IS BHOP A TOP FIVE MIDDLEWEIGHT?

I think we all sort of shrug and say yeah he is. But is he really?

Let's look at what he's done.

BHOP became THE MAN at 160 when he defeated Keith Holmes in 2001 to consolidate the division. Then he had an impressive seven defenses before losing to Jermaine Taylor. He probably has three wins over HOFers in Roy Jones, Oscar and Tito though one would argue NONE of those were HOFers AS middleweight. He has defeated ranked middleweights on fifteen occasions, two ranked light heavies and fought well into his 40's.

It is an enormously impressive resume. Now let's look at some others.

Sugar Ray Robinson-Five time champion at middle, Defeated 19 ranked middleweights. Defeated HOFers Bobo Olson, Jake Lamotta, Carmen Basilio and Gene Fulmer a total of eleven times with three losses and a draw. My own view is his top of the middleweight foodchain wins place him ahead of Hopkins here.

Carlos Monzon-14 title defenses as THE MAN. 13 of those defenses were against top five ranked men. Defeated HOF middleweights Benvenuti and Griffith a total of four times. Retired as champion. This is actually pretty close. But 14 defenses to seven puts Monzon on top.

Marvin Hagler-12 defenses as THE MAN, eleven by KO. 19 wins over ranked middleweights. That does NOT include Roberto Duran. No wins over HOFers at middle unless one wants to count Tommy Hearns. Again, this is pretty close, but Marvin has the edge in every category except longevity.

Harry Greb-I just went through this on another thread. BHOP has no chance.

Stanley Ketchell-He owned the division and just crushed everyone out there. But he didn't last long as champion. I give BHOP the edge here.

Mickey Walker-Defeated nine ranked middleweights and had five title defenses. So far he doesn't measure up. But here is where it gets tricky. While weighing under 165 and fighting light heavyweights he defeated eight ranked light heavies and heavies. Should they count as middleweight fights? Given the amount of weight he was usually giving up? I'm going to say yes. So that's 17 wins over ranked guys and wins over HOF middles or light heavies including Tiger Flowers and Paul Berlenbach. Again, VERY close. Is Walker the superior fighter? Yup. Was he the more accomplished middle? Open to question.

BHOP suffers a little because there was simply a dearth of talent in the division in the 1990's. But he did the only thing a fan can ask. He whipped'em all.

Is he a top five middle? I think the best one can say is it's arguable or maybe. Look at those names. It's not exactly an insult.

Beside Sugar Ray Robinson and Marvin Hagler he beats them all.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Beside Sugar Ray Robinson and Marvin Hagler he beats them all.

Got anything but a blind assertion?

So are you saying in a fight with all at their peaks that all these guys would beat Hopkins?

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

So are you saying in a fight with all at their peaks that all these guys would beat Hopkins?

I'm asking if you have anything to support your assertion?

He's a better fighter than them.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

He's a better fighter than them.

LOL, yeah ok. Support one assertion with another. That's high quality debate there!

Look what do you actually know about Greb and Walker and Monzon and Ketchell?

I would say yes Bernard deserves to be ahead of Walker.

The problem with today's generation is they're usually ignorant to the past greats of that division, they haven't seen those fighters in action nor have they dissected their resumes . That's why you've got kids today claiming Pacquiao is the greatest ever.

Ali_1748 wrote:

I would say yes Bernard deserves to be ahead of Walker.

The problem with today's generation is they're usually ignorant to the past greats of that division, they haven't seen those fighters in action nor have they dissected their resumes . That's why you've got kids today claiming Pacquiao is the greatest ever.

I think that's where I come out too. That gets him to number five in my view. What got me doing this was comments longtime Philly promoter Russel Peltz made. He said basically that BHOP was a Bennie Briscoe or Georgie Benton or Boogaloo Watts level fighter. Now those guys were all excellent. But none ever won a title. Then I went and looked over the IBRO rankings. I have a great deal of respect for the thinking of the guys over there. They have BHOP at #13 behind guys like Zale and LaMotta and Cerdan and Fitzsimmons and Burley.

I just don't buy it. I think one can make an argument for BHOP beign out of the top five, but out of the top ten? Really? And has the division fallen so far that Boogaloo and BHOP are a pick'em fight? I just can't see it. But Pelz has been around Philly fighting for 40+ years.

sorry bo hops not a top tener at all..i dont believe for a second he could beat a jake lamotta..or a fullmer for example..hes not going to lull top middles to sleep with his slow boring pace.when he got the liver shot in against oscar the fight was up for grabs.both these guys for example would put far more heat on bo hop then he ever experienced in his career in one night.if he tried his rough stuff he will come out second best.he will find out these are men not little boys that hes used to playing with...as far as a edge over ketchel ill disagree..yeah stanley died at a young age but the dozen or so guys he beat comparrison wise in quality was better then bo hops list of also rans..
a few years ago i read a article in detail by a good boxing writer who had a difficult time placing bo hop in the top 20..i dont but to me its a stretch to place him higher then 14 or 15...
there are times when the x and o s and even sometimes the rated fighters they beat should be tossed out the window..yep a guideline which is excellent but far from absolute..would i rate bo hop over fitsimmons at middle for example..nope.over fullmer and the quality of fighters he faced and beat.nope.against a giardello when he actualy trained would bo hop get away with the rough stuff..ask fulmer if bo hop would..would i place him over zale..cerdan..i wont ...patterson beat roy harris brian london tom mcnelly santo amante hurricane jackson etc etc all rated fighters.someones name had to be placed in the rankings to fill out the top ten..bo hop is a legit hofamer..a top 5 middleweight...far from it..especialy in a division with excellent talent..mickey walker yes had greatness at both welter and middle of course..a killer puncher a big time drinker..dispite that put mickey in bo hops era how long would he have been middleweight champ...forever..lenth of service as a champ like x and os sometimes isnt as impressive as it looks.walker lamotta and bo hop are perfect examples..steping in the ring is one thing..to actualy fight when in there is another..bo hop is a good example of that also in some ways...

it's too hard to compare the boxers of today to the boxers of the past. the whole situation is different now, fighters fight less frequently, a loss is devestating to a career now, the best don't fight the best. it's hard to look at a Sugar Ray Robinson's resume and then a Bernard Hopkins resume and say that Hopkins belongs in the same company. i'm glad i'm not so old where such matters eat away at my dementia ridden brain

Bernard fought all the best Middleweights that was available to him at the time, it's not his fault the talent of competition dipped. I blame the introduction of Super Middleweight, those extra 8lb's make it more appealing to move up once weight cutting begins to be difficult.

[quote="dbudge87"]it's too hard to compare the boxers of today to the boxers of the past. the whole situation is different now, fighters fight less frequently, a loss is devestating to a career now, the best don't fight the best. it's hard to look at a Sugar Ray Robinson's resume and then a Bernard Hopkins resume and say that Hopkins belongs in the same company. i'm glad i'm not so old where such matters eat away at my dementia ridden brain[/quote]

Don't worry you young whippersnapper, you'll get there...where's my cheese whiz?

i got to go to drs now but i like to disguss percieved lenth of service..sam langford as a example..many rank same in the HWS cause he fought plenty of them..i dont ..i place sam in the LHS as a great one.can he fit in both .yep except sam most of his carrer did not weight in at heavyweight miniimum..now sam fought jack johnson sam was 158..a middle..sam fought many fights at the weight of a middleweight even if was agaqint heavys...sam never a champ..soo would i rate bo ho over sam at middle..not in 100 billion years.thats another percieved x and o.

Marble say Super Middleweight didn't exist and Hopkins fought the all the great talent from that division including a certain Lights Out, how do you think he would've held up ?

Ali_1748 wrote:

Marble say Super Middleweight didn't exist and Hopkins fought the all the great talent from that division including a certain Lights Out, how do you think he would've held up ?

I think great! His weak spot seems to be exceptional athletes and I just don't think the Nigel Benn's and Chris Eubanks' and Frankie Liles and Stevie Collins and Byron Mitchell and Charles Brewer's qualify.

Of course I also think Calzaghe and Jones at anything remotely close to their best beat BHOP every single time.

I'd have bet on James Toney back then as well...if he's in shape.

This is all just a matter of opinion so I hope nobody gets too mad when I say that I'm pretty damn sure Hopkins isn't even in the top 10, let alone the top 20 middleweights of all time. Sure, he came along in a weak era in the MW division, but I don't think things like intentionally falling out the ring while fighting "Robert Allen" , who was about to take his crown, are characteristics of a great fighter, let alone a great MW. He had a chance to beat an overrated "Jermaine Taylor" but punked out in most of their rounds together. Hopkins lives and dies off of his "Felix Trinidad" win. That's about it. He also had a chance to prove himself in the first "Roy Jones" fight but looked like a limited fighter against a prime Jones. His win over De La Hoya was BS. Hopkins also cleverly managed to put the name of an "over the hill" Roy Jones on his record so less than intelligent historians would figure he avenged the loss to a man who was arguably the best MW of his era. Bernard is a sound technical fighter but how far would his safety first style get him against, say Emile Griffith? Ray Robinson? Carlos Monzon? Marvin Hagler? Carmen Basilio? Jake LaMotta? No far at all. After all, I think all of us could agree that these guys are a lot better than Jermaine Taylor. Hopkins is the best MW of his day. That will get him into the HOF. If you ask me, I think that makes him one lucky SOB. Also, I don't think it's that difficult comparing fighters of different eras. Once we get past the bare knuckle eras, the comparisons become much easier. For example, we can easily look at films and see that Robinson was a better figther than Hopkins. Where Hopkins is concerned, I think Robinson has a lot of company. Just my take.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Ali_1748 wrote:

I would say yes Bernard deserves to be ahead of Walker.

The problem with today's generation is they're usually ignorant to the past greats of that division, they haven't seen those fighters in action nor have they dissected their resumes . That's why you've got kids today claiming Pacquiao is the greatest ever.

I think that's where I come out too. That gets him to number five in my view. What got me doing this was comments longtime Philly promoter Russel Peltz made. He said basically that BHOP was a Bennie Briscoe or Georgie Benton or Boogaloo Watts level fighter. Now those guys were all excellent. But none ever won a title. Then I went and looked over the IBRO rankings. I have a great deal of respect for the thinking of the guys over there. They have BHOP at #13 behind guys like Zale and LaMotta and Cerdan and Fitzsimmons and Burley.

I just don't buy it. I think one can make an argument for BHOP beign out of the top five, but out of the top ten? Really? And has the division fallen so far that Boogaloo and BHOP are a pick'em fight? I just can't see it. But Pelz has been around Philly fighting for 40+ years.

Marble I am not trying to start anything but if he is ahead of Walker should he be on a certain list of ours?

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Ali_1748 wrote:

I would say yes Bernard deserves to be ahead of Walker.

The problem with today's generation is they're usually ignorant to the past greats of that division, they haven't seen those fighters in action nor have they dissected their resumes . That's why you've got kids today claiming Pacquiao is the greatest ever.

I think that's where I come out too. That gets him to number five in my view. What got me doing this was comments longtime Philly promoter Russel Peltz made. He said basically that BHOP was a Bennie Briscoe or Georgie Benton or Boogaloo Watts level fighter. Now those guys were all excellent. But none ever won a title. Then I went and looked over the IBRO rankings. I have a great deal of respect for the thinking of the guys over there. They have BHOP at #13 behind guys like Zale and LaMotta and Cerdan and Fitzsimmons and Burley.

I just don't buy it. I think one can make an argument for BHOP beign out of the top five, but out of the top ten? Really? And has the division fallen so far that Boogaloo and BHOP are a pick'em fight? I just can't see it. But Pelz has been around Philly fighting for 40+ years.

Marble I am not trying to start anything but if he is ahead of Walker should he be on a certain list of ours?

I think I can buy Bhop being out of the top 20. Let's look at it this way. During the mid to late 70's, Marvin Hagler went through a great deal of Phili Middleweights because of Hugo Corro's refusal to fight him. We have, Sugar Ray Seales, Willie "The Worm" Monroe, Cyclone Hart, Eugene Watts and Bennie Briscoe (Who Hagler defeated when Bennie was on his way out.). Is it realistic to say that all those fighters had an excellent chance to defeat "Bernard Hopkins?" If we watch them fight, and we're honest with ourselves, I think the answer is an emphatic "yes."

4445Frank wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Ali_1748 wrote:

I would say yes Bernard deserves to be ahead of Walker.

The problem with today's generation is they're usually ignorant to the past greats of that division, they haven't seen those fighters in action nor have they dissected their resumes . That's why you've got kids today claiming Pacquiao is the greatest ever.

I think that's where I come out too. That gets him to number five in my view. What got me doing this was comments longtime Philly promoter Russel Peltz made. He said basically that BHOP was a Bennie Briscoe or Georgie Benton or Boogaloo Watts level fighter. Now those guys were all excellent. But none ever won a title. Then I went and looked over the IBRO rankings. I have a great deal of respect for the thinking of the guys over there. They have BHOP at #13 behind guys like Zale and LaMotta and Cerdan and Fitzsimmons and Burley.

I just don't buy it. I think one can make an argument for BHOP beign out of the top five, but out of the top ten? Really? And has the division fallen so far that Boogaloo and BHOP are a pick'em fight? I just can't see it. But Pelz has been around Philly fighting for 40+ years.

Marble I am not trying to start anything but if he is ahead of Walker should he be on a certain list of ours?

I think I can buy Bhop being out of the top 20. Let's look at it this way. During the mid to late 70's, Marvin Hagler went through a great deal of Phili Middleweights because of Hugo Corro's refusal to fight him. We have, Sugar Ray Seales, Willie "The Worm" Monroe, Cyclone Hart, Eugene Watts and Bennie Briscoe (Who Hagler defeated when Bennie was on his way out.). Is it realistic to say that all those fighters had an excellent chance to defeat "Bernard Hopkins?" If we watch them fight, and we're honest with ourselves, I think the answer is an emphatic "yes."

Its not a who can beat who contest is it? Its a who has a better resume right? or am I off here?

frank i agree with your assesment more or less. mostly a whole lot more....ali sorry bo hop doesnt belong ahead of mickey walker in any way shape or form..now we are thinking what ifs.what if there was no 168 lb division...what stoped bo hop from fighting them..mickey walker greb langford and others fought plenty of bigger guys..ill give you a what if..what if good decent second maybe even third tier fighters in the middle division that were rarely ranked fought bo hops people..bo hops ranked fighters..i feel the result that they would of beaton most of bo hops fighters with wins far more impressive then he did.mr super no action mr caution..the 2nd or 3rd tier good middles im thinking of that were either rarely ranked or maybe never ranked is artie levine and joey dejohn..they would have a lot of ko not tko wins over bo hops rated fighters.and within 5 -6 rounds..then would we be calling for them as a possible top 5 ever..xs and os again are far from absolute..

soonermark890 wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Ali_1748 wrote:

I would say yes Bernard deserves to be ahead of Walker.

The problem with today's generation is they're usually ignorant to the past greats of that division, they haven't seen those fighters in action nor have they dissected their resumes . That's why you've got kids today claiming Pacquiao is the greatest ever.

I think that's where I come out too. That gets him to number five in my view. What got me doing this was comments longtime Philly promoter Russel Peltz made. He said basically that BHOP was a Bennie Briscoe or Georgie Benton or Boogaloo Watts level fighter. Now those guys were all excellent. But none ever won a title. Then I went and looked over the IBRO rankings. I have a great deal of respect for the thinking of the guys over there. They have BHOP at #13 behind guys like Zale and LaMotta and Cerdan and Fitzsimmons and Burley.

I just don't buy it. I think one can make an argument for BHOP beign out of the top five, but out of the top ten? Really? And has the division fallen so far that Boogaloo and BHOP are a pick'em fight? I just can't see it. But Pelz has been around Philly fighting for 40+ years.

Marble I am not trying to start anything but if he is ahead of Walker should he be on a certain list of ours?

I think I can buy Bhop being out of the top 20. Let's look at it this way. During the mid to late 70's, Marvin Hagler went through a great deal of Phili Middleweights because of Hugo Corro's refusal to fight him. We have, Sugar Ray Seales, Willie "The Worm" Monroe, Cyclone Hart, Eugene Watts and Bennie Briscoe (Who Hagler defeated when Bennie was on his way out.). Is it realistic to say that all those fighters had an excellent chance to defeat "Bernard Hopkins?" If we watch them fight, and we're honest with ourselves, I think the answer is an emphatic "yes."

Its not a who can beat who contest is it? Its a who has a better resume right? or am I off here?

Well, I think the two are similar. Your fighting resume should show what you're capable of. I would never make that statement about Robinson, Monzon or any other great MW.

sooner noo its not a who can beat who to a certain point i agree..yes a resume is a good factor but also a good factor is how you won in that resume maybe and considering the oposition.thats why i put a artie levine in the equation..his wins would of been far more impressive over bo hgops fighting the same opsition..artie isnt a top 5 or ten or 20 or 30 middleweight..this is a case of highly overating bo hop with xs and os.nothing more..sorry..franks right.

dmar5143 wrote:

sooner noo its not a who can beat who to a certain point i agree..yes a resume is a good factor but also a good factor is how you won in that resume maybe and considering the oposition.thats why i put a artie levine in the equation..his wins would of been far more impressive over bo hgops fighting the same opsition..artie isnt a top 5 or ten or 20 or 30 middleweight..this is a case of highly overating bo hop with xs and os.nothing more..sorry..franks right.

I am with you guys in saying he is not a top 5 MW but I would put him in the top 10. His career is good enough for that I think.

Rays above him

Haglers above him

Monzon is above him

Walker was beating heavies ya hes above him

Ketchel would likely lose to him but probably gets rated above him

I think he is top 10 and right on the cusp of 5