Hopkin's or Whitaker...

[Russell]

Who do you feel is greater?

Hopkin's certainly has the longetivity, and his unbelievable amount of title defenses.

Both have the scalps of absolute top fighters.

Both have similar dominations of said top fighters. Some of Hopkin's are a little less known, like his dominations of Glen Johnson, William Joppy...

Thoughts? Are they comparable?

[Sweet Pea]

I have Hopkins ranked around the top 40 probably. I have Whitaker ranked at #12. I'd really love to see someone vote Hopkins and give an explanation. It doesn't take a huge Whitaker fan to come to a conclusion in this one. As good as Hopkins is, what case does he have over Whitaker other than longevity?

[Holmes' Jab]

Whitaker: he's just the better fighter overall both in terms of his career record and impressiveness on film. Quite alot of other aspects too.

[Jack]

I have Hopkins ranked around the top 40 probably.Why so high? I doubt Hopkins would break my top 100. Based on resume, of course.

[Russell]

I have Hopkins ranked around the top 40 probably. I have Whitaker ranked at #12. I'd really love to see someone vote Hopkins and give an explanation. It doesn't take a huge Whitaker fan to come to a conclusion in this one. As good as Hopkins is, what case does he have over Whitaker other than longevity?

Not saying otherwise, just looking for some discussion.

[Sweet Pea]

Why so high? I doubt Hopkins would break my top 100. Based on resume, of course.I personally take more into account than strictly resume, though that would probably be the strongest criteria: resume/accomplishments.

[sweet_scientist]

If you have Whitaker losing to DLH and you have Hopkins beating Jermain Taylor, Winky Wright and Joe Calzaghe, I think you could place Hopkins higher (even though Whitaker would still have the best single win - Chavez) but I didn't have Hopkins beating any of those fighters.

IMO Whitaker outclassed the best fighters of HIS natural weight better than Hopkins outclassed the best fighters of his natural weight.

Hopkins hung around for ages, which was incredible, but Whitaker at his peak hit a height Bernard knows nothing about.

[McGrain]

Whitaker. There is clear water between them.

[teeto]

Who do you feel is greater?

Hopkin's certainly has the longetivity, and his unbelievable amount of title defenses.

Both have the scalps of absolute top fighters.

Both have similar dominations of said top fighters. Some of Hopkin's are a little less known, like his dominations of Glen Johnson, William Joppy...

Thoughts? Are they comparable?
Yea , comparable i think. Some of the naturally smaller guys Hopkins beat (Oscar, Winky etc.), he done it in a manner i still deem great. tactics were great against Winky, and Oscar was beat very well. Wins against Joppy and Eastman are good aswell, and he dominated these guys who were worthy contenders to his title. Trinidad was a legit guy at the weight after his demolition of Joppy, so B-Hop's win there was great imo. The Tarver win was top-notch aswell, and i thought he beat Calzage. As a fighter, B-Hop was/is onr of the cleverest of all-time and a tactical genius.

Sweet Pea's comp was great aswell, as we all know, his very best night was against Chavez and he might have beaten Oscar, one of the very best 135s ever.

Both fighters are of the very elite of all-time, one at 135 and one at 160, where they are amongst the top practicioners of all-time. Both resumes can be argued against that the very best names on the record (Trinidad, Nelson etc.) were past their best weights. But imo, there are enough justifiable counter-arguments to outweigh these!

[SuzieQ49]

Hopkins beating Jermain Taylor, Winky Wright and Joe Calzaghe, I think you could place Hopkins higher (even though Whitaker would still have the best single win - Chavez) but I didn't have Hopkins beating any of those fighters.



Hopkins was past his prime by the time he was taking on taylor, wright and especially calzaghe.


I thought Hopkins clearly beat Winky Wright by 3 points..... and I had Hopkins winning the Taylor I fight, at worst the taylor I fight was a draw.

[brooklyn1550]

Whitaker, by a reasonable amount.

[Russell]

Hopkins was past his prime by the time he was taking on taylor, wright and especially calzaghe.


I thought Hopkins clearly beat Winky Wright by 3 points..... and I had Hopkins winning the Taylor I fight, at worst the taylor I fight was a draw.

Do you feel he beat Calzaghe?

[SuzieQ49]

yes i had hopkins by 1-2 points but hopkins is considerable past it. I think the hopkins of 5 years ago wins a clear unanimous over joe calzaghe

[Russell]

I had him winning it too.

[Robbi]

Whitaker. Not by a country mile, but perhaps a half mile.

[rekcutnevets]

No one has mentioned Hopkins win over Tarver, which is what even puts this discussion into play.

The names on Whitaker's resume clearly make his better than Hopkins'. The only thing that Hopkins can hope for is Joe going onto to do really impressive things at light heavy. Then Hopkins can look good for having should have earned the decision against a two division champion considered by many(not me) to be the best super middleweight in history.

[Russell]

You also feel Hopkin's won, rekcutnevets?

[rekcutnevets]

Yes. I clearly remember giving Hopkins rounds 1,2,4,10, and 11(enough for a draw). I know I also gave him at least one middle round. I scored round one 10-8 for Hopkins. All other rounds were scored 10-9.

[sweet_scientist]

Hopkins was past his prime by the time he was taking on taylor, wright and especially calzaghe.

True, but Wright and Clazaghe were past their primes too, and in the case of Winky, he was fighting at a weight where it effected his ability.


I thought Hopkins clearly beat Winky Wright by 3 points..... and I had Hopkins winning the Taylor I fight, at worst the taylor I fight was a draw.

Fair enough, that's your opinion. I disagree.

[red cobra]

I've just recently and grudgingly come around to appreciating Whitaker. He is head and shoulders above Hopkins.