Hopkins 5 best opponents

by Green Giant Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:20 pm

List Hopkins 5 best opponents, not wins. Then note which of those he won and lost.

My 5

1. a) Roy Jones Jr. LOST
b) Joe Calzaghe LOST
3. Felix Trinidad. WON
4. Jermain Taylor. LOST
5. Antoinio Tarver. WON

Top 25 ATG stuff there...

by Imperial Ghosty Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:22 pm

Interesting you have Taylor in there but don't include Wright, Pascal or Pavlik, all proved more than Jermain ever has

by **Fists of Fury** Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:23 pm

Have they? Taylor beat Hopkins twice, the others didn't.

by Imperial Ghosty Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:25 pm

Aside from beating Hopkins, what exactly has Taylor ever done?
It's like saying Turpin is better than say Hagler because he beat the greatest of all time

by Green Giant Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:27 pm

Wright had to fight at light heavyweight which is why he wasn't a better opponent. This is why I haven't included Oscar in my list also. Pavlik hasnt achieved anything other than beating a worse version of Taylor than Hopkins fought.

Pascal is a bum. Would consider Hopkins Joppy win even ahead of him.

by Rowley Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:27 pm

I like this game can I play. I'll do Duran

Hagler - Lost
Leonard - Lost
Hearns - Lost
Buchanan - Won
Benitez - Lost

Two out of five same as Hopkins - top ten ATG stuff there

by Imperial Ghosty Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:28 pm

Pascal is a bum without doubt, need to remember such things

by Rowley Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:29 pm

Sorry should have read one out of five Duran is even worse than Hopkins!

by **Fists of Fury** Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:29 pm

rowley wrote:I like this game can I play. I'll do Duran

Hagler - Lost
Leonard - Lost
Hearns - Lost
Buchanan - Won
Benitez - Lost

Two out of five same as Hopkins - top ten ATG stuff there

Ah but you missed a Leonard - Won out of that too, Jeff Wink

Plus, he didn't just lose to Hearns, he was rolled like a drunk.

by Imperial Ghosty Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:30 pm

Lets do Burley as well

1. Charles- LOSS
2. Moore- WIN
3. Bivins- LOSS
4. Williams- LOSS
5. Marshall- LOSS

All time great stuff, interesting that if you consider the best fighters someone faced to be the ones that beat them they look pretty poor

by Scottrf Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:32 pm

No wonder Burley never won a title. He was awful.

by Rowley Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:32 pm

Fists of Fury wrote:
rowley wrote:I like this game can I play. I'll do Duran

Hagler - Lost
Leonard - Lost
Hearns - Lost
Buchanan - Won
Benitez - Lost

Two out of five same as Hopkins - top ten ATG stuff there

Ah but you missed a Leonard - Won out of that too, Jeff

Plus, he didn't just lose to Hearns, he was rolled like a drunk.

Too right Fists, that probably counts double, god he gets worse

by **88Chris05** Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:33 pm

How about Ali?

Foreman - WON
Frazier - LOST, got lucky in the third bout
Norton - LOST all three, got two gift decisions
Holmes - LOST
Liston - WON, but they were both fixes

This game's dead easy!

by Rowley Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:34 pm

Scottrf wrote:No wonder Burley never won a title. He was awful.

He won one out of five he's as good as Duran, couple that with him not getting rolled like a drunk in any of his and he is probably better than Roberto

by J.Benson II Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:35 pm

Too be fair on Hopkins, the losses to Calzaghe and Taylor (I) were debatable to say the least. I thought he beat both.
Jones Jr remains the only man to have beaten him in a fairly conclusive manner.

by Imperial Ghosty Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:35 pm

Even Robinson

1. Maxim- LOSS
2. LaMotta- LOSS
3. Basilio- LOSS
4. Fullmer- LOSS
5. Turpin- LOSS

He can't be top 100 p4p?

by Scottrf Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:35 pm

Best boxer with no wins?

by Imperial Ghosty Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:36 pm

rowley wrote:
Scottrf wrote:No wonder Burley never won a title. He was awful.

He won one out of five he's as good as Duran, couple that with him not getting rolled like a drunk in any of his and he is probably better than Roberto

Archie Moore was a young man when he beat so it doesn't count as good victory Jeff, he had to be at least 38 before a win over him means anything

by **88Chris05** Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:37 pm

Scottrf wrote:Best boxer with no wins?

Well I never lost to the guys that Robinson lost to, so I'd like to nominate me.

by Green Giant Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:38 pm

Pathetic attempts to ruin my argument with situations that are clearly not the same.

Ok maybe I should have used some more context but I merely trying to show how Hopkins recent wins over the likes of Pascal put him too higher regard with the lot of you.

by Imperial Ghosty Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:40 pm

In what case have any of us not used the best opponents available?

by Green Giant Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:41 pm

You know what your doing

by Scottrf Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:42 pm

LaMotta above Armstrong, Angott and Gavilan?

by Imperial Ghosty Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:43 pm

Would have him above them because he beat Robinson Scott, did the others?

by Scottrf Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:46 pm

I see your point.

by Green Giant Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:48 pm

If anything all you've done is ignore the opening point instead of responding my making clearly false and extremely bias lists.

Disappointing but this is what you've always done.

by **88Chris05** Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:49 pm

Green Giant wrote:Pathetic attempts to ruin my argument with situations that are clearly not the same.

Ok maybe I should have used some more context but I merely trying to show how Hopkins recent wins over the likes of Pascal put him too higher regard with the lot of you.

I'll bite.

First of all, whether or not the five fighters you listed were, when taking everything in to account, the five best opponents Hopkins has faced is debatable. For instance, both of the Taylor results were highly questionable, and given that Taylor has done precious little since, it would be entirely reasonable if someone opted to take Taylor out of that list and replace him with, say, Glen Johnson, a fighter who Hopkins beat.

Next, Hopkins' career can't simply be broken down in to 'beat him, lost to him.' Like it or not, he was a Middleweight champion for a decade, and four of those years were spent as THE undisputed king of that weight class. Fighters who have achieved that are few and far between, particularly in one of the original eight weight divisions. He is, quite literally, one of only two or three fighters ever who can claim to have been the best in their division while past the age of forty and, combining the list you've produced along with De la Hoya, Wright, Johnson, Joppy, Pascal etc, there is more than enough depth on his record to surely at least warrant consideration for a top twenty-five spot, even if you think he falls just short?

by Imperial Ghosty Tue 12 Jul 2011, 5:50 pm

Disapointing indeed GG

by Green Giant Tue 12 Jul 2011, 6:05 pm

Thank you chris.

Taylor as you have stated hasn't done much after I can agree on. If you want to replace him with johnsOn though we have a problem. While it was johnsons first lost he was very much still a working progress and his losses after show that he had a long way to go. Taylor at the time however was very much a live contender.

Pavlik is a better win than Johnson.

The list wasn't to question that hopkins is a great fighter more just to deflate the aura surrounding him. He gets far too much credit just for winning while old. Hopkins had a very late prime and always had the style so that he can go on for years past everyone else. A win over pascal for froch isn't seen as much to most but for Hopkins makes him a top25 ATG.

Age is made too much of an issue. Is morrales rubbish because he couldn't win against the best when he hit 28?

by **88Chris05** Tue 12 Jul 2011, 6:22 pm

Green Giant, it's true that Hopkins was a late bloomer, but even so, winning a legitimate world title at forty-six is going some. Let's not forget that there have been numerous times when his 'prime' and, in fact, his whole career has looked finished.

Loses twice to Taylor, looks finished and everyone writes him off. Bounces back by jumping up to 175 lb and dethroning Tarver.

Loses to Calzaghe, looks finished and everyone writes him off. Bounces back by thoroughly outboxing the 34-0 (30) Pavlik who, though plenty will try to deny it now, was being tipped for big, big things.

Looks awful in a sham of a fight with Jones, looks finished and everyone writes him off. Bounces back by twice (save for a poor decision first time out) outboxing the best that the Light-Heavyweight division had to offer.

I can't agree that he gets "too much credit just for winning while old" when so few others have managed it at the highest level. Also, the comparisons between Froch and Hopkins' respective wins over Pascal isn't really a fair one. When Froch beat Pascal, it was his first win of note at world level, whereas Hopkins was already an all-time great before a fight with Pascal had ever been considered.

by Super D Boon Wed 13 Jul 2011, 12:34 pm

Green Giant wrote:Pathetic attempts to ruin my argument with situations that are clearly not the same.

Ok maybe I should have used some more context but I merely trying to show how Hopkins recent wins over the likes of Pascal put him too higher regard with the lot of you.

Absolutely agree with the second sentence. I never rated Pascal myself and it's lauded as a great win just because the Froch nuthuggers (and there are LOTS on the forum!) like to big Pascal as some kind of monster light heavy when he's just a 4 round slug and gas merchant.

Hopkins is a legend though but top 25 ever is too high!

by paperbag_puncher Wed 13 Jul 2011, 12:58 pm

Harry Greb sucks.

Gene Tunney - won
Gene Tunney - lost
Gene Tunney - lost
Gene Tunney - lost
Gene Tunney - NC (probably lost)

Top 5? You avin a laugh???

Or your beloved JC?

RJJ - lost 3/5 after JC getting KO'd twice.
Hopkins - you've already covered and illustrated how hes not a great
Kessler - Fought non entities until being battered round the ring by Ward (Ward's first real test)
Jeff Lacy - lost 3/7 afterwards including a loss against RJJ (says it all)
Another - it doesnt really matter who you put in here....

by Super D Boon Wed 13 Jul 2011, 1:03 pm

paperbag_puncher wrote:Harry Greb sucks.

Gene Tunney - won
Gene Tunney - lost
Gene Tunney - lost
Gene Tunney - lost
Gene Tunney - NC (probably lost)

Top 5? You avin a laugh???

Or your beloved JC?

RJJ - lost 3/5 after JC getting KO'd twice.
Hopkins - you've already covered and illustrated how hes not a great
Kessler - Fought non entities until being battered round the ring by Ward (Ward's first real test)
Jeff Lacy - lost 3/7 afterwards including a loss against RJJ (says it all)
Another - it doesnt really matter who you put in here....

by Super D Boon Wed 13 Jul 2011, 1:04 pm

But you have to list all 46 results of Joe Calzaghe to get the full picture:

Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Very Happy

by Scottrf Wed 13 Jul 2011, 1:04 pm

Super D Boon. See the log out button? Click it. Then find the X at the top right hand corner of your screen and click that too.

by Rowley Wed 13 Jul 2011, 1:06 pm

Super D Boon wrote:But you have to list all 46 results of Joe Calzaghe to get the full picture:

Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won
Won

Would have to do the same for Sven Ottke, not sure it proves too much

by **88Chris05** Wed 13 Jul 2011, 1:11 pm

Just wish Brian Nielsen and Valuev had retired when they were also 48-0 or whatever they were. Their legacies would be looking a lot more solid, too.

by **HumanWindmill** Wed 13 Jul 2011, 1:14 pm

ATG status is dependant on what a fighter does, as opposed to what he does not do.

Almost everybody loses if his record combines longevity with ambitious matchmaking.

by Rowley Wed 13 Jul 2011, 1:21 pm

88Chris05 wrote:Just wish Brian Nielsen and Valuev had retired when they were also 48-0 or whatever they were. Their legacies would be looking a lot more solid, too.

Brian Nielsen 64-3
Muhammad Ali 57-5

Think that tells it's own story, and Truss got upset because people didn't have that joker as the best ever!

by **88Chris05** Wed 13 Jul 2011, 1:25 pm

rowley wrote:
88Chris05 wrote:Just wish Brian Nielsen and Valuev had retired when they were also 48-0 or whatever they were. Their legacies would be looking a lot more solid, too.

Brian Nielsen 64-3
Muhammad Ali 57-5

Think that tells it's own story, and Truss got upset because people didn't have that joker as the best ever!

And let's not forget that Ali was exposed by Holmes - but Nielsen took Holmes to school.

Might have to reopen my old forgotten greats series, here!

by Rowley Wed 13 Jul 2011, 1:26 pm

No point Chris he is not forgotten by those in the know.

by BALTIMORA Wed 13 Jul 2011, 1:26 pm

88Chris05 wrote:Green Giant, it's true that Hopkins was a late bloomer, but even so, winning a legitimate world title at forty-six is going some. Let's not forget that there have been numerous times when his 'prime' and, in fact, his whole career has looked finished.

Loses twice to Taylor, looks finished and everyone writes him off. Bounces back by jumping up to 175 lb and dethroning Tarver.

Loses to Calzaghe, looks finished and everyone writes him off. Bounces back by thoroughly outboxing the 34-0 (30) Pavlik who, though plenty will try to deny it now, was being tipped for big, big things.

Looks awful in a sham of a fight with Jones, looks finished and everyone writes him off. Bounces back by twice (save for a poor decision first time out) outboxing the best that the Light-Heavyweight division had to offer.

I can't agree that he gets "too much credit just for winning while old" when so few others have managed it at the highest level. Also, the comparisons between Froch and Hopkins' respective wins over Pascal isn't really a fair one. When Froch beat Pascal, it was his first win of note at world level, whereas Hopkins was already an all-time great before a fight with Pascal had ever been considered.

Pavlik WAS being touted for greatness, this is true, but Hopkins also brought Pavlik up to 170, not the 160 he (Pavlik) had made his name at. Petty, but mitigating nonetheless.

by Green Giant Wed 13 Jul 2011, 3:27 pm

This thread is not about losses in general. Its about how you did in your greatest tests (in suitable context of course, none of this Holmes-Ali rubbish please), which hopkins doesnt fair aswell as his status gives out.

Beating RRJ and Calzaghe is far greater achievement than 10 pascals in my books, but you lot seem to believe otherwise.

Greb is overrated.

by Michaels, Sean Wed 13 Jul 2011, 3:32 pm

I think you make a good point Jolly (I hope you don't mind the informality). I think BHop is held in too high esteem.

What would Kosta Tszyu's 'hardest' 5 fights be, and would Hatton be in that 5?

by Green Giant Wed 13 Jul 2011, 3:35 pm

88Chris05 wrote: Also, the comparisons between Froch and Hopkins' respective wins over Pascal isn't really a fair one. When Froch beat Pascal, it was his first win of note at world level, whereas Hopkins was already an all-time great before a fight with Pascal had ever been considered.

Wait so Hopkins win over Pascal is better then Frochs (who did much more convincingly) because Hopkins Is already an ATG?

HumanWindmill wrote: ATG status is dependant on what a fighter does, as opposed to what he does not do.

Sorry cant agree with this, if a fighter loses and he is in no way a shell of himself he should be judged for it. how this affects his legacy depends on the manner of the loss and who he fought.

by **HumanWindmill** Wed 13 Jul 2011, 3:40 pm

Green Giant wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote: ATG status is dependant on what a fighter does, as opposed to what he does not do.

Sorry cant agree with this, if a fighter loses and he is in no way a shell of himself he should be judged for it. how this affects his legacy depends on the manner of the loss and who he fought.

Jack Johnson, ATG, was sparked by a lightheavy on the way up.

Jack Dempsey, ATG, was sparked by Jim Flynn in one round on the way up.

Joe Louis, ATG, was sparked by past - his - best Max Schmeling on the way up.

Henry Armstrong, ATG, had a very chequered career early on.

Sugar Ray Robinson, ATG, played ' pass the parcel ' with the middleweight crown during the fifties.

by Scottrf Wed 13 Jul 2011, 3:45 pm

HumanWindmill wrote:
Green Giant wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote: ATG status is dependant on what a fighter does, as opposed to what he does not do.

Sorry cant agree with this, if a fighter loses and he is in no way a shell of himself he should be judged for it. how this affects his legacy depends on the manner of the loss and who he fought.

Jack Johnson, ATG, was sparked by a lightheavy on the way up.

Jack Dempsey, ATG, was sparked by Jim Flynn in one round on the way up.

Joe Louis, ATG, was sparked by past - his - best Max Schmeling on the way up.

Henry Armstrong, ATG, had a very chequered career early on.

Sugar Ray Robinson, ATG, played ' pass the parcel ' with the middleweight crown during the fifties.

All have to be judged for it. Not written off, but of course without bad losses they would be thought of even higher.

by Green Giant Wed 13 Jul 2011, 3:46 pm

HumanWindmill wrote:
Green Giant wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote: ATG status is dependant on what a fighter does, as opposed to what he does not do.

Sorry cant agree with this, if a fighter loses and he is in no way a shell of himself he should be judged for it. how this affects his legacy depends on the manner of the loss and who he fought.

Jack Johnson, ATG, was sparked by a lightheavy on the way up.

Jack Dempsey, ATG, was sparked by Jim Flynn in one round on the way up.

Joe Louis, ATG, was sparked by past - his - best Max Schmeling on the way up.

Henry Armstrong, ATG, had a very chequered career early on.

Sugar Ray Robinson, ATG, played ' pass the parcel ' with the middleweight crown during the fifties.

And they would be even greater if they didnt lose those fights.

by **HumanWindmill** Wed 13 Jul 2011, 3:48 pm

Scottrf wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:
Green Giant wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote: ATG status is dependant on what a fighter does, as opposed to what he does not do.

Sorry cant agree with this, if a fighter loses and he is in no way a shell of himself he should be judged for it. how this affects his legacy depends on the manner of the loss and who he fought.

Jack Johnson, ATG, was sparked by a lightheavy on the way up.

Jack Dempsey, ATG, was sparked by Jim Flynn in one round on the way up.

Joe Louis, ATG, was sparked by past - his - best Max Schmeling on the way up.

Henry Armstrong, ATG, had a very chequered career early on.

Sugar Ray Robinson, ATG, played ' pass the parcel ' with the middleweight crown during the fifties.

All have to be judged for it. Not written off, but of course without bad losses they would be thought of even higher.

I absolutely agree, Scott.

The tone of this article, however, is very much inclined toward ' writing off ' Hopkins, though, which is my underlying point.

by **HumanWindmill** Wed 13 Jul 2011, 3:51 pm

Green Giant wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:
Green Giant wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote: ATG status is dependant on what a fighter does, as opposed to what he does not do.

Sorry cant agree with this, if a fighter loses and he is in no way a shell of himself he should be judged for it. how this affects his legacy depends on the manner of the loss and who he fought.

Jack Johnson, ATG, was sparked by a lightheavy on the way up.

Jack Dempsey, ATG, was sparked by Jim Flynn in one round on the way up.

Joe Louis, ATG, was sparked by past - his - best Max Schmeling on the way up.

Henry Armstrong, ATG, had a very chequered career early on.

Sugar Ray Robinson, ATG, played ' pass the parcel ' with the middleweight crown during the fifties.

And they would be even greater if they didnt lose those fights.

And Calzaghe would be considered greater if his resumé sported a Jones Junior who wasn't about to draw his old age pension.

by Sponsored content