The 606v2 ATG p4p list

First topic message reminder :

Did this a little while back and only just got round to sorting out the scoring, if you didn't get round to doing and would like to then just a list and I will update the main list accordingly.

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Ali
5. Charles
6. Langford
7. Fitzsimmons
8. R. Leonard
9. Duran
10. B. Leonard
11. Mayweather
12. Tunney
13. Louis
14. Jofre
15. Pep
16. Gans
17. Whitaker
18= Moore
18= Ross
20. Jones jnr
21= Monzon
21= Wilde
22. Chavez
23= Walker
23= Burley
23= Hearns
26. Holyfield

Think it's quite a decent list personally, the top 5 speak for themselves really but surprised to see Tunney. From last time I did this the big movers are Jofre down 7 places to 14th and Ray Leonard up 4 to 8th, compensating for those two moving and Mayweather entering the rest of the top 12 are exactly the same as before.

I offer a solid argument if I think the person i'm discussing an issue with will return in kind rather than expecting a link to another website, that isn't for me and I don't need feel any inclination to reply to a link.

You can say Hopkins lost to Taylor twice but he was what 39 at the time and if we're sticking that Hopkins in against Briscoe, why not use the Briscoe who lost to Antuofermo in return. What would make more sense and i'll go out on a whim here would be to consider the Hopkins who schooled Trinidad and the Briscoe who fought Valdes, when they were both in or around their bests. 

This is where your argument about 'middleweights' falls down with one of the lists you posted which included Duran and Leonard among the good middleweights that Hagler fought. If in one instance we're considering those two to be middleweights but then in another not considering De La Hoya and Trinidad to be as such is that not slightly hypocritical?

I firmly believe that Hopkins would have come out on top in more convincing fashion than Hagler because he's a smarter boxer who has never let bravado get the better of him. Losing to Roy Jones is no indicator of how those fights go because you're talking about apples and oranges. As for Taylor I would be confident of him beating Hart, Watts and an ageing Briscoe, too much speed, for all their toughness (Hart excluded) they were not the speediest bunch in the world.

You seem to think you're a paragon of virtue who's role on this forum is to educate those whom you feel are wrong, it gets tiresome having someone try to do that all the time.

Milky was an alias on another thread and now Hammer...

Haz gets upset when someone disagrees with him..

Calm down.

Nice breakdown there capt cheers. I always had the impression that briscoe was in that category of guys who was probably slightly on the wane by the time he got to genuine contender status. I've seen a few of his fights and whilst clearly game and teak tough I saw a guy that might give Hopkins an uncomfortable night, without ever threatening to beat him.

Interesting, that with all those fights from the school of hard knocks it was a Brit he picked out as his hardest night. The first finnegan fight was real nip and tuck I believe. Meant to have been brutal, and no tv footage due to bad weather.

captain carrantuohil wrote:I will say, haz, that I must agree with HH that Monzon's championship opposition was a level above Hagler's. There are similarities - we can place Moyer, Licata and Mundine on a level with Scypion and Roldan, perhaps; we can suggest that Bogs, Tonna and Bouttier are of a level with Sibson, Obelmejias and a shot Antuofermo and place Napoles on a par with Hearns, but there the similarities end.

Benvenuti is in a different stratosphere to Minter, the Briscoe of the early 70s far outshines the Mugabi of the mid-80s and I see no genuine middleweight on Marv's CV that comes close to the level of Valdez. That's without talking about an Emile Griffith who still had plenty to offer. As champion, Monzon also never took on any fighter as limited as Caveman Lee. The relative standard of opposition is a clear reason for ranking Monzon above Hagler as a 160-pounder.

I'd go along with that but the offensive fellow claimed that Monzon fought better opposition throughout his career (and didn't specify championship runs). Griffith, Napoles, and Benvenuti were a shade past their best (Napoles didn't do anything at 160). Briscoe is a great win (despite the offensive fellow's assertions that he was useless) and Valdez was great, no question.

I'd argue that Duran, Hearns, Leonard, and Mugabi all had more to offer than the lower weight guys Monzon bested (Duran was in inspired form). Plus, if you take into account Hagler's pre-title competition, that narrows the gap somewhat.

I'd agree, though, Monzon edges Hagler in the all time stakes.

Find it amusing how a 25 year old from England knows If there was any clamor for Spinks v Hagler in America..

More unsubstantiated statements

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Milky was an alias on another thread and now Hammer...

Haz gets upset when someone disagrees with him..

Calm down.

I'd Never been so insulted truss   

I was called the capt's alias once. Think he left the board for a year in disgust!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I offer a solid argument if I think the person i'm discussing an issue with will return in kind rather than expecting a link to another website, that isn't for me and I don't need feel any inclination to reply to a link.

You can say Hopkins lost to Taylor twice but he was what 39 at the time and if we're sticking that Hopkins in against Briscoe, why not use the Briscoe who lost to Antuofermo in return. What would make more sense and i'll go out on a whim here would be to consider the Hopkins who schooled Trinidad and the Briscoe who fought Valdes, when they were both in or around their bests. 

This is where your argument about 'middleweights' falls down with one of the lists you posted which included Duran and Leonard among the good middleweights that Hagler fought. If in one instance we're considering those two to be middleweights but then in another not considering De La Hoya and Trinidad to be as such is that not slightly hypocritical?

I firmly believe that Hopkins would have come out on top in more convincing fashion than Hagler because he's a smarter boxer who has never let bravado get the better of him. Losing to Roy Jones is no indicator of how those fights go because you're talking about apples and oranges. As for Taylor I would be confident of him beating Hart, Watts and an ageing Briscoe, too much speed, for all their toughness (Hart excluded) they were not the speediest bunch in the world.

You seem to think you're a paragon of virtue who's role on this forum is to educate those whom you feel are wrong, it gets tiresome having someone try to do that all the time.

 
I included Trinidad and Oscar on Hopkins' list. No hypocrisy here.
 
Taylor beating Hart, Watts and Briscoe? The same guy who drew with Kasim Ouma? Ha, nice try.

I've just found out you are my alias Milky...

We are in the 606 twilight zone..

captain carrantuohil wrote:I will say, haz, that I must agree with HH that Monzon's championship opposition was a level above Hagler's. There are similarities - we can place Moyer, Licata and Mundine on a level with Scypion, Hamsho and Roldan, perhaps; we can suggest that Bogs, Tonna and Bouttier are of a level with Sibson, Obelmejias and a shot Antuofermo and place Napoles on a par with Hearns, but there the similarities end.

Benvenuti is in a different stratosphere to Minter, the Briscoe of the early 70s far outshines the Mugabi of the mid-80s and I see no genuine middleweight on Marv's CV that comes close to the level of Valdez. That's without talking about an Emile Griffith who still had plenty to offer. As champion, Monzon also never took on any fighter as limited as Caveman Lee. The relative standard of opposition is a clear reason for ranking Monzon above Hagler as a 160-pounder.

Valdes is the trump card in all this, for all the talk of Hagler coming out on top in Philly, Monzon at the end of his career beat the man who knocked Briscoe out not once but twice. Valdes has to be the most unfortunate middleweight of the lot, i'll admit he was messed around a fair bit by Monzon, made to wait and wait for his shot at the legitimate title despite being the clear number one contender. Finally gets his hands on the title but then faces another Argentine who had been carefully managed awaiting the retirement of Monzon.

Finnegan was granite, like his brother, but not quite as talented, milky. It underlines what an excellent era the 70s was for British boxing, a time when you could have rivalries such as Chris Finnegan-Conteh, Kevin Finnegan-Minter, Stracey-Green and Buchanan-Watt all being played out in the ring.

Nowadays, we get thrilled about the prospect of Froch-Groves II. Here was a time when two world-class British talents going at it hammer and tongs was the rule, rather than the exception.

I imagine with world titles hard to come by It made the British a huge achievement...

Sad that all the Abc's have changed It's value..

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I offer a solid argument if I think the person i'm discussing an issue with will return in kind rather than expecting a link to another website, that isn't for me and I don't need feel any inclination to reply to a link.

You can say Hopkins lost to Taylor twice but he was what 39 at the time and if we're sticking that Hopkins in against Briscoe, why not use the Briscoe who lost to Antuofermo in return. What would make more sense and i'll go out on a whim here would be to consider the Hopkins who schooled Trinidad and the Briscoe who fought Valdes, when they were both in or around their bests. 

This is where your argument about 'middleweights' falls down with one of the lists you posted which included Duran and Leonard among the good middleweights that Hagler fought. If in one instance we're considering those two to be middleweights but then in another not considering De La Hoya and Trinidad to be as such is that not slightly hypocritical?

I firmly believe that Hopkins would have come out on top in more convincing fashion than Hagler because he's a smarter boxer who has never let bravado get the better of him. Losing to Roy Jones is no indicator of how those fights go because you're talking about apples and oranges. As for Taylor I would be confident of him beating Hart, Watts and an ageing Briscoe, too much speed, for all their toughness (Hart excluded) they were not the speediest bunch in the world.

You seem to think you're a paragon of virtue who's role on this forum is to educate those whom you feel are wrong, it gets tiresome having someone try to do that all the time.

 
I included Trinidad and Oscar on Hopkins' list. No hypocrisy here.
 
Taylor beating Hart, Watts and Briscoe? The same guy who drew with Kasim Ouma? Ha, nice try.

You misunderstand me, you said that you felt Hopkins loses to the philly lot because his middleweight opposition (implying natural middleweights) at 160lbs wasn't that good. Either the great guys moving up are good or they are not, i'm getting a lot of mixed messages.

The same guy who beat the great Bernard Hopkins twice, rather than talk about level of opposition could you explain talent wise why he beats Hopkins but not three fighters much lower down the pecking order? Ooh he beat Ouma by the way, it was Wright he drew with who simply is the equal/better of the philly lot (Hagler exluded).

Quite correct, Truss. British title fights were routinely screened liveon terrestrial for years and produced some absolutely memorable tussles. Into the 80s, you have Jones-Laing, Feeney-Cattouse (one of the truly great fights I've ever seen), Kaylor-Christie and so on. Something changed about twenty years ago, and it wasn't necessarily for the better.

Had a lot of respect for Colin Jones...Thought he beat Mccrory first up... and he beat Laing twice though Ive never seen the fights.

Caught Don at his best..

Born at the wrong time.

Indeed, shame finnegan and minter were both bleeders.

Read a great thread on another forum a while back by a guy a while back claiming to be in finnegan's corner (whose to say?) for the hagler fight. Reckons finnegan was finishing the stronger and Mickey duff pulled him out on the cut against everyone's wishes.

Worth a read for the effort of a simple google of finnegan hagler.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Had a lot of respect for Colin Jones...Thought he beat Mccrory first up... and he beat Laing twice though Ive never seen the fights.

Caught Don at his best..

Born at the wrong time.

Two identical fights truss. Laing tattooed him for 8 or 9 rounds then got sparked.

Not quite sure where i've said Briscoe is useless because it quite obviously not true.

It's all about levels, with Briscoe we know his level because of his varied opposition whether it's the elite like Valdes, Monzon and Hagler or the fringe world level like Boutier and Rondon. He loses to the elite every single time absolutely no shame in that you're talking about three of the finest middleweights in history. On the other end of the scale he comfortably beats the fringe world level men so I would call him a world class world level fighter capable of giving anyone a good fight. His fights suggest exactly that and at no point have I said anything different.

Below that you have the more problematic cases of Watts and Monroe who fought almost exclusively in Philly never really performing at world level. Due to the inconsistent nature of their results it takes a real leap of faith to suggest they could beat Bernard Hopkins. They gave Hagler a good fight but it's fair to say his style suits them slightly more than the more methodical thoughtful approach of BHop.

As for Eugene Hart, wouldn't give him a chance in hell to be honest, a big hitter but little else. Another reason i'd expect Hopkins to be the lot is that none of them possess his kryptonite and that's blinding speed something Jones, Taylor and Calzaghe all had in abundance. Brawn very rarely overcomes brain.

Milky, I have said all along that while the Hagler fight last Minter was giving almost as good as he got, was by no means embarrassed or steamrollered. It must be a Caucasian trait the vulnerability of cuts, so many have had issues while very few Black fighters that I know of have aside from Napoles.

I disagree completely with Hammersmith on Hagler-Minter, personally. I thought Minter got absolutely violated. He landed one telling shot in the fight from my point of view - that was it. I thought it was Hagler at his absolute best and it was scary how much purchase and intent every shot he threw had in it. Considering how aggressively he was fighting, I thought Hagler's punch accuracy and shot selection were outstanding. I don't think the cuts stoppage robbed us of a potentially interesting fight, really. Minter was getting torn to shreds, literally, and I see little in those three rounds to suggest he'd ever have managed to get a foothold.

With regards to the Hagler-Monzon comparisons, I'm surprised it really manages to generate such heated debate. Hagler faced better opposition en route to the title picture, Monzon's opposition once they'd both become champion or were contesting title fights was better - both arguments seem reasonable to me. But naturally, championship performances are going to hold extra weight and on that basis I can't see any real argument for Hagler getting the nod. One of those rare cases where, in just about every area, Monzon has a small edge.

What's interesting is what the captain was talking about, namely how the gap between them shouldn't, in his view, be big enough for Hopkins to slip somewhere in between. I'm one of the people who have done exactly that, so food for thought.

milkyboy wrote:Haz, I was referring to the circular nature of the heated debates on here. The smiley was a clue to its light hearted nature.

I'll sit back and leave you, hammer, strongy and truss to accuse each other of being idiots. None of you are in my view but you do all share a certain belligerent streak. I of course, am a paragon of fairplay and diplomacy.

Thought it was common knowledge that spinks called hagler out around that time. Sure he did it in some post fight interview . Of course without the benefit of twitter, I don't know how guys managed to call each other out properly.

I have three little words to say to you...........Sugar Ray Leonard.

I thought Minter put up a good fight till he was half blind..

Think Hagler wins late...But it was competitive till the cuts ruined it..

He put up a good fight alright, Truss, if we're talking in terms of taking his lumps and giving it a good, brave go. Not denying that. But giving as good as he got? Outcome in the balance? Not for me. Within a minute or so of the first round Hagler had already well and truly shown Minter who the boss was in the jabbing exchanges and he was repeatedly catching Minter with clean, accurate shots. Minter couldn't really pin Hagler down with anything, on the other hand.

Minter was half blinded because Hagler was punishing him whenever he opened up.

He did call Hagler out and he regularly weighed 171 ish..I'm sure 168 could have been arranged..

But we are living in an age where Mayweather who started at 130 is a coward for not fighting GGG and Hagler is lauded for Hamsho instead of Spinks.

Anybody can get cut Chris...If Minter cut Hagler when he wobbled him...Does he violate him..

Minter landed enough to cut Hagler three times..

So the cut theory doesnt wash...

It was a good fight ruined...

But you are entitled to your opinion mate..Fairplay..

As I said, Truss, the way I saw it Hagler was on top from the very first few seconds, long before any cut opened up.

I'm not trying to discredit the effort Minter put in to the fight, or prove a point to the Hagler naysayers. But I hear quite a lot how Minter was holding his own and that it had been a competitive fight before the stoppage - I just don't see it. Break each round down in to six thirty-second chunks, and I still don't think Minter won any of them!

Seems I'm in the minority on this one, so it doesn't bother me if I don't get any support or whatnot, but honestly when looking through Hagler's title fights, I think Minter was one of the easiest (or maybe most straight-forward would be a nicer way to put it) he had.

Just rewatched it Chris and I stand by what I said, Hagler was landing the better blows but he wasn't hurting Minter. Wouldn't call it one sided in the slightest, not suggesting the fight was in the balance but he wasn't getting violated in the slightest, an odd comment to be honest Chris.

No problem Chris....

Arguing that Minter wasn't hurt really is going to extremes. He was made to hold, was wobbled and sent reeling more than once in the fight. Just because a fighter doesn't hit the deck doesn't mean they're not hurt. I'm amazed that anyone could claim that any 160 pounder would be able to absorb that many clean punches from the fists of someone like Hagler without being hurt to some degree.

As I said, I'm in the minority on this, but if anyone can find me a half-minute segment of that fight from any stage of it where Minter was the better man, I'd be surprised. Just my contention that the supposed closeness or competitiveness of the fight before the stoppage is a bit of myth that's grown as a more watchful eye is cast over Hagler's career these days.

Hagler was taking Minter apart long before the horror cut in the third, from where I'm sitting.

I'd say each of the final three sections in the first round went to Minter. The only point he was visibly hurt was when he was blind right at the end of the fight, more down to not seeing the punches than anything. That's my opinion on it.

88Chris05 wrote:As I said, Truss, the way I saw it Hagler was on top from the very first few seconds, long before any cut opened up.

I'm not trying to discredit the effort Minter put in to the fight, or prove a point to the Hagler naysayers. But I hear quite a lot how Minter was holding his own and that it had been a competitive fight before the stoppage - I just don't see it. Break each round down in to six thirty-second chunks, and I still don't think Minter won any of them!

Seems I'm in the minority on this one, so it doesn't bother me if I don't get any support or whatnot, but honestly when looking through Hagler's title fights, I think Minter was one of the easiest (or maybe most straight-forward would be a nicer way to put it) he had.

I'm with you on this one, Hagler destroyed Minter and that would have been the case with or without the cuts.

I think Vito 2..Hamsho 2 ...and Lee were easier Chris...and probably Sibson...

Tyson v Spinks is being destroyed..

Id have Hagler way above Hopkins. Hopkins foul happy, stink festering middleweight reign was nowhere near as good as Haglers. Id pick Hearns and Leonard to outbox Hopkins too.

Good point made about Hopkins hanging around so long because the light heavyweight division has been a pile of crap. If it werent for such division and so many titles then he would surely have been put out to pasture. Calzaghe would have retired him and Dawson should have but when there are such average champions like Cloud around then you can keep going back to the well for another title.

If Spinks was around now, forget it.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Find it amusing how a 25 year old from England knows If there was any clamor for Spinks v Hagler in America..

More unsubstantiated statements

I hope that was aimed at me. 25?!!! I'll take it.

You know who I think misses out on all these p4p lists..........Good old Noah Brusso (Tommy Burns)....

Michigan and Pacific coast middleweight champion apparently at a weight of 151! (4 pounds above welterweight !!)........Not sure they had a world championship then !!......Chris will know..

Then wins the undisputed world heavyweight title at a weight of around 170 pounds....
and defends it at least nine times..

Burns wasn't a great heavyweight champion but he sure as hell was a quality p4per !!!

Loved to have seen him defend his heavyweight title against Ketchel but unfortunately they were a couple of years off radar !!

Tommy burns take a bow !!!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I offer a solid argument if I think the person i'm discussing an issue with will return in kind rather than expecting a link to another website, that isn't for me and I don't need feel any inclination to reply to a link.

You can say Hopkins lost to Taylor twice but he was what 39 at the time and if we're sticking that Hopkins in against Briscoe, why not use the Briscoe who lost to Antuofermo in return. What would make more sense and i'll go out on a whim here would be to consider the Hopkins who schooled Trinidad and the Briscoe who fought Valdes, when they were both in or around their bests. 

This is where your argument about 'middleweights' falls down with one of the lists you posted which included Duran and Leonard among the good middleweights that Hagler fought. If in one instance we're considering those two to be middleweights but then in another not considering De La Hoya and Trinidad to be as such is that not slightly hypocritical?

I firmly believe that Hopkins would have come out on top in more convincing fashion than Hagler because he's a smarter boxer who has never let bravado get the better of him. Losing to Roy Jones is no indicator of how those fights go because you're talking about apples and oranges. As for Taylor I would be confident of him beating Hart, Watts and an ageing Briscoe, too much speed, for all their toughness (Hart excluded) they were not the speediest bunch in the world.

You seem to think you're a paragon of virtue who's role on this forum is to educate those whom you feel are wrong, it gets tiresome having someone try to do that all the time.

 
I included Trinidad and Oscar on Hopkins' list. No hypocrisy here.
 
Taylor beating Hart, Watts and Briscoe? The same guy who drew with Kasim Ouma? Ha, nice try.

You misunderstand me, you said that you felt Hopkins loses to the philly lot because his middleweight opposition (implying natural middleweights) at 160lbs wasn't that good. Either the great guys moving up are good or they are not, i'm getting a lot of mixed messages.

The same guy who beat the great Bernard Hopkins twice, rather than talk about level of opposition could you explain talent wise why he beats Hopkins but not three fighters much lower down the pecking order? Ooh he beat Ouma by the way, it was Wright he drew with who simply is the equal/better of the philly lot (Hagler exluded).

My bad, it was Wright he drew with (he looked terrible in both fights so they moulded into one in my head).

Maybe "the great Hopkins" isn't as good as you think? Taylor edged him twice but had terrible bother with Ouma and Wright -- two junior middleweights and was flattended by Pavlik and Abraham (that latter of those at 168, however, as King Arthur's run in the Super Six showed, he was a middleweight).

Wright was a fine fighter but he has no record to speak of at 160 -- nothing that suggests he beats Watts, Monroe etc.

I see Fitzsimmons and Nonpareil were two excellent champions back then..

My mistake...

But fairplay to Burns anyway...

Basically a super middle..

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Not quite sure where i've said Briscoe is useless because it quite obviously not true.

It's all about levels, with Briscoe we know his level because of his varied opposition whether it's the elite like Valdes, Monzon and Hagler or the fringe world level like Boutier and Rondon. He loses to the elite every single time absolutely no shame in that you're talking about three of the finest middleweights in history. On the other end of the scale he comfortably beats the fringe world level men so I would call him a world class world level fighter capable of giving anyone a good fight. His fights suggest exactly that and at no point have I said anything different.

Below that you have the more problematic cases of Watts and Monroe who fought almost exclusively in Philly never really performing at world level. Due to the inconsistent nature of their results it takes a real leap of faith to suggest they could beat Bernard Hopkins. They gave Hagler a good fight but it's fair to say his style suits them slightly more than the more methodical thoughtful approach of BHop.

As for Eugene Hart, wouldn't give him a chance in hell to be honest, a big hitter but little else. Another reason i'd expect Hopkins to be the lot is that none of them possess his kryptonite and that's blinding speed something Jones, Taylor and Calzaghe all had in abundance. Brawn very rarely overcomes brain.

Watts and Monroe were world rated contenders. You can bet had they fought in Hopkins' era (which only came about because Jones and Toney had bigger fish to fry) they'd have been alphabet titlists. This is an era where Hopkins himself labelled William Joppy his era's Ray Leonard.

Hagler actually took a methodical and thoughtful approach against both Watts and Willie and guess what? He lost. And to compound that generalisation, Hopkins wasn't always the thoughtful spoiler; he once fought with more aggression and purpose.

You can cite speed as being Hopkins' "kryptonite", I prefer to call it "good". Is it any coincidence that he's lost to the best fighters he's faced in Jones, Taylor, Calzaghe and Dawson?

Hopkins has carved out a fine career -- his dogged resilience is astounding but for me, Hagler is a level above him in terms of greatness and was far and away the better middleweight.

Maybe no great fighter is as good as any of us think, lets put Hagler back 7 years and say he loses to Monzon which I think he would and loses to Valdes which is possible. There and then his plans for greatness would have disappeared, for all we know that is a possibility but like all of these fantasy match ups it's just an opinion. I think Hopkins is great, you don't, fair enough but don't start trying to act like you're right and i'm wrong because neither of us are.

Briscoe I can understand but Watts and Monroe I don't Haz, what is it that is so special about the pair because I personally don't think they are?

catchweight wrote:Id have Hagler way above Hopkins. Hopkins foul happy, stink festering middleweight reign was nowhere near as good as Haglers. Id pick Hearns and Leonard to outbox Hopkins too.

Good point made about Hopkins hanging around so long because the light heavyweight division has been a pile of crap. If it werent for such division and so many titles then he would surely have been put out to pasture. Calzaghe would have retired him and Dawson should have but when there are such average champions like Cloud around then you can keep going back to the well for another title.

If Spinks was around now, forget it.

Plus he has less wear and tear because he wasn't thrown into the lion's den against a murderer's row of middleweights.

Taylor is not one of the best boxers Hopkins has faced but if it suits your argument then fair enough, what does a modern fighter have to do to rank above anyone from the past?

The Hopkins v Wright fight was a disgrace. Hopkins couldnt beat a fat, past it Winky without headbutting and punching him in the gonads every few minutes.

Put Hagler forward a few years and see him lose to Michael Nunn.........He'd struggle with Kalambay (Mccallum did).......and he and Marvin were more than a little a like...

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Maybe no great fighter is as good as any of us think, lets put Hagler back 7 years and say he loses to Monzon which I think he would and loses to Valdes which is possible. There and then his plans for greatness would have disappeared, for all we know that is a possibility but like all of these fantasy match ups it's just an opinion. I think Hopkins is great, you don't, fair enough but don't start trying to act like you're right and i'm wrong because neither of us are.

Briscoe I can understand but Watts and Monroe I don't Haz, what is it that is so special about the pair because I personally don't think they are?

I don't think you know anything about either from what you've written.

I'm not debating ifs and buts I'm debating quality of competition.

 

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Taylor is not one of the best boxers Hopkins has faced but if it suits your argument then fair enough, what does a modern fighter have to do to rank above anyone from the past?

Which 160 pounder did Hopkins face at middleweight that was better than Taylor (apart from Jones)?

catchweight wrote:The Hopkins v Wright fight was a disgrace. Hopkins couldnt beat a fat, past it Winky without headbutting and punching him in the gonads every few minutes.

A win is a win is a win....As they say..

catchweight wrote:The Hopkins v Wright fight was a disgrace. Hopkins couldnt beat a fat, past it Winky without headbutting and punching him in the gonads every few minutes.

I think Wright carried the extra 20 pounds on his butt. Looked like he had a space hopper down the back of his shorts.

Quality of opposition is all ifs and buts, you think Watts and Monroe are the second coming, could you explain why they're so special and when they were so highly regarded?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Quality of opposition is all ifs and buts, you think Watts and Monroe are the second coming, could you explain why they're so special and when they were so highly regarded?

Do you want me to post a link?

hazharrison wrote: 

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Taylor is not one of the best boxers Hopkins has faced but if it suits your argument then fair enough, what does a modern fighter have to do to rank above anyone from the past?

Which 160 pounder did Hopkins face at middleweight that was better than Taylor (apart from Jones)?

Trinidad, Eastman and Johnson I would all pick over Taylor. Were it not for Eastman special moments shall we say he would have been the stand out middleweight behind Hopkins. Would you also use Charles and Marciano against Louis because they're without doubt the best he ever faced but somehow I feel that you like any sane minded individual will acknowledge he was years past his best. Hopkins losing when he is past his best is a big issue but for Charles, Louis and Robinson i'm going to guess it isn't nor should it be.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

catchweight wrote:The Hopkins v Wright fight was a disgrace. Hopkins couldnt beat a fat, past it Winky without headbutting and punching him in the gonads every few minutes.

A win is a win is a win....As they say..

Maybe so, but he was incredibly lucky in that fight. The cards were a joke for starters. The fight could have gone either way and with a proper ref that would either have docked points off Hopkins or stopped his nonsense then Wright would have won. Hopkins spoiling is constantly passed off as great technical ability. Its spoiling. Wright was the better technical boxer, even miles above his proper weight and past his best.