over the years, we have been so relentlessly battered by the politicians and the self-serving schemers of our sport. We feel there is little more we can do than to shrug and say, “Oh, well, that’s boxing,” whenever the next dollop of crud is slopped on our plate. We barely bat an eyelid any more at the corrupt farce of sanctioning fees. Yet can you imagine the indignant fury if the Steelers had been expelled from this year’s Super Bowl for failing to kick a suitcase of cash upstairs for the right to compete?

    Through utterly no fault of his own, this is the sparse and pocked field in which Bernard Hopkins has been sewing his seeds. He is so often criticised, rightly so in my view, for being a one-pace fighter and lacking passion. But in all brutal candour, when has he ever needed to be more? A canny old pro who is in for the long haul will only ever show you as much as he has to. It requires top-notch contenders and fellow champions to bring out his best qualities. We would never have seen the best of Muhammad Ali if Foreman and Frazier hadn’t made Muhammad fight for his very life.

    Manager and trainer Frank Baltazar, the father of former top contenders Frankie and Tony, agrees that circumstances conspire against BHop when he is judged against many of his stellar middleweight predecessors. “I don’t think that Hopkins was one of the true elite,” says Frank. “In my opinion, he was a very good fighter but not a great one.
    “He was the kind of fighter that needed to set the pace of the fight. If he wanted to go 10 miles per hour and his opponent wanted to go faster, Bernard was in trouble. But most of the guys he fought were willing to fight at his pace, which made for some boring fights.

    “As to how he would have done against some of the past middleweight champions, I will only speculate about fighters that I have seen live or on TV in real time. I think Bernard would have lost to guys like Tony Zale, Marcel Cerdan, Joey Giardello, Dick Tiger, Emile Griffith, Carlos Monzon, Marvin Hagler and Sugar Ray Robinson. And of course, Hopkins did lose to Roy Jones Jnr.

    “Bernard might have beaten the rest of them. Maybe not all of them, but most of them.”

    Top 20?

    Boxing writer Jim Amato stresses the historical depth of the middleweight division in explaining his reasons for not being able to rate Bernard Hopkins in his all-time Top 20. It is sometimes forgotten that BHop began his pro career as a light-heavyweight, dropping down to middleweight after losing his debut.

    It is Jim’s belief that Bernard should have moved back up to the higher division a long time before he did. “Hopkins is the best middleweight of his era. It would be senseless to argue that point. He will more than likely be a first ballot Hall of Famer when the time comes. He dominated the division for years.

    “But even with his long reign and his signature win over Felix Trinidad, I always felt that he was a bit overrated. In fact I was more impressed with Bernard’s win over Antonio Tarver than in any middleweight bout he ever had. It told me that Bernard should have moved up to light-heavyweight long ago. He looked strong and carried the weight well. I think he may have hurt himself career-wise staying at middleweight and fighting inferior opponents.

    “Bernard may have been a victim of his time. If you look at his defences, you have Steve Frank, Joe Lipsey, Bo James, Andrew Council, Robert Allen on three occasions, Echols twice, Syd Vanderpool and Carl Daniels. Yes, Hopkins defeated Keith Holmes and William Joppy who had both at one time held a piece of the title. But neither will be remembered as a great champion. Then there was Bernard’s defence against Morrade Hakker.

    “Bernard was a sound technical fighter, but he was not a big hitter, although Joe Lipsey may argue that point. Hopkins was crafty, durable and in most cases utterly boring. Even both of his setbacks to Jermain Taylor were snoozers.

    “Bernard was a decent body puncher – just ask Oscar De La Hoya – and a smart ringwise boxer. He rarely took chances, though. He was content to jab and try to sneak a right hand in. He was more than willing to tie up his man and maul on the inside. This made for several boring fights. I did respect his confidence and he was very durable. Hopkins was a guy that didn’t do anything extremely well but did a lot of things very well. I think he got away with a lot because of the competition he faced.

    “I think Bernard could have held his own against just about any middleweight in history, but I believe there are several more than twenty men who could have beaten him. I cannot see him out-mauling guys like Carlos Monzon or Dick Tiger, or even Emile Griffith, who was a great boxer on the inside and outside.

    “I believe a prime Rodrigo Valdez would have handled Bernard. I think Hagler would have been too busy for Bernard, who enjoyed a slower pace. James Toney and Joey Giardello would have out-slicked Hopkins. Mike McCallum would have beaten Bernard in the trenches. The list goes on….”

    Hawaiian boxing writer and style analyst, Curtis Narimatsu, also sees a number of stumbling blocks for Hopkins in match-ups against his fellow greats.

    “In terms of attitude, no one is more consistent today than BHop. Above all else, Bernard’s dedication and fitness are unmatched. But his divine mentality wouldn’t be enough to deal with the finest middleweights in history.

    “BHop’s best assets are his mobility and torso twist, which is very reminiscent of Tony Canzoneri. Bernard’s offence is typified by his sneaky right counter, but that would be neutralised by Carlos Monzon’s potent jab and the fact that Monzon kept his high right hand plastered to his neck, which would have blocked BHop’s right counter. Carlos would then be countering with that formidable right of his own.

    “A prime James Toney would be best able to anticipate Bernard’s right counter, then pound BHop with counter hooks and crosses. Hagler would enjoy the same advantage over Bernard.

    “Dick Tiger is another who would give Hopkins problems. Dick wouldn’t let BHop get set to counter. Tiger would fluster him all night long.”

    Old timers

    Most of the contributors to this article, quite understandably, would only speculate on the middleweights they have either seen live or on film. But that does not prohibit us from venturing our opinions on the old-time masters, since there are certain facts we know from the hundreds of eyewitness accounts and the precious few films to which we have access.

    Modern technology, racing on in leaps and bounds all the time, has enabled technically gifted fans to cook up all sorts of delectable treats via the keyboard. Fragile fight films from a hundred or so years ago, many of them on the verge of literally crumbling to dust, are lovingly restored and massaged to give us real time, close-up revelations of legendary men who were previously little more than tantalising names.

    So what do we know? We know for starters that Bob Fitzsimmons was a crushing middleweight puncher of great science and knowledge, who was very fast on his feet and not the dandy poser that the stereo-typists would have him be. “Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons posed, they didn’t fight,” Bert Sugar once said. Well, Bert should really have known better than that.

    Fitz was an undisputed world champion at middleweight, light-heavyweight and heavyweight and knocked out the cream of those divisions. Are we to believe that his opponents simply stood there waiting to be hit? Bob pole-axed the astonishingly tough Tom Sharkey, which Jim Jeffries couldn’t manage to do in two attempts spanning 45 rounds.

    We also know that the ferocious Stanley Ketchel was a timeless force of nature in the way of Roberto Duran and one of the hardest pound-for-pound punchers that ever laced on the gloves. As he proved in his epic duel with Joe Thomas at Colma, Stan could maintain a breakneck pace for more than thirty rounds. Sam Langford, as potent a one-punch hitter as the ring has ever seen, couldn’t deck Ketchel or even greatly inconvenience him in their epic little war of 1910.

    Australian ace Les Darcy, in the estimation of Nat Fleischer, might have become greater than Ketchel. Pneumonia and the poison from an abscessed tooth resulted in Darcy’s early death at the age of twenty-one, yet he had already blistered his way through the world’s leading middleweights, losing just two decisions and two bouts by disqualification in his 50 recorded fights.

    Mickey Walker, the great Toy Bulldog, was sometimes too tough for his own good, especially during his forays into the heavyweight division. Yet he remained a vicious proposition. Outweighed by 42lbs, down in the first round and hurt several times thereafter, he still rallied back to defeat the 210lb Bearcat Wright.

    Walker was a terrific body puncher who would often fire his punches in rapid blitzes. He could lead with a fast left hook, hurt and knock out opponents with either hand and possessed a hard and flashing right cross.

    As for Harry Greb, the incomparable Pittsburgh Windmill, we really shouldn’t have to justify his place as a top three candidate among the middleweight greats and quite possibly the best of them all. Harry’s magnificent record, very nearly the stuff of fiction, is there in the archives for all to peruse at their leisure. Simply look at the men he beat and how few men beat him in nearly 300 fights. Like Ketchel, he cannot be conveniently contained in his own era by the modernists and told to know his place.

    These were some of the past masters who showed superior talent to Bernard Hopkins and most certainly demonstrated a much greater degree of fire and passion. Could Bernard have beaten them? From this corner, no.

    Mike Casey is a boxing journalist, historian and a staff writer with Boxing Scene. He is a member of the International Boxing Research Organization (IBRO) and founder and editor of the Grand Slam Premium Boxing Service for historians and fans (www.grandslampage.net).

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,407
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    I think Ron's assesment of Bernard's style and abilities and was excellent...

    We cannot fault him for a weak division. I personally feel his craftiness, intelligence and guile combined with his size, speed, defensive ability and vastly underated strength would make him an extremely tough match up for anyone.Maybe he should have been called the mongoose. It fits him better than the Executioner.

    ..I don't say he beats them all by any means...it has been such an incredible division but he does belong somewhere in the top ten. Again as styles make fights he might have done better against some greats than others would have...I can see him beating a Monzon, who he matches on strength and size where others who may have beaten Bernard would not match up as well...

    My biggest question mark goes out on his chin...how goos was it...I remember seeing one HBO clip from an early defense when he was down once or twice and really hurt...I never saw him down again but then again he did not fight great middleweight punchers. Who knows about this?
    Last edited by HE Grant; 10-14-2006 at 07:56 AM.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    In the Barrio, In La Puente,Ca.
    Posts
    12,026
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    Mike

    A great article.

    Frank

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,356
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    When you write that much to discredit a fighter being placed with the 'elite' all-time, you concede that they are now and forever being mentioned with them. Hops will always come up when the discussion of great middles comes up, so he's one of them. It's just a mtter of placement...even if he;s at the end of a list, he's there.

  5. #5
    MANAGING EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    In an undisclosed bunker deep in the weird, wild, woods of the Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    11,450
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    I HATE to admit it Cliff, but you are absolutely correct. While I agree with Mr. Casey's premise ... Time changes everything. 20-30-40, years from now people will not realise how mediocre the oppositon was in 17 of Hop's defenses.

    They will look at the numbers, like they will with Roy Jones, & they will say,"He must have been great, look at all those succesful defenses".

    But in the reality of the present day, we all know better, right?

    At least I hope so ...

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    95
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    Quote Originally Posted by GorDoom
    I HATE to admit it Cliff, but you are absolutely correct. While I agree with Mr. Casey's premise ... Time changes everything. 20-30-40, years from now people will not realise how mediocre the oppositon was in 17 of Hop's defenses.

    They will look at the numbers, like they will with Roy Jones, & they will say,"He must have been great, look at all those succesful defenses".

    But in the reality of the present day, we all know better, right?

    At least I hope so ...
    We will remember. Hopkins was a great fighter that fought in a weak era. He's a top 20 middleweight. Just being in the top 20 is impressive even if you're number 20. Who cares if he couldn't beat Hagler or Monzon? He was still a great fighter even if you only want to concede that he was a borderline great fighter.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,356
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    No, Gor...I think he was a great fighter anyways...not top ten, but any guy who can defend a belt 20 times for almost 12 years is a bad man. Tarver win is icing. There are people who call Ricardo Lopez "great" and Hops trumps what he did by some distance.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    95
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    Quote Originally Posted by Crold1
    No, Gor...I think he was a great fighter anyways...not top ten, but any guy who can defend a belt 20 times for almost 12 years is a bad man. Tarver win is icing. There are people who call Ricardo Lopez "great" and Hops trumps what he did by some distance.
    There is one thing that irritates me about Hopkins' growing legacy. He DID NOT MAKE “20” DEFENSES. He made SIX successful defenses. After becoming the undisputed champion he only made six defenses. The rest were meaningless alphabet defenses. He DID NOT break Monzon’s record. Monzon made 14 UNDISPUTED defenses. Hagler made 12 UNDISPUTED defenses. Joe Louis made 25 UNDISPUTED defenses.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,356
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    Agree, but Hops also cleaned out the class. It might have been a different run though had Lonnie Bradley not hurt his eyes. That said, to be the best fighter in a division (which he was from 94 forward) for twelve years is impressive. Say what one might, but Louis at heavy didn't face great foes during his long run. Holmes did not face great foes either. Fighters who dominate that long with guady stats typically fight in off-eras. Hell, Hagler's 160 class was nothing special either. How many Hall of Fame natural middles did Marvin face? I won't degrade Hopkins but I won't put him top five either.
    Last edited by Crold1; 10-14-2006 at 07:47 PM.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    95
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    Quote Originally Posted by Crold1
    Agree, but Hops also cleaned out the class. It might have been a different run though had Lonnie Bradley not hurt his eyes. That said, to be the best fighter in a division (which he was from 94 forward) for twelve years is impressive. Say what one might, but Louis at heavy didn't face great foes during his long run. Holmes did not face great foes either. Fighters who dominate that long with guady stats typically fight in off-eras. Hell, Hagler's 160 class was nothing special either. How many Hall of Fame natural middles did Marvin face? I won't degrade Hopkins but I won't put him top five either.
    He completely cleaned out the division. He was one the VERY FEW great fighters of the last 20 years. I’m sorry about my rant earlier. The “20” defenses garbage just blows my mind. I HATE it when hear or read people mention that. You would think these individuals didn’t know anything about boxing history. All of the great championship reigns were made by undisputed champions. I would never disrespect Hopkins. Any fighter that Roberto Duran respects is a fighter that deserves to be respected.
    Last edited by lu047w; 06-10-2007 at 05:05 AM.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,356
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    The only thing that makes his claim somewhat legit is that he beat the other two prominent champs of his time BUT when he won his title he was unproven so when do you say his run really started even if you think he was already the man for Tito? Tough call and not record-worthy at all. Still, to say he wasn't 'elite' is silly and smack of old-timer crotchetyness. Just because he wasn't as great as Greb or Robinson or that ilk doesn't make him not great...not in a division where the roll call is its own HOF

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    95
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    Quote Originally Posted by Crold1
    The only thing that makes his claim somewhat legit is that he beat the other two prominent champs of his time BUT when he won his title he was unproven so when do you say his run really started even if you think he was already the man for Tito? Tough call and not record-worthy at all. Still, to say he wasn't 'elite' is silly and smack of old-timer crotchetyness. Just because he wasn't as great as Greb or Robinson or that ilk doesn't make him not great...not in a division where the roll call is its own HOF
    He was the best middleweight in the world years before he was the undisputed champion and if the other two belt holders had not ducked him for so long he would have been the undisputed champion sooner. Hopkins is one of the top 20 middleweights of all-time.
    Last edited by lu047w; 10-17-2006 at 02:26 AM.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    703
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    Monzon didnt make 14 undisputed defenses. He avoided Valdez for a bit and was stripped of it, during that time he made a couple of defenses if memory serves.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    169
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    Quote Originally Posted by lu047w
    Who cares if he couldn't beat Hagler or Monzon? He was still a great fighter even if you only want to concede that he was a borderline great fighter.

    Who says he coulden't beat them?

    Thats my problem with vauge and overall bad comparisions. Your talking two different eras, with different fighters who have different reasons and values for fighting.

    Who ever thought Buster would beat Tyson? Don't lie about it either.

    He was a great fighter, with an acheivement you may never, ever see again in boxing. It's not his fault he was at the top when he was.

    Styles make fights, and IMO, Bernard was a stylistic nightmare for anyone he fought. Towards the end, he started slower, and Taylor made him pay for that, and yet still with coterversy. To say Bernard isn't one of the top 10 or even 20 of all time, it's just simply assinine.

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    If vague is bad then what would the statement calling people assinine for not having him in the "top 10 or 20" be?

    vague?

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Bernard

    may have been a "a stylistic nightmare for anyone he fought" , but that doesn't mean he would be a nightmare for the great fighters that are being mentioned, that should be placed ahead of him, who he hasn't fought.

    Is this thinking assinine?

    I think Bernard doesn't make the top 10 middleweight listing.

    Is this assinine?

    I think, however he does make the top 20 listing?

    Is this line of thinking simply, NOT as Assinine?

    Still Assinine?

    Or simply Assinine to those who think he doesn't belong in the top 20? And given that we have already concluded that those who think this way, are also assinine, does somehow my assininitivity (or is it assininiveness?) somehow get canceled out?

    Or am I simply being to vague?

    Hawk

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Clarkton, NC/Minneapolis, MN (2019)
    Posts
    749
    vCash
    500

    Re: Too Soon, good or bad

    Off the top of my head, I'm [I]positive[I] B.Hop makes my top 20 middles although I'm not sure about top ten and in fact, I kind of doubt it. That said, the man just left. Like/dislike whatever, it's fresh in our minds.

    Twenty years from now, I'll remember Joe Lipsey collapsing into sections like a house of cards, Segundo Mercado standing over a prone Hopkins not once but twice, the 1st time I ever saw Tito's face show defeat and Antonio Tarver exposed again for what I always thought he was- a long, awkward guy with some pop and no plan.

    I'll also remember that his most impressive win (to me) was against a rising welter who demolished middles who stuck thier chins out and that the rest were pretty non-descript. I'll smile thinking about how announcers called him "old-school", "crafty" and "dirty" and how I at least partially agreed on all counts.

    The old,old Hopkins (seems like he was 40 forever) was a pace guy but he wasn't always so deliberate. Sure, the RJJ fight but neither was "there" yet. Hopkins was tough as nails, cautious when it called for caution, had good power, decent defense and was, in my eyes, a solid all-around fighter. Much stronger than his reed-like body seemed to be, I think he gives ANY middleweight I've ever seen a good fight. Of the notable ones, I haven't seen Harry Greb, so I guess you can say I hold him in some regard.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    "Who says he couldn't have beaten them".

    Some people.

    If we can't compare across the eraa, how can you rank guys then at all?

    If you can't rank guys then how can one say Hopkins needs to be in a top 10 or 20? In short, how can you rank a guy if comparing them is bad or not factoring in this or that? You can if it is results oriented of course. Someone seems to be top 10. Now, let's figure out where. Ok, here! Number 7 (3, 2 whatever).

    But we can't really do that or we are comparing eras again. So without actually ranking guys, how do you know where Hopkins belongs? And above all of that...to rank him somewhere wouldinvolve ranking him above some guys from different eras, which would lead to bad comparisons..or impossible ones.

    Leaving us back to "who says?"

    So I don't see how Hopkins needs to be in a top 10 or 20 all-time, sight unseen, when the method used to rank him maybe 18th or 23rd can be used to argue against him being ranked 7th..or 5th.

    If the thing is assinine, then the whole thing of ranking fighters must be. Right?

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Clarkton, NC/Minneapolis, MN (2019)
    Posts
    749
    vCash
    500

    Re: Skipping past Sharkey's latest list-bashing:)...

    ...the one guy from "history" i'd most like to see Hopkins with would be Fullmer. I have no doubt he's the strongest middle I've ever seen ( makes what Robbie did surreal) and I think seeing B.Hop in there would give us all a much better gauge of how he measures up.

  20. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    I didn't argue against lists.. I took Kurant's point and played them out. Great to "see" you btw.

  21. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Clarkton, NC/Minneapolis, MN (2019)
    Posts
    749
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    Just foolin'.

    Likewise squared.

  22. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    169
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    You guys read too much into the word assinine, or maybe your just to sensitive? I'm not really sure, you can decide.

    You can compare all you want, compare compare compare, there is no list. The list is what you make it. Yes, a nightmare for people he "fought" - How could he had fought them if historically it just wasen't possible? Are you telling me his lethargic like defensive style would have been eaten up by Hagler? Then again, who's to say it woulden't, who's to say it would have? We could debate that all day, and I'm all for it.

    Comparing fighters isn't assinine, bub, it's the nature of ranking these great fighters. Not putting a guy with an amazing accomplishment, a guy who worked his ass off every single time he stepped in the ring, a guy who never ever quit, who fought till he was 41 - a middleweight champ for over 10 years, IS infact, that.

    Hopkins is an all-time great, period. I'm sorry your too focused on the word assinine - why? I really don't care. Where he's at, is up to you. To not put him in those lists, is just simply assinine. I'm sorry for all the sensitive ones out there. But that's the bottom line.
    Last edited by Kurant; 10-16-2006 at 08:23 PM.

  23. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    No one seems as sensitive as you.

    I think more of Hopkins than you think I do.

    Where did I not put him on a list I didn't make?

  24. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    A lair deep in the Maine woods
    Posts
    520
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    The Middleweight division is the most accomplished of all the divisions. The names of the former champs here read like a "Who's Who" of boxing.

    In my opinion, Hopkins was a great fighter because he could adapt to just about any style. If he had to box and be cagey he could do that. If he had to fight a rough fight on the inside he could do that. If he had to go the body he could do that. Bernard was a smart, smart fighter and he was excellent at sizing up the strengths and weaknesses of his opponents. Bernard was also always prepared and always showed up in top mental and physical condition.

    In short, he was just about everything you could want in a fighter.

    The best memory I have of Bernard Hopkins was at the Hall of Fame in 2000. We were all standing around inside the Hall of Fame at Canastota and we were watching a Bernard Hopkins fight on the television. The name of the opponent escapes me. Anyway, Bernard was describing what he was trying to do in the fight. He was describing how he was trying to place his shots. As we watched it, I was just seeing a simple bodyshot. I was just seeing a simple uppercut. Bernard was watching it and he was saying that he was trying to get the shot up and underneath the ribcage. He was saying that he was trying for the liver. He was describing that "if I could get that punch in, I knew I could stop him". It was remarkable to get his take on one of his own fights. It was very eye-opening.

    Hopkins was a precise fighter. He wasted very little, especially as he aged.

    When he fought Trinidad he was 36 and Trinidad was 28. Hopkins weighed 157 to Trinidad's 158 1/2.

    When he fought De La Hoya he was 39 and De La Hoya was 31. Hopkins weighed 156 to De La Hoya's 155.

    Neither Trinidad or Hopkins has been knocked out before or since they fought Hopkins. I think that says something. I also think that beating Antonio Tarver at 174 pounds at age 41 says something as well.

    Something else you may want to think about - none of these other Middleweights that many of you mentioned ever won a Light Heavyweight championship.

    Hopkins deserves to be remembered as a middleweight great. The fantasy fight I think of would have been Hopkins versus Marvin Hagler.

  25. #25
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,384
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    I think not enough people tend to remember the style that rolled over Johnson back in the day. Hopkins used to fight with plenty of activity. Regardless of what you may pick apart of what Hopkins did, he did it and he was always at the winning end until it came to Taylor which was so disputed and at such an advanced age that it didn't really matter in my eyes.

  26. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Don't know about anyone else

    But now I'm focused on the word "bub".

    "Assinine" is so 10 minutes ago.

    Hawk

  27. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    95
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurant
    Who says he coulden't beat them?

    Thats my problem with vauge and overall bad comparisions. Your talking two different eras, with different fighters who have different reasons and values for fighting.

    Who ever thought Buster would beat Tyson? Don't lie about it either.

    He was a great fighter, with an acheivement you may never, ever see again in boxing. It's not his fault he was at the top when he was.

    Styles make fights, and IMO, Bernard was a stylistic nightmare for anyone he fought. Towards the end, he started slower, and Taylor made him pay for that, and yet still with coterversy. To say Bernard isn't one of the top 10 or even 20 of all time, it's just simply assinine.
    What I was trying to say was whether or not Hopkins could defeat Monzon or Hagler or any other top 10 all-time great middleweight was completely irrelevant. He was still a great fighter regardly. He was one of the 20 greatest middleweights of all-time without question.
    Last edited by lu047w; 10-20-2007 at 06:19 PM.

  28. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,404
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    The premis of this article is intruiging to me from my realtive "noob" ness to the fight game (been training and devleoped a serious interest in 96, though was a keen casual fan since 85)

    When Bert Sugar rates a fighter - He rates them by their acheivements or measures their greatness by the era in which they fought. He always seems to say something like "To take one fighter out of his era and put him in another is a different argument, and you end up with apples and oranges".

    Bernard is not to blame for the era in which he fought, it's not like he chose to come up now, he fought what was available to him.

    I enjoyed the article, but to say Bernard wasn't a top 20 because of what others in history MAY have done to him is specualtive against the tangible achievements that he did do. Who he fought isn't particulalry relevant when you consider 20 defences of a title including 6 undisputed defences in a fragmented modern era is impressive and moving up to 175 to shut the most annoying mouth of recent times in Antionio Tarver is something I'll be grateful to Hopkins for a long time.

    Reading quotes like this - "What was lacking was the big explosive punching power with both hands early in the fight, that real killer instinct to rumble early on.”"

    Now again - I'm not saying that Wayne Powell is going to go down as the iron chinned warrior of the ages, but Bernard did stop him in a record 21 seconds and then followed that up with another 1st round TKO before dealing with Roy Jones.

    Maybe in those 12 rounds with Roy, some of Roy's safety first sensibilities were transfered and rubbed off on Bernard?

    That might seem a fairly shallow "boxrec.com" light analysis, but apart from Toney, watching Hopkins is the closest to the black and white films of Moore, Charles and Walcott in an era full of post-Ali showboaters. At the end of the day, I'd rather apprecaite the nuance's of the safety first stylist over the Zab Judah's or Prince Naseem's - Or Joe Calzaghe for that matter...

  29. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    909
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    While I certainly respect Hopkins, I agree with pretty much all that Mike had to say in his article. I simply just could not rank Hopkins among the very best middleweights in history. I think he is probably top twenty, maybe even right at the end of top 10, but he was pretty much a very boring fighter to watch who fought in a weak era of middleweights. He was very effective with his style, but I have difficulty seeing him going 15 rounds with a Stanley Ketchel who would be throwing punches non-stop...crippling punches.

    A fight with Monzon would, more than likely, be a very, very hard fight to watch, but in the end I would have to pick Monzon as he simply just faced much better competition than Hopkins...same goes with Hagler and the same goes with several others.

    Hopkins has a style that is a nightmare for most of the fighters of today, but the fighters of pre-1960, well most at the highest level would be very comfortable with Hopkins countering, 30-punch a round style. And like someone else mentioned, I really dislike it when someone states that Hopkins has 20 true defenses as that simply is not true. Hopkins had 20 trinket defenses, but only six true middleweight title defenses, which that is a lot better than some.

    The advent of all the lame-ass alphabet titles has greatly hurt a fighters ability to stand up in comparison to the older guys who fought the very best contenders in the world instead of like today when just winning one of the several available organizational trinkets and then just fighting opponents that that one trinket org considered to be the best and the reality of it is that all the various alphabet orgs each had they’re own ranking of who was the best contenders, not like when it was simple…one champion and one set of contenders. Hopkins was a very successful fighter, but I just do not see him as one of the truly great middleweights in history!
    Last edited by BDeskins; 10-17-2006 at 08:55 AM.

  30. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,468
    vCash
    500

    Re: Hopkins: Not One of The Middleweight Elite by Mike Casey

    BHop as I wrote is certainly a great fighter and had a consitency of excellence.

    There was mention of what I wrote about his punching power.

    Yes, I know he stopped some guys early, and I know Bert Sugar has a different way of rating fighters. I know Bert very well, read all his books and I have appeared on a national TV interview with him about analyizing fighters in boxing history.

    We disagree as I look at things from a fighter's point of view more than just research alone. Historians will always do this.

    The middleweights are a unique division and as I said have a fan base that is addicted to the Hagler V Hearns, Zale V Graziano type of shootouts.

    We want our middleweights to have great power in both hands or spectacular power in at least one of them. Many of us like that Zale left hook, the Graziano right hand, the Tiger left hook, or the brawling Walker and one punch power of Robinson.

    The power and excitment comes from taking out great opponents with one shot now and then or at least to come out of the gate like a maniac with his ass on fire to FIGHT!

    Ring technicians in all weight divisions who wait, and wait, and whittle, and whittle, stopping at all stop signs, caution signs can win all the time, but the fans want to see more, that's why a lot of them pay to see a fight.

    Many guys can fight at a slow pace until the hot dog vendor runs out of gas, but people want to see a middleweight Tyson once in awhile.

    Some of the past greats like Mickey Walker and Marcel Cerdan came out of the gate bombing away until the opponent fell, from punches, not old age.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia Links Home