Top 50 middleweights ever - No 5, Bernard Hopkins

Legacy and legend are Bernard Hopkins's two favourite words. Old school is another (well it's two words really). Most of that legacy is built on the ten-year run that made him the longest reigning world middleweight champion in history. But does Hopkins really get the credit he deserves? He certainly doesn't think so.

Hopkins is a product of his times. At the time his reign was beginning, the boxers he hoped would provide that legacy were moving upwards - Roy Jones Jr, James Toney. When you stand back and think about it, it seems remarkable that Hopkins and Joe Calzaghe spent nearly eight years as world champions in division just eight pounds apart, but only met last month at light-heavyweight. The Calzaghe knockers will blame the Welshman for that, but it was Hopkins who backed out of the fight.

Indeed Hopkins's first six years as world middleweight champion, after he had lost to Jones, was remarkably uninteresting. He beat an old light-middleweight champion in John David Jackson (who would later become his pad man) and an old welterweight champion in Simon Brown. His most impressive scalp was that of Glen Johnson, becoming the first man to beat the Jamaican and also stopping him in the eleventh round, having won the first ten.

But Hopkins was very much on the minor circuit, boxing in Indian reservation casinos and places like Shreveport, Louisiana, and Landover, Maryland. Still, when he got his chance, he took it, winning unification matches against Keith Holmes, Felix Trinidad and Oscar De La Hoya to become the first boxer to hold WBC, WBA, WBO and IBF titles at the same time.

Hopkins's lack of opportunities came from his unwillingness to play ball with the television companies and major promoters, while his often unexciting style made him easy to freeze out. The other minus point for him was his unwillingness to travel as a champion - two bouts abroad, a draw in Ecuador and an early career points win over a journeyman as the house fighter in Paris do not make a champion of the world.

Still, for being the longest reigning middleweight champion, Hopkins gets a top five spot.

Comments

[Phill Arrowsmith]

I've never been a Hopkins fan but I can't help but wonder where he would have been on this list if he'd spent the last few years fighting the way he did against Pavlik. Alternatively, is Pavlik a very average boxer who only looked good against even poorer opposition? I sincerely hope Hopkins gets the winner of Jones v Calzaghe. Only then will we get a chance to see if he has come back as a true great or is still just a guy with a great record.

[Tge Best]

No. 5 is an insult to a legend. I wish I could sit down an analyze his fights with Taylor and Joe C. So you can understand what clean effective punches are about. As for the division during his reign; blame Hopkins. Because when you're great you have a funny way of making others look less than average. Hopefully if B-Hop fights long enough somebody will actually beat him and satisfy those of you who are less than honest. My favorite boxers are sweet pea and the hitman, but i'm honest about the sport.

[Phill Arrowsmith]

Well said Ron. Amjad how many times have you seen a winning boxer who is easily beating the crap out of his opponent, feign injury - twice - to try to buy a few minutes rest?
No, me neither. Hopkins did one thing VERY well - he made Calzaghe look bad. But then that's all Hopkins has ever achieved in the ring. Go back to watching Wrestling, you'll see loads of great 'fighters' there.

[Ron Lewis]

Amjad, Apart from the fact that I despise anyone who calls themself a boxing fan yet insults boxers (girly slaps, indeed), I have no idea what fight you were watching. Hopkins had Calzaghe on the floor, but never followed it up. He wasn't catching him all night, Hopkins held, used his head repeatedly, punched low and surrendered the whole second half of the fight through being inactive. I am quite prepared to entertain people who think Hopkins won, but I would prefer them to have a foot in reality before I bother to listen.

[Amjad]

u people r retarted. hopkins beat the crap out of joe calzaghe and did it pretty easily. if his corner would've told him the judges were GIVING all the rounds to calzaghe, hopkins probably would've just knocked him out. however, like many trues fans of the SWEET SCIENCE, hopkins thought he was winning. if i knocked a guy on his ass the and hit him with 1,2s the whole night and he retaliated with rabbit punches, low blows, and girly slaps on the arms, i would think i won the fight 2.

[Crashing Dashing Kid]

Sorry James but although I accept your point about strength of opposition, during his time Hopkins was not even the best at his weight. Toney & Jones were both superior fighters who chose to move on due to the dearth of talent at middleweight. Because of it, Hopkins chose to stay there.

[James Fairweather]

As I said, Kid, I don't disagree about the standard of Hopkins' opposition - this isn't his fault and is a charge that is routinely levelled at many long-reigning champions. Joe Louis, Joe Calzaghe and, of more relevance in this division, Marvin Hagler suffer this accusation.

Let's examine Hagler's championship record, leaving out Duran (against whom he was woeful), Hearns, Leonard and Mugabi, all of whom were above their best weights. Fully Obel twice, Mustafa Hamsho twice, Antuofermo, Scypion, Lee, Sibson and Roldan do not constitute an imposing selection of fighters on the face of it and are certainly no better than Joppy, Holmes, Eastman, Echols and Glen Johnson.

I'm not saying this to denigrate Hagler, who is in the Top 10 of my favourite ever fighters, but to point out that it is child's play to pick holes in a fighter's record when he has been champion for any length of time. Hopkins is not the equal of Hagler, we may agree. It is not ridiculous to call him a Top 10 middleweight, however.

[Crashing Dashing Kid]

C'mon fellas ... let the dissenters list Hopkins best wins that did not involve fighters who were moving up in weight or those that were past their best. I wait with baited breath.

[Phill Arrowsmith]

I've never liked Hopkins as a 'fighter' because he is too negative but this brings us back to an argument that has been going on (at least in my mind!) since the Best of British list - that of record over perceived skill. On record alone Hopkins deserves at least a top five place. Unfortunately, despite being a truly exceptional counter puncher, his style is so frustrating that he will never be widely respected and his place in history will merely be in the stats of his achievements as opposed to any glory. Personally I would do the list entirely on a hunch and almost ignore the stats - but then I'd have Herol Graham in the top 10 (had he been around in this day of alphabet champions he'd have ruled for years) so that would just cause more arguments.

[BRAD]

I've got a lot of admiration for Hopkins, but he didn't do himself many favours for moaning after he lost to Calzaghe, and fighting so negatively. If there was a list for boxing's 50 best talkers, then Hopkins would be right at the top, but he often promised more than he actually delivered. His best wins at middleweight were against blown up welters in Trinidad and De La Hoya, while he lost to Roy Jones and Jermain Taylor. A legend in his own lunchtime, I reckon.

[James Fairweather]

C'mon Kid, I'm normally right behind you in your judgements, but there are least a couple of objections here that really can't be sustained.

Hopkins avoided no-one - he wasn't, as Ron Lewis has pointed out, much in the way of box office and was and is a difficult old cuss, which made it easy to sideline him when big fights were in the offing. Are you seriously suggesting that Hopkins was frit of someone at 160 lbs?

He didn't go abroad much - well, true, but Greb was conspicuous by his absence from foreign rings and I don't remember Ketchel travelling much, either.

Your argument about his success against smaller weight fighters is fair enough, but it should be remembered that even the great Hagler gets tarred with that brush. That is to forget Hagler's Philly wars and it also ignores Hopkins' dominance (post Roy Jones) of what was admittedly almost the worst decade in 160 lb history. Hopkins can't be held responsible for that standard.

I'm not sure that Hopkins belongs quite as high as 5, but credit where it's due - he would have held his own in most middleweight eras.

[Crashing Dashing Kid]

Hopkins is not a top 5 middleweight because he
a)avoided many top middleweight fighters
b)rarely fought outside his own country
c)was only successful against smaller fighters stepping up in weight, or fighters on the slide
d)only one of several champs in a very, very weak (historically speaking)division
If asked to name the list of genuine world class middleweight fighters Hopkins had defeated, only silence would follow. Hopkins could not beat Jones Jnr or Calzaghe. This evidence enough that he has never been the best fighter at whatever weight he has fought at. Had there been any decent level of competition at middleweight the better fighters would have stayed there - but all the good fighters by-passed it because it was devoid of class and Hops would not fight them anyways.