Hopkins Wright, where dose the winner stand historicaly?

[janitor]

To what extent is the winners legacy enhanced?

[Vanboxingfan]

Personally I think the win would mean a lot more for Winky than Hopkins. Hopkins to me rose a couple of notches with his win over Tarver, but beating the likes of ODH and Winky to me are less impressive, given the size differences. For me I don't really see any upside for a Hop win, only downside if he losses, which was the exact opposite in the Tarver fight, where he had no downside if he lost and only upside by winning.

[Jose FM]

Both greatly, and a loss wont hurt Hopkins as much as Wright but not badly.

[Mantequilla]

Hopkins legacy is already sealed.

He's way past his prime now and if Wright loses it likely just says more about him than any sudden new-found prowess on Hops part.

[sweet_scientist]

Let's wait and see how each man looks first.

If either man looks bad, nothing in their legacies will be enhanced.

I'm actually expecting both guys to look bad, but funnily enough that may make for a more interesting fight, as there should be more openings for both to exploit.

[Senya13]

Well, B-Hop has proven he's a better more clever and technically efficient fighter. Wright couldn't adjust to his tactics, and just kept wasting his time in close, where he needed to create space between himself and Hop. Taylor and DLH got the space they needed (fighting from distance), Wright didn't.

[TBooze]

To what extent is the winners legacy enhanced?

I would say Hopkins is knocking on the door of Greatness. Give it 15/20 years and I think we will get a definitive answer as to if he is Great.

[My dinner with Conteh]

His two losses to Taylor still look bad.

[TBooze]

His two losses to Taylor still look bad.

Hence the reason you need 20 years or so before you can judge. Taylor may become a phenom himself (unlikely I know); and if Taylor did, the close defeats would not seem so bad...

[My dinner with Conteh]

Hence the reason you need 20 years or so before you can judge. Taylor may become a phenom himself (unlikely I know); and if Taylor did, the close defeats would not seem so bad...


Fair enough. But Taylor's doesn't have the look of an all-time great, at least not yet.

[Stewbear]

Who is the most boring fighter of all time?

[achillesthegreat]

Hopkins just beat a top 5 P4P fighter. It doesn't what goes down, he left with the W. When you are 42 years old and arguably the best P4P fighter in the world, you are pretty much one of the baddest men on the planet.

Hopkins is forging a legacy that will put him down as one of the very greatest fighters boxing has ever seen.

[Stewbear]

Hopkins just beat a top 5 P4P fighter. It doesn't what goes down, he left with the W. When you are 42 years old and arguably the best P4P fighter in the world, you are pretty much one of the baddest men on the planet.

Hopkins is forging a legacy that will put him down as one of the very greatest fighters boxing has ever seen.

Only names Trinidad, Oscar and Winky all naturally smaller than him.

[JohnThomas1]

I would say Hopkins is knocking on the door of Greatness. Give it 15/20 years and I think we will get a definitive answer as to if he is Great.

:patsch

[TBooze]

:patsch:huh

[achillesthegreat]

Only names Trinidad, Oscar and Winky all naturally smaller than him.
Duran, Leonard and Hearns were all smaller than Hagler!

Griffth and Napoles were smaller than Monzon!

Winky walks around at a much bigger weight than Hopkins. Plus, he fought at 154, which is only a few pounds south and back in the day would be middleweight. Not to mention the dry out Winky does.

Trinidad was a proven middleweight.

Oscar was a proven light middle and even had the WBO 160 title.

Stop being silly. His record speaks for itself.

[My dinner with Conteh]

You just can´t give him any credit, can´t you? He really didn´t lose those fights, worst way to look at he´s 1-1.


He lost both. Accept it. And I do give him some credit, I'd probably rank him Top 30 all-time actually. Not ahead of Jones though. Some people would possibly rate Monzon higher if he lost both fights to Valdes then beat, say, Marvin Johnson for the light-heavy title- but I wouldn't be one of them.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Duran, Leonard and Hearns were all smaller than Hagler!

Griffth and Napoles were smaller than Monzon!

Winky walks around at a much bigger weight than Hopkins. Plus, he fought at 154, which is only a few pounds south and back in the day would be middleweight. Not to mention the dry out Winky does.

Trinidad was a proven middleweight.

Oscar was a proven light middle and even had the WBO 160 title.

Stop being silly. His record speaks for itself.


Monzon seldom gets any real credit for beating Napoles though actually. It was obvious he was too big and strong.

[young griffo]

He's a great but personally I can't stand watching him.
His fight are dull,he isn't aesthetically pleasing to my eyes,and he was an arsehole to guys like Bouie Fisher and Lou DiBella who worked with him when he was nobody,but he keeps doing the business in the ring where it matters most.
He has to be rated as one of the best ever at 160 and is definately one of the finest fighters of his generation.I rate Jones Jnr higher personally as I think during his peak years(94-2000) he was better than Hops ever was ,but Bernard has sustained his effectiveness with age whereas Jones has declined significently in comparison.

[Stewbear]

Duran, Leonard and Hearns were all smaller than Hagler!

Griffth and Napoles were smaller than Monzon!

Winky walks around at a much bigger weight than Hopkins. Plus, he fought at 154, which is only a few pounds south and back in the day would be middleweight. Not to mention the dry out Winky does.

Trinidad was a proven middleweight.

Oscar was a proven light middle and even had the WBO 160 title.

Stop being silly. His record speaks for itself.

Oscar and Trinidad had already been exposed while Hopkins started his career at 175.
Winky is also one of the most overrated fighters ever hopkins is not even top ten middleweight and it is criminal to compare him to Monzon and Hagler!

[Bummy Davis]

Hopkins takes care of his body and has not had a lot of fights, so he is not burned out, He has more experience than most fighters today but this would not work for him vs the fighters of the past who also had the experience,or firepower like Lamotta,SSR, Hagler,Monzon,Ketchel but dispite his poor personality he is still a bonifide ATG and proved it with his wins over Tarver(inexperienced) Delahoya(blown up welter and Trinadad ditto) still he does not win like Hagler did Explosively(still Hagler did struggle with Vito in the 1st fight and SSL in his last) Hopkins has more of the slick, trickster,dirty,cagey,smart like Emile Griffith(who gave Monzon trouble), and Hopkins is a better middleweight than Griff...so I rank him top 10, Wright is were he was a top notcher today but short of an ATG

[Mantequilla]

Safe to say now that Hopkins vs Wright did nothing for either man.

Wright is not great and never will be imo.

Hopkins was great and now is just a spoiler.

[achillesthegreat]

Monzon seldom gets any real credit for beating Napoles though actually. It was obvious he was too big and strong.
Great middleweights set a precedent of fighting smaller guys. Hopkins followed suite BUT also defined himself by fighting at 175.

Hopkins seldom gets any real credit for beating Hopkins despite being old and stopping him.

[achillesthegreat]

Oscar and Trinidad had already been exposed while Hopkins started his career at 175.
Winky is also one of the most overrated fighters ever hopkins is not even top ten middleweight and it is criminal to compare him to Monzon and Hagler!
Oscar and Tito exposed? Don't be silly.

You can't be overrated when you unify/dominate a division and haves names like Mosleyx2, Tito, Quartey and Taylor on your record!

[My dinner with Conteh]

I've never really done an all-time Top 30 list but I imagine places 27-30 will contain the likes of Napoles, Tiger, Griffith and Hopkins.

[Robbi]

His two losses to Taylor still look bad.


The rematch stands out more. Hopkins proved he had enough power to trouble Taylor late in their first fight. He should have went about his business with more authority during the rematch, but instead he stalled and never let his punches flow. He just should have gambled more than he did.

The Tarver win was impressive, and stands him in good stead for all-time great status.

[sweet_scientist]

First my card: 115-115: A Draw

Rounds 1,3,5,11 and 12 for Hopkins. Rounds 2,4,6,7 and 9 for Winky. Rounds 8 and 10 even.

Felt it could have gone either way. If you gave my even rounds to either fighter, they win by a couple points. Lot of close rounds I felt, and I think a draw would have been a fair outcome.

Bit surprised that not that many felt Winky Wright won, I definitely think he has a case, as he did in the Taylor fight.

Hopkins was throwing some hard shots, but like always I think Winky did a good defensive job and didn't allow Hopkins to get much through that was meaningful. The cleanest punches Hopkins landed came in shoe-shines which were pretty ineffective on the whole. Winky landed some clean shots, but didn't really affect Hopkins that much with them given his lack of punching power.

Not a bad fight, both didn't look that bad considering, though they are both past their primes (Hopkins moreso than Wright).

Hopkins' age aside, which of course makes it amazing that he can still do what he does, I was actually more impressed with Wright that he could move up outside his comfort zone and match it with Bernard. At 160 Wright would have done a little better I feel, as Hopkins probably wouldn't have been able to tire Wright out as much as he did to vitally grab the last couple rounds.


Prime for prime I think Hopkins beats Wright, as he would be more active and quicker with his punches, though Wright would never make it easy for him.

I'm not sure what this fight does for each fighter's legacy....I'll give it some time to settle, maybe rewatch it two or three times and give it some thought later on.

[achillesthegreat]

I NEVER thought MDWC would rank X top 30.

[enquirer]

The difference with haglers 'small' opposition leonard,duran and hearns is that all of these were definate p4p atgs and all of them won good titles at middleweight. In fact hearns went to lt heavy/cruiser and ray went to super middle/light heavy...duran won a world title at middle and fought well even at 168.....De la hoya was crap at 160,tito was never the fighter he was and winky will never probably be a force above 160 never mind 175....Also didnt griffith win a middle strap as well? And napoles though small was a true ATG....Hopkins losing to Jt twice and avoiding challenges against toney,jones,benn,eubank,hill and other genuine fighters also blunts his resume....Hoppo is an atg but not in the league of hagler,monzon and co....At lt heavy he is a mirage,just like jones at heavy......Hoppos last few years are like pbfs,pure stage management,safety first money grabbing superficiality and trying to create a fake legacy whilst talking lots of crap and hype......Hes boring to boot.....Overrated though he is an atg....Seems to get props for lasting so long,by the same logic george foreman is the ATG at heavy!!!!!!!

[My dinner with Conteh]

So, how was the fight. Any good? :lol:

[Manassa]

At least Napoles was trying to hit Monzon. And for a while he was doing a good job of it.

[NickHudson]

Interested in your take on the fight Sweetscientist. I rarely try and score fights (just try to enjoy them) but I did have a bit of a go, and after 6 rounds I gave up.

It all looked too close to call for me.

Hopkins did a great job of spoiling when it suited him. I think he controlled the fight.

Winky really struggled to land the southpaw jab. Probably the most I have seen him struggle in this regard.

Neither fighter landed too much clean. It was sort of an ugly fight, but fascinating because they are both so proficient.

I will not be revisiting it though...

First my card: 115-115: A Draw

Rounds 1,3,5,11 and 12 for Hopkins. Rounds 2,4,6,7 and 9 for Winky. Rounds 8 and 10 even.

Felt it could have gone either way. If you gave my even rounds to either fighter, they win by a couple points. Lot of close rounds I felt, and I think a draw would have been a fair outcome.

Bit surprised that not that many felt Winky Wright won, I definitely think he has a case, as he did in the Taylor fight.

Hopkins was throwing some hard shots, but like always I think Winky did a good defensive job and didn't allow Hopkins to get much through that was meaningful. The cleanest punches Hopkins landed came in shoe-shines which were pretty ineffective on the whole. Winky landed some clean shots, but didn't really affect Hopkins that much with them given his lack of punching power.

Not a bad fight, both didn't look that bad considering, though they are both past their primes (Hopkins moreso than Wright).

Hopkins' age aside, which of course makes it amazing that he can still do what he does, I was actually more impressed with Wright that he could move up outside his comfort zone and match it with Bernard. At 160 Wright would have done a little better I feel, as Hopkins probably wouldn't have been able to tire Wright out as much as he did to vitally grab the last couple rounds.


Prime for prime I think Hopkins beats Wright, as he would be more active and quicker with his punches, though Wright would never make it easy for him.

I'm not sure what this fight does for each fighter's legacy....I'll give it some time to settle, maybe rewatch it two or three times and give it some thought later on.

[sweet_scientist]

Interested in your take on the fight Sweetscientist. I rarely try and score fights (just try to enjoy them) but I did have a bit of a go, and after 6 rounds I gave up.

It all looked too close to call for me.

Hopkins did a great job of spoiling when it suited him. I think he controlled the fight.

Winky really struggled to land the southpaw jab. Probably the most I have seen him struggle in this regard.

Neither fighter landed too much clean. It was sort of an ugly fight, but fascinating because they are both so proficient.

I will not be revisiting it though...


You're right Nick, Winky did struggle to land the jab, and he also did some wild swinging and missing with hooks which made him look silly, so Hopkins was doing well defensively. He also didn't allow Winky to outwork him by clinching at opportune times when he needed a break and continuing to land a few short sharp shots on the inside which didn't have much on them but got the judges' attention.

However I think Winky pretty much neutralised what Hopkins threw as well. I was watching the English telecast with Jim Watt and the boys on Sky Sports, and they were overflowing in their praise for Hopkins' combinations, but if you look closely, Wright was blocking quite a lot of his combinations. I checked compubox after the fight and Wright was actually more accurate and landed a tad more, which wasn't surprising, becuase he did do a good defensive job as well.

Both men blunted each other which is why I feel a draw or a close win either way would have been fair.

[mcvey]

To what extent is the winners legacy enhanced?
Not at all ,have you seen the "fight"?

[achillesthegreat]

[quote=achillesthegreat]All 3 way better than Tito, Oscar, and Winky
See above

Winky walks around at a much bigger weight than Hopkins. Plus, he fought at 154, which is only a few pounds south and back in the day would be middleweight. Not to mention the dry out Winky does.

Hearns was a proven Cruiserweight, as were everyone he faced
So what if they are better?

Fighting at a weight and being a champ (like Tito and Oscar) is different. Plus I don't discredit Hagler for fighting Hearns etc