Looking For Classic Opinions On Today's Top 4 vs Some Past Greats...

[DINAMITA]

Four questions, please give a full and explanatory answer if you can be bothered...

1.Who was better at middleweight: Bernard Hopkins or Dick Tiger?

2.Who was the more skilled fighter: Floyd Mayweather Jr or Jose Napoles?

3.Whose weight-jumping achievements are better: Manny Pacquiao or Thomas Hearns?

4.Who ranks higher in the all-time Mexican list: Juan Manuel Marquez or Ricardo Lopez?

:bbb

[DINAMITA]

Not a single response?!

[Addie]

1.Who was better at middleweight: Bernard Hopkins or Dick Tiger

My knowledge of Dick Tiger is absolutely void. My answer is worthless.

2.Who was the more skilled fighter: Floyd Mayweather Jr or Jose Napoles?

Skills is a term that varies in definition, but it wouldn't be fair to give an answer on this either seeing as my knowledge on Napoles isn't what it should be. I'll get back to you on this.

3.Whose weight-jumping achievements are better: Manny Pacquiao or Thomas Hearns?

As impressive as it was for Hearns to be successful up at Cruiseweight having started at 147lb, nothing quite beats a former Flyweight moving up to Welterweight to not only beat Oscar De La Hoya, who has fought at Middleweight before, but also stop him.

4.Who ranks higher in the all-time Mexican list: Juan Manuel Marquez or Ricardo Lopez?

I give Marquez some crap for his lacking resume, but even his has more names on it than Lopez. Ricardo could have moved up to 108lb and fought Michael Carbajal and Gonzalez with his skills, but he decided to stay in no man's land. Lopez had an exceptional skill set, but so does Marquez, who also beat more name fighters. Marquez.

[PbP Bacon]

Four questions, please give a full and explanatory answer if you can be bothered...

1.Who was better at middleweight: Bernard Hopkins or Dick Tiger?

2.Who was the more skilled fighter: Floyd Mayweather Jr or Jose Napoles?

3.Whose weight-jumping achievements are better: Manny Pacquiao or Thomas Hearns?

4.Who ranks higher in the all-time Mexican list: Juan Manuel Marquez or Ricardo Lopez?

:bbb


Well, here you go:

1) Undecided

2) Gayweather, not that I am happy with that :twisted:

3) Hearns. He fought better opposition. Pacquiao is great, but De la HBO and Hatton are so-and-so in my list :D

4) I am not sure, but JMM seems kinda better. Not sure

[Manassa]

Four questions, please give a full and explanatory answer if you can be bothered...

1.Who was better at middleweight: Bernard Hopkins or Dick Tiger?

2.Who was the more skilled fighter: Floyd Mayweather Jr or Jose Napoles?

3.Whose weight-jumping achievements are better: Manny Pacquiao or Thomas Hearns?

4.Who ranks higher in the all-time Mexican list: Juan Manuel Marquez or Ricardo Lopez?

:bbb

1. Hopkins - just a more rounded fighter; like comparing Jose Napoles to Henry Armstrong.

2. Hmm... Napoles by the smallest of margins, however Mayweather made up for it with some extra speed.

3. Pacquiao. Wait, Hearns. Yeah, Hearns.

4. Marquez.

[DINAMITA]

Not a single response?!

:lol: Thanks for getting the thread going guys.

Manassa, we hear from you all too infrequently. Care to elaborate further on any of your answers? I'd be really interested to hear them.

[he grant]

1. Hopkins by decision ...
2. Napoles
3. Hearns. Beating a near dead Oscar and a chinless Hatton not there yet ...
4. ? ... Not my guys ...

[Manassa]

:lol: Thanks for getting the thread going guys.

Manassa, we hear from you all too infrequently. Care to elaborate further on any of your answers? I'd be really interested to hear them.

I'm not really into the fighters of the last two questions, but I'll have a go on the first two...

... Hopkins at the moment is hard for many to judge. He's either victimised by old timers because he's too current for them to comprehend (fair enough, but state that opinion please rather than saying Harry Greb would have ripped him a new arsehole :good) or he's overrated by modern fans as a counter opinion to the first one. I reckon he was about the fourth or fifth greatest middleweight of all time (leaving Harry Greb out just for now; uncertainty issues):

1. Carlos Monzon
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Ray Robinson
4. Bernard Hopkins

Old timers ironically or deliberately tend to remember his recent performances, some of which have been lacklustre, and forget about his middle days when he was actually quite fearsome on the front foot and aggressive. That Hopkins is a far shout from the wily defensive fox of the last few years, and would have beaten most of the other middleweight greats.

On how he fares against Dick Tiger? Now the question was 'who was better at middleweight', rather than who would win a fight between the two. Hopkins was better seeing as he'd beat more of the greats, but Tiger is one of the ones he might have struggled with. Hopkins is definitely a more rounded fighter, no question, but then Tiger might just have had the right tools to win. Giardello-Hopkins comparisons are pretty worthless, because Joey was a much, much different fighter and could be quite unorthodox in the ring. I don't think Hopkins would dance and make Tiger miss (not that Giardello did either), and they'd exchange frequently throughout the fight. And Tiger, being so strong, durable and quick (very important), would not budge. I maintain that Tiger was the strongest infighter in middleweight history, and Hopkins wouldn't change that.

Not to say Tiger would win necessarily, infact I'd pick Hopkins narrowly - just that it'd be quite close.

--

Mayweather-Napoles - who was more skilled? An even more difficult question probably. I went with Napoles.

Mayweather has a more modern skill set; believe it or not, boxing has changed a bit from even as recently as 1970. I put it down to a few things, even down to something as obscure as the headguards in amateur boxing which promotes speed and power boxing as opposed to a more professional, thoughtful approach. Generally, fighters today seem speedier, but then they can lack the essential skills that could turn the tide in their favour, especially in one of the old fifteen round fights.

Anyway, Mayweather is great in what he does. He moves very well, jabs, tucks himself up and counters with punches that Joe Louis would be impressed by; he's tight, quick and economical.

Napoles was, if anything, even more skillful though. He wasn't quite as fast, and although this one isn't particularly a good thing, he often held his hands quite low. He basically baited his own face so he could slip and counter with punches sharper than even Mayweather's. Napoles was knocked down perhaps three times in his whole career at most, and that's down to his ruthlessly efficient positioning and footwork. For the same reason, he was also a devastating puncher, not because of his strength, but because of his placement. It was perfection.

[DINAMITA]

I'm not really into the fighters of the last two questions, but I'll have a go on the first two...

... Hopkins at the moment is hard for many to judge. He's either victimised by old timers because he's too current for them to comprehend (fair enough, but state that opinion please rather than saying Harry Greb would have ripped him a new arsehole :good) or he's overrated by modern fans as a counter opinion to the first one. I reckon he was about the fourth or fifth greatest middleweight of all time (leaving Harry Greb out just for now; uncertainty issues):

1. Carlos Monzon
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Ray Robinson
4. Bernard Hopkins

Old timers ironically or deliberately tend to remember his recent performances, some of which have been lacklustre, and forget about his middle days when he was actually quite fearsome on the front foot and aggressive. That Hopkins is a far shout from the wily defensive fox of the last few years, and would have beaten most of the other middleweight greats.

On how he fares against Dick Tiger? Now the question was 'who was better at middleweight', rather than who would win a fight between the two. Hopkins was better seeing as he'd beat more of the greats, but Tiger is one of the ones he might have struggled with. Hopkins is definitely a more rounded fighter, no question, but then Tiger might just have had the right tools to win. Giardello-Hopkins comparisons are pretty worthless, because Joey was a much, much different fighter and could be quite unorthodox in the ring. I don't think Hopkins would dance and make Tiger miss (not that Giardello did either), and they'd exchange frequently throughout the fight. And Tiger, being so strong, durable and quick (very important), would not budge. I maintain that Tiger was the strongest infighter in middleweight history, and Hopkins wouldn't change that.

Not to say Tiger would win necessarily, infact I'd pick Hopkins narrowly - just that it'd be quite close.

--

Mayweather-Napoles - who was more skilled? An even more difficult question probably. I went with Napoles.

Mayweather has a more modern skill set; believe it or not, boxing has changed a bit from even as recently as 1970. I put it down to a few things, even down to something as obscure as the headguards in amateur boxing which promotes speed and power boxing as opposed to a more professional, thoughtful approach. Generally, fighters today seem speedier, but then they can lack the essential skills that could turn the tide in their favour, especially in one of the old fifteen round fights.

Anyway, Mayweather is great in what he does. He moves very well, jabs, tucks himself up and counters with punches that Joe Louis would be impressed by; he's tight, quick and economical.

Napoles was, if anything, even more skillful though. He wasn't quite as fast, and although this one isn't particularly a good thing, he often held his hands quite low. He basically baited his own face so he could slip and counter with punches sharper than even Mayweather's. Napoles was knocked down perhaps three times in his whole career at most, and that's down to his ruthlessly efficient positioning and footwork. For the same reason, he was also a devastating puncher, not because of his strength, but because of his placement. It was perfection.

Exactly what I was after with this thread. Thanks a lot for a great post mate :good

[Manassa]

Exactly what I was after with this thread. Thanks a lot for a great post mate :good

No worries, ta :D

[Robbi]

No worries, ta :D

Our recent fued aside. How highly do you rate Hopkins as a fighter and what areas of his game impress you the most?

[Manassa]

Our recent fued aside. How highly do you rate Hopkins as a fighter and what areas of his game impress you the most?

Well, I did cover it already, sort of. Fourth or fifth greatest middleweight, although I'm not sure about a pound-for-pound rating as of yet - needs revision. There is no particular area of his game that stands out to me, he was just quite versatile at his best and was 'solid' to 'strong' in every respect.

[Robbi]

Well, I did cover it already, sort of. Fourth or fifth greatest middleweight, although I'm not sure about a pound-for-pound rating as of yet - needs revision. There is no particular area of his game that stands out to me, he was just quite versatile at his best and was 'solid' to 'strong' in every respect.

Quite impressed that you rate him so highly at the weight. Considering you'll probably not rate many middleweights as truely great after Hagled retired. I agree with the your take on the part I highlighted. He was just a well rounded and strong middleweight. He's like Hagler in many ways. Not many weaknesses at all. However, I think he's a bit sneaker and harder to pin down. More cautious and cagey. Hagler himself could hold back and box very well on the outside and certainly packed more power.

Hagler-Hopkins is one of my fav mythical matches, along with Whitaker-Duran.

[Robbi]

although I'm not sure about a pound-for-pound rating as of yet - needs revision.

I'd certainly rate him above Hagler in that regard. I think his recent performance against Pavlik at the age of 43 makes him sneak past Marvin. While his middleweight reign has more quantity than depth of quality within Hagler's reign, his recent showings at light-heavyweight at such an advanced age are impressive. He was the underdog against Tarver and Pavlik, only to dominate them both convincingly. Quite remarkable skills for an oldy.

[sweet_scientist]

1.Who was better at middleweight: Bernard Hopkins or Dick Tiger?


Hard to say.

I'd like to swap their middleweight position and see how they do against each other's competition.

Here is my take on what would happen:

Tiger in Hopkins' era

A slightly green Tiger would probably lose to Roy Jones in a similar way that Bernard did to Roy.

He doesn't lose another fight.

Hopkins in Tiger's era

I think Hopkins would lose 2 out of 3 fights with Gene Fullmer. I think Gene can box with Hopkins on the outside and can grind with him on the inside. He's just as dirty if not more so and he's stronger than Hopkins.

Hopkins might lose a decision to Giardello when he is slightly before his best, but should then be able to to beat Joey by a mixture of smart outboxing and grinding on the inside. Probably 3 fights to 1 for Hopkins.

A fight with Joey Archer might go to Hopkins by the slightest of margins. Archer is the better boxer on the outside but Hopkins will find his home and do the scrapping and infighting needed to edge ahead on the scorecards I feel.

Hopkins would beat Emile Griffith once and lose to him once, just as (imo) Tiger did. A fresher Hopkins will be able to do his thing on the inside with Griffith and hold the edge in the outboxing, taking a clear but close and competitive decision. Against an older Hopkins, like the one that fought Jermain Taylor, Griffith would outbox him and win the few exchanges needed to take the fight.

Again if we take Hopkins of the Jermain Taylor vintage, I think he loses to Nino Benvenuti. Maybe even the Hopkins of DLH vintage loses to Benvenuti. Benvenuti is the better striker on the outside and can handle himself at close distance too. An older Hopkins will not be able to impose his strength on him I don't think.


Anyone else like to have a go at doing this?

How about a mythical fight between them, both at their best? I can't pick that one with a great deal of confidence. It will be a battle of Hopkins' slightly better outside game vs. Tiger's slightly better inside game imo.

[sweet_scientist]

Hard to say.

I'd like to swap their middleweight position and see how they do against each other's competition.

Here is my take on what would happen:

Tiger in Hopkins' era

A slightly green Tiger would probably lose to Roy Jones in a similar way that Bernard did to Roy.

He doesn't lose another fight.

Hopkins in Tiger's era

I think Hopkins would lose 2 out of 3 fights with Gene Fullmer. I think Gene can box with Hopkins on the outside and can grind with him on the inside. He's just as dirty if not more so and he's stronger than Hopkins.

Hopkins might lose a decision to Giardello when he is slightly before his best, but should then be able to to beat Joey by a mixture of smart outboxing and grinding on the inside. Probably 3 fights to 1 for Hopkins.

A fight with Joey Archer might go to Hopkins by the slightest of margins. Archer is the better boxer on the outside but Hopkins will find his home and do the scrapping and infighting needed to edge ahead on the scorecards I feel.

Hopkins would beat Emile Griffith once and lose to him once, just as (imo) Tiger did. A fresher Hopkins will be able to do his thing on the inside with Griffith and hold the edge in the outboxing, taking a clear but close and competitive decision. Against an older Hopkins, like the one that fought Jermain Taylor, Griffith would outbox him and win the few exchanges needed to take the fight.

Again if we take Hopkins of the Jermain Taylor vintage, I think he loses to Nino Benvenuti. Maybe even the Hopkins of DLH vintage loses to Benvenuti. Benvenuti is the better striker on the outside and can handle himself at close distance too. An older Hopkins will not be able to impose his strength on him I don't think.


Anyone else like to have a go at doing this?

How about a mythical fight between them, both at their best? I can't pick that one with a great deal of confidence. It will be a battle of Hopkins' slightly better outside game vs. Tiger's slightly better inside game imo.

I left out how Hopkins would do against Jose Torres. I haven't seen enough of Jose to offer an opinion as of right now. Anyone have any ideas on that one?

[GPater11093]

1.Who was better at middleweight: Bernard Hopkins or Dick Tiger

In terms of Middleweight greats i would have Tiger slightly ahead of Hopkins in terms of resume. However i think Hopkins makes up for it by being better in a head to head sense but it is alot closer.

If they fought each other. I think Hopkins could eke a decision. Tiger liked to come forward, put on pressure with a high guard and looked to counter and was hugely strong upclose.

Hopkins is really clever and cagey. Has great boxing skills combined with a boxing brain among the top echelon of greats.

In the early roundsI see Tiger stalking Hopkins as he usually did. With Hopkins giving feints to make Tiger lead and counter him. Tiger then wisens up to this and starts to make this an inside war. Hopkins was skilled on the inside and tricky as hell so he might negate Tigers inside fighting.

This makes the fight in the balance coming down the home stretch where i think Hopkins starts to move and box and take it back to a boxing match. Instead of feinting and drawing in Tiger he tries to beat him to the punch then move away. I think he could just sneak it on an SD with Tiger feeling aggrieved and fans split down the middle.

So does that answer your question.

Quote:
2.Who was the more skilled fighter: Floyd Mayweather Jr or Jose Napoles?
I'll put it this way its similar to Mannasa's ideas.

Jose has the more 'old school' skills. He was a master at feinting and body punching (especially countering with a right to the body. These were well suited to the more tactical 15 round distance.

Mayweather has the skills adjusted for the modern game as it is more of a sprint. Speed is more important and feinting and body punching generally have faded away abit.

Hope thats answers your question.

Quote:
3.Whose weight-jumping achievements are better: Manny Pacquiao or Thomas Hearns?

What Manny Pacquiao has done is simply phenomenal. He has held Linear titles in 5 weight classes which is unheard off. Ranging from Flyweight to Light Welter Weight which is even more unheard off. He proved countless people wrong again and again and is a sure fire ATG.

Thomas Hearns has done amazing things in jumping in weight from Welter to Cruiser. However he only held Lineaage in one weight class (i might be wrong) Light Middleweight. So every other weight he just beat a top contender (i dont recognise belts now). Which is still an amazing achievement but it has been done since and i dont think it is as hard as a leap from Flyweight to Light Welterweight.

But it is close.

Quote:
4.Who ranks higher in the all-time Mexican list: Juan Manuel Marquez or Ricardo Lopez?
Juan Manuel Marquez. He has the better names on his resume. I felt he beat Manny Pacquaio twice and Chris John.

The Pacquiao wins are huge as Manny has established himself as a sure fire ATG. Marquez should also be that he is as good as Manny. Just hasnt got the same breaks.

Ricardo Lopez was dominate at Minimumweight and is the best ever there but its a shallow division and he never proved himself in the way Marquez did

[anarci]

Four questions, please give a full and explanatory answer if you can be bothered...

1.Who was better at middleweight: Bernard Hopkins or Dick Tiger?

2.Who was the more skilled fighter: Floyd Mayweather Jr or Jose Napoles?

3.Whose weight-jumping achievements are better: Manny Pacquiao or Thomas Hearns?

4.Who ranks higher in the all-time Mexican list: Juan Manuel Marquez or Ricardo Lopez?

:bbb ALmost going to sleep ill be back in detail tomorrow but here are my picks
Hopkins
Hard to say im leaning towards May but Napoloes has the bigger equalizer could go either way. Ask me after May1st.
This is very close but im leaning towards Pac from fly to Welter is a little more impressive than Welter to LH.
LOPEZ!!!!!!! Im a big Marquez fan but this one was the easiest answer.

[Flea Man]

Why d'ya keep bumping really old threads Anarci :lol: From posters that are no longer even here :lol:

I'd have Marquez above Lopez, not quite as beautiful to watch but thats what happens when you fight the better opposition IMO.

[anarci]

Why d'ya keep bumping really old threads Anarci :lol: From posters that are no longer even here :lol:

I'd have Marquez above Lopez, not quite as beautiful to watch but thats what happens when you fight the better opposition IMO. Cause im getting tired of a lot of these other threads:lol: Im ready to go to sleep and dont feel like putting up my own right now.

Even though i rate Lopez higher than Marquez, i do think Marquez is really underrated and a top 70 atg.

[RockysSplitNose]

Four questions, please give a full and explanatory answer if you can be bothered...

1.Who was better at middleweight: Bernard Hopkins or Dick Tiger?

2.Who was the more skilled fighter: Floyd Mayweather Jr or Jose Napoles?

3.Whose weight-jumping achievements are better: Manny Pacquiao or Thomas Hearns?

4.Who ranks higher in the all-time Mexican list: Juan Manuel Marquez or Ricardo Lopez?

:bbb

1. Probably Hopkins but that ones very close in my book

2. Mayweather by a landslide - one of the greatest ever I think

3. Manny Pac - but love both - two of my favourite fighters ever

4. Probably Lopez but like Hopkins & Tiger not much in it

[Sweet Pea]

2. Mayweather by a landslide - one of the greatest ever I think

Noone in the history of the sport was more skilled than Napoles "by a landslide", if even at all. He was about as well rounded, mentally sound and well schooled a fighter as there can be. His only weakness was his tendancy to cut. His versatility gives him the clear edge over Mayweather, IMO.

[sweet_scientist]

The answer should be Napoles by a land slide. Once we distinguish speed from skill, the answer is easy.