Big Rumours of Hopkins Vs Stevenson Going Around

First topic message reminder :

Lot of rumours that this fight will be announced very shortly, supposedly in Montreal, don't know whether it'll be on PBC or HBO.

Thoughts?

I think Hopkins should retire, but if someone has been dedicated enough to have one last crack it's probably him, but man... He's in his 50's!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Agree with Chris excellent summation......

Hoppo behind those three and Whittaker......who are in between 10/20...

How is that any different to what I wrote (apart from the extra 200 words)!!

This board is a riot man. A RIOT!!

Mayweather Manny and Roy in the top 25....

I missed that off your riotous post..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mayweather Manny and Roy in the top 25....

I missed that off your riotous post..

Ah, so it wasn't the summation you were just glad to see someone else rate Floyd as highly as you do! Too high for me. I'd probably go for Roy highest between 20-30.

It was a good post from Chris. I think I am swayed by reading more about old fighters. Historians will always be biased.

Always feel a bit for Whittaker. Came at a bad time. Many casuals wouldn't be as familiar with him. Unbelievable talent.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mayweather Manny and Roy in the top 25....

I missed that off your riotous post..

Were would you have Hopkins??

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mayweather Manny and Roy in the top 25....

I missed that off your riotous post..

Ah, so it wasn't the summation you were just glad to see someone else rate Floyd as highly as you do! Too high for me. I'd probably go for Roy highest between 20-30.

Great summation Haz !!...Chris stop plagiarising..

88Chris05 wrote:Always tricky rating Hopkins accurately, largely because he's such a unique case. The sheer longevity and slow-burning nature of his career makes comparisons between him and other great fighters almost impossible and we have to adapt our way of rating him, usually contradicting how we'd usually rank a fighter. Needless to say he's a bonafide great, though. All-round fantastic fighter with a record that speaks for itself and needs no too passionate a defence.

To me, he's a top five Middleweight of all time, and straight away that gives him a pretty decent foundation to secure a spot inside the top fifty of all-time pound for pound, or thereabouts. I think it's what came at 175 once he was ousted from his Middleweight title which makes his precise placing more difficult.

His record at 175 is a lot more patchy than at 160, but given he didn't make his debut as a Light-Heavyweight until he was forty-one years old any loss or sub-par performance at the higher weight was automatically always going to have a legitimate caveat attached to it in some degree, and that's not to mention the fact that Hopkins, by modern standards at least, is not a natural or thorough Light-Heavyweight by any means.

Those caveats mean that, generally speaking, any losses he's accumulated in the last decade have been written off as being inconsequential to his all-time standing in varying degrees. Question is, if you're going to give him massive praise for the series of excellent victories he's also had in that span, is diminishing the losses in turn really fair? Yes, Hopkins has been an old man for all of this span - but he's an exceptional old man. Given how exceptional he is and how much praise he's had heaped on him for his victories, wouldn't it also be fair to question if he's maybe got off a little too lightly for some of the defeats as well?

Bit of devil's advocate on my part there, but worth pondering. If you were a harsh critic of Hopkins you could argue that his overall Light-Heavyweight career doesn't necessarily improve his standing all that much. Personally, though, I'd take a more positive look and say that the good in his Light-Heavyweight exploits definitely outweighs the bad. The Dawson defeat is the only one on Hopkins' record that really leaves a slightly sour taste in the mouth, for me, because it wasn't close enough or simply down to Hopkins tiring enough to make me think that he'd definitely have won the fight had it happened ten years earlier, ala the Calzaghe fight, and because Dawson just wasn't a bad mufugga wrecking machine who was likely to trounce any converted Middleweight who was knocking on in years, ala the Kovalev fight.

But even with that disappointing loss to Dawson, what Hopkins has done as a 175 pounder embellishes the fantastic work he did at 160 in my eyes; the comparatively young whippersnappers such as Froch and Dawson couldn't match the job he did on Pascal for 21 out of the 24 rounds he fought against him, nor could Martinez make Pavlik look as bang average and clueless as Hopkins did (albeit Pavlik was dipping his toes higher than Middleweight for the first time there). I think that puts it in to perspective just how bloody good Hopkins could be even in his mid forties. And now, another few years on, we still can't bring ourselves to say that an athletic, big-punching champion some thirteen years his junior and likely with a few lb on him come fight night will definitely trounce him in to dust, when everything points to that being the sensible thing to think.

Hopkins, all things considered, would be somewhere around the 25-30 mark for me in an all-time sense. In the last two decades the only names I'd put ahead of him would be Floyd, Roy and Manny.

His record at light heavy is 9-3-1-1. One of those wins was Winky Wright (who was no light heavy) and Pavlik (who also was no light heavy).

Tarver, Pascal and Pavlik were all good wins (however, Pavlik had zero form at 170) yet he lost to the best men he faced in Calzaghe, Dawson (which would probably have been two defeats had Hopkins not bailed) and Kovalev. He'd definitely slowed down against the Russian (and so there's an asterix against that one).

Overall, the Tarver win boosts his legacy, however, the rest probably offset one another to one degree or another.

AdamT wrote:It was a good post from Chris. I think I am swayed by reading more about old fighters. Historians will always be biased.

Always feel a bit for Whittaker. Came at a bad time. Many casuals wouldn't be as familiar with him. Unbelievable talent.

Whitaker rates higher than that lot - don't feel sorry for him!

He isn't as recognised by a casual. I guess does that matter.

I'm not sure he rates higher than Floyd Haz.

Cotto, De la Hoya, Mosley, Castillo, Hatton, Coralles, Gatti, Marquez, Canelo and Pacquiao among others is quite a list. You can argue that he didn't fight certain fighters at the right time, or catchweight, but he did fight and beat all of the above. To be fair he did lose the first Castillo fight, but it was very close.

AdamT wrote:He isn't as recognised by a casual. I guess does that matter.

I'm not sure he rates higher than Floyd Haz.

Cotto, De la Hoya, Mosley, Castillo, Hatton, Coralles, Gatti, Marquez, Canelo and Pacquiao among others is quite a list. You can argue that he didn't fight certain fighters at the right time, or catchweight, but he did fight and beat all of the above. To be fair he did lose the first Castillo fight, but it was very close.

Personally, as far as modern guys go, I'd have Ali and Duran 1-10. Leonard and Whitaker 11-20. Hagler, Jones, Chavez and Floyd 21-30 and Pac and Hopkins 31-40 (probably with Arguello in there somewhere).

I am glad you rate Duran.

The man fought lots of fights over 3 or 4 decades and many rate him as one of, if not the greatest ever lightweight. I'm a bit surprised you don't have Leonard higher. Is inactivity anything to do with that??

AdamT wrote:I am glad you rate Duran.

The man fought lots of fights over 3 or 4 decades and many rate him as one of, if not the greatest ever lightweight. I'm a bit surprised you don't have Leonard higher. Is inactivity anything to do with that??

His lack of fights hurts him. It just shows how much he did in the fights he had. Hearns, Benitez and Duran at welterweight - phenomenal wins.

Quality over quantity, but I guess he could of fought more.

Leonard has some of the best wins ever.

The fab 4 are hard to rate. A lot comes down to personal preference. As Truss would say, Hearns had the beating of many, but had that flaw with his chin. Duran fought everyone for a longtime and was a dominant LW. Hagler was a dominating scary MW. Then of course Leonard beat all the others at some point.

I guess most serious lists will rank Duran and Leonard the highest and Marv higher than Hearns. My dad is a bit like Truss. He thinks if the hitman used the brain a bit more, he could of beat the lot.

AdamT wrote:Quality over quantity, but I guess he could of fought more.

Leonard has some of the best wins ever.

The fab 4 are hard to rate. A lot comes down to personal preference. As Truss would say, Hearns had the beating of many, but had that flaw with his chin. Duran fought everyone for a longtime and was a dominant LW. Hagler was a dominating scary MW. Then of course Leonard beat all the others at some point.

I guess most serious lists will rank Duran and Leonard the highest and Marv higher than Hearns. My dad is a bit like Truss. He thinks if the hitman used the brain a bit more, he could of beat the lot.

Yeah, it's all ifs and buts (Hearns was my favourite of the FF). If we're rating fighters on the work they got done then it's Duran, Leonard, Hagler and Hearns. The real shame of ranking the likes of Floyd over Hearns is that, if you switched their level of opposition, it would likely be a different story!

Also would anyone pick Floyd to beat Hearns? I wouldn't for sure.

Not a single 130 pound champion in history I would pick to beat Hearns..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not a single 130 pound champion in history I would pick to beat Hearns..

Yes of course Floyd started lighter. We should make a fair comparison. Compare Hearns to someone at 168-175.

That's why I specifically said "level of opposition".

As long as we're rating Bhop above RJJ then all good. With a more exciting style, flashy hand speed and copious amounts of steroids I'm fairly sure he'd be thought of a fair few places above him as well.

Coxy001 wrote:As long as we're rating Bhop above RJJ then all good. With a more exciting style, flashy hand speed and copious amounts of steroids I'm fairly sure he'd be thought of a fair few places above him as well.

Yeah we all think he's better than Junior and junior swallowed loads of steroids if you say so...

Now off you go....and let the grown ups debate..

AdamT wrote:Also would anyone pick Floyd to beat Hearns? I wouldn't for sure.

I'd pick Hearns to beat every welter in history unless he was overcome by a desperate rally a la Leonard or caught on his chin.......

Don't see anybody getting past that jab with any degree of regularity......including Robbo..

Problem is it's easy to imagine him being caught on the chin.....But they'd probably have to come from behind and go through hell to catch it..

Wonderful fighter.....

I'd pick Robbo to win mind.....Tommy unfortunately was his own worst enemy.

sohotnot wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:What's unreal is we thought Hopkins was too old and about done at 36 going in against Trinidad all the way back in 2001!!  Thought he was finished after calzaghe, then he comes back and embarasses Pavlik, becomes oldest ever champ against Pascal loses it but then breaks his record and does it at 48, becomes oldest man to unify, I dunno if you can ever count the man out, I simply cannot bet against Hopkins, he defies logic

What when you were 9?

Ha-ha, I know the history! (Cheeky sod)

He was a true freak at Welter/light middle. I think he would of beat Leonard in an immediate rematch. Just my opinion.

AdamT wrote:It was a good post from Chris. I think I am swayed by reading more about old fighters. Historians will always be biased.

Always feel a bit for Whittaker. Came at a bad time. Many casuals wouldn't be as familiar with him. Unbelievable talent.

Just to clarify, Adam, I didn't mention Whitaker along with Hopkins' contemporaries such as Mayweather, Jones and Pacquiao because of the 'last twenty years' cut off I was using. All of those guys above have had their best years since 1996, whereas Whitaker's best years came a little before that - everything from 1996 onwards was Whitaker's career hitting a downward spiral really. 1995 was the last year where Whitaker was in or around his prime, I'd say. That was the year that George Benton was forced out of Whitaker's coaching team by Duva, a development that Whitaker himself wasn't happy with, and after that there was just something extra missing from Whitaker's game that he never recovered. Given the power and size differential he was up against, Whitaker's win over Vasquez for the WBA 154 lb title was the last time Pea was at something like his very best in my opinion.

As a talent and in terms of what he did in his biggest / best fights in those peak years, I think Whitaker is every bit Floyd's equal. Whitaker beating Mayweather had they been able to meet in their respective primes at 135 or 140 is perfectly feasible as well, albeit anywhere higher in weight would force me to favour Mayweather as Pea just didn't carry Welter or Light-Middle as well as Mayweather did. Much as it pains me to say it, though, I'd have to put Whitaker behind Mayweather now in terms of where he ranks all-time.

Whitaker underachieved / didn't get the credit he deserved partly down to old fashioned bad luck, but also because of a lack of focus and discipline towards the back end of his career, his year-long suspension for cocaine use between 1998 and 1999 being a prime example which cost him a fight against Ike Quartey for the WBA title. He came perilously close to losing to Wilfredo Rivera, a decent fighter but not one who should have been troubling Whitaker at that stage, in 1996 having spent most of his training camp in the Netherlands Antilles (where the fight was held) partying. He looked soft around the middle and gassed after about seven rounds in that one, and was lucky he built up such a big early lead.

Also, while I tend to think he probably deserved a draw or narrow win against De la Hoya in 1997, he gave away the last round and throughout the fight didn't emphasise the stylistic advantage he had over Oscar enough. I might mildly disagree with the verdict, but unlike the Ramirez or Chavez fights I can't honestly say that, given how the action itself unfolded over twelve rounds, Oscar getting the win there was a disgrace, even if the margins (four, six and six points, a total joke) were and suggested that Whitaker probably needed to stop De la Hoya to have any chance on the night.

Like a pre-exile Ali or Nicolino Locche, Pernell had that 'sleeper' style of defence which could actually make an observer laugh at the sheer cheek of how he could make an opponent miss in a way that defied all traditional boxing logic, but by his own admission he enjoyed trying to get reactions from the fans, and there's an argument to be made that, by the time he hit Welterweight and had trimmed his attacking arsenal somewhat, he perhaps enjoyed that side a bit too much.

That's where Mayweather gets the edge. Floyd himself slowed down towards the back end of his career (might not be finished yet, of course) and cut back on his attacking inclinations and output, but did so without sacrificing that overall consistency if his performances and results. I don't think there's a single entry on Floyd's ledger as good as Whitaker bursting Chavez's bubble at the time and in the manner he did (the fact that he was robbed of the prestige of ending Chavez's unbeaten run was the plain old bad luck I mentioned earlier!), but across his career Mayweather's victims match up very well to Whitaker's at the very least. But Mayweather just retained that virtuoso level for so, so long.

Whittaker didn't beat the quality Floyd beat..simple as..

Drawing with Chavez isn't a win (Tough crap)and I had Oscar well ahead simply for the fact Pernell stunk the place out...As he was prone to do...

Nelson wasn't a lightweight......Which leaves us to a trashed by Meldrick.. Buddy Mcgirt...

The only reason there was a rematch was because he sneaked past him the first time....Buddy though was a good fighter..

He lost three times......Albeit once contentiously...

No case at all for Pernell to be slightly behind..

Definitely in the ODLH fight Sweet Pea was almost trying to showboat a tad too much, would agree with that Chris. 135 and 140 Whitaker troubles all of them, a great contrast of styles would be him against Pryor at 140

Well as you often remind us, Truss, you can pull apart anyone's record like that if you set out to. Marquez dragged up to Welter with a spare tyre around his waist, Pacquiao already flattened by Marquez in devastating fashion (and beaten by Bradley if we're using your parameter of the judges' word being final), Judah coming off a loss, De la Hoya lost every significant fight he'd had for the previous eight years and so on.

Hey, Nelson and McGirt were both on the Ring top ten Pound for Pound list when Whitaker beat them, and I know that's a criterion close to your heart! :wink:

Ranking methods are subjective so we're obviously not going to agree on the Chavez point; you think judging decisions should always be accepted, I personally don't under certain circumstances. I'm happy to accept Whitaker's loss to Oscar because scoring the fight in favour of De la Hoya isn't unreasonable, even though there's no wide concession on the fight. But Chavez (same as Ramirez I) wasn't just contentious, it was and still is regarded as a historically poor verdict. When what the judges produce differs from what 90% or so of fans, professional fighters, trainers, press workers etc produce, I don't particularly feel that there can't be room for manoeuvre.

But as I said, how much you're willing to accept a judging verdict as 'fact' is subjective. The overall point, though, is that I can't see any reason why Mayweather should be ranked streets ahead of Whitaker.

Truss = owned

If little Alex says i'm owned...I guess i'm owned..

Have a good night.

I'd rate Pea's record over Floyd's. Whitaker pretty much dominated two weight divisions in his pomp and fought everyone and anyone in his vicinity. The performance over Chavez eclipses anything Floyd managed and his foray up to light middle – where he unseated a 53-1 Julio Cesar Vasquez – is easily the equal of Floyd running rings around Canelo Alvarez (Vasquez had UDd Winky Wright prior to facing Pea lest we forget).

Even past his best and completely outsized, he did enough for many to feel he outhustled a really useful Oscar De la Hoya (back when Oscar was really on song before he played musical trainers and lost his way). Contrast that with Floyd’s performance against an old, part-time Oscar and I feel Whitaker looks the better fighter in that regard also. Would Floyd have beaten that version of De la Hoya? Pea also jumped straight in with the fearsome Tito Trinidad and showed tremendous courage to battle through a broken jaw and last the distance).

Ramirez (who was 100-6 when Whitaker outboxed him the first time), McGirt (x2), Nelson, Chavez and Vasquez were better fighters than the likes of Hatton, Alvarez, Corrales etc. for me. I also value fighters who take on all comers (it was Pea who chased a rematch with Chavez – who wanted nothing more to do with the little maestro). There was no messing about, no picking opponents at the right time, no catch weight nonsense, no waiting fighters out. If you were in his way, he’d box your ears off. Can you imagine him against the likes of Maidana or Castillo?

The greatest of the post-Leonard era for me.

Anyone know when this will be taking place roughly?

hazharrison wrote:I'd rate Pea's record over Floyd's. Whitaker pretty much dominated two weight divisions in his pomp and fought everyone and anyone in his vicinity. The performance over Chavez eclipses anything Floyd managed and his foray up to light middle – where he unseated a 53-1 Julio Cesar Vasquez – is easily the equal of Floyd running rings around Canelo Alvarez (Vasquez had UDd Winky Wright prior to facing Pea lest we forget).

Even past his best and completely outsized, he did enough for many to feel he outhustled a really useful Oscar De la Hoya (back when Oscar was really on song before he played musical trainers and lost his way). Contrast that with Floyd’s performance against an old, part-time Oscar and I feel Whitaker looks the better fighter in that regard also. Would Floyd have beaten that version of De la Hoya? Pea also jumped straight in with the fearsome Tito Trinidad and showed tremendous courage to battle through a broken jaw and last the distance).

Ramirez (who was 100-6 when Whitaker outboxed him the first time), McGirt (x2), Nelson, Chavez and Vasquez were better fighters than the likes of Hatton, Alvarez, Corrales etc. for me. I also value fighters who take on all comers (it was Pea who chased a rematch with Chavez – who wanted nothing more to do with the little maestro). There was no messing about, no picking opponents at the right time, no catch weight nonsense, no waiting fighters out. If you were in his way, he’d box your ears off. Can you imagine him against the likes of Maidana or Castillo?

The greatest of the post-Leonard era for me.  

Waste of time you commenting on this..

The guy that edits Floyd articles to make him look bad..

I respect Chris opinion however I disagree with it..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:I'd rate Pea's record over Floyd's. Whitaker pretty much dominated two weight divisions in his pomp and fought everyone and anyone in his vicinity. The performance over Chavez eclipses anything Floyd managed and his foray up to light middle – where he unseated a 53-1 Julio Cesar Vasquez – is easily the equal of Floyd running rings around Canelo Alvarez (Vasquez had UDd Winky Wright prior to facing Pea lest we forget).

Even past his best and completely outsized, he did enough for many to feel he outhustled a really useful Oscar De la Hoya (back when Oscar was really on song before he played musical trainers and lost his way). Contrast that with Floyd’s performance against an old, part-time Oscar and I feel Whitaker looks the better fighter in that regard also. Would Floyd have beaten that version of De la Hoya? Pea also jumped straight in with the fearsome Tito Trinidad and showed tremendous courage to battle through a broken jaw and last the distance).

Ramirez (who was 100-6 when Whitaker outboxed him the first time), McGirt (x2), Nelson, Chavez and Vasquez were better fighters than the likes of Hatton, Alvarez, Corrales etc. for me. I also value fighters who take on all comers (it was Pea who chased a rematch with Chavez – who wanted nothing more to do with the little maestro). There was no messing about, no picking opponents at the right time, no catch weight nonsense, no waiting fighters out. If you were in his way, he’d box your ears off. Can you imagine him against the likes of Maidana or Castillo?

The greatest of the post-Leonard era for me.  

Waste of time you commenting on this..

The guy that edits Floyd articles to make him look bad..

I respect Chris opinion however I disagree with it..

Never edited it - posted an excerpt and a link (I know it's a bit complicated for you). Basically, an excerpt is a part of the article. I chose the section that I wanted to make a point about. I posted the link for completeness. Don't worry, these things are very confusing.

Hopkins is saying on Twitter that Stevenson has Frak him, Hopkins was willing to come to Montreal to fight but Hopkins is saying that Stevenson doesn't want to face him and is lining up another fight with somebody he has already beaten lol. Wonder what Truss has to say about Chickenson now?

"Chickenson"....

Doesn't want to fight a guy who is a danger to himself and is embarrassing Boxing..

Good luck to him...

Fonfara beats him this time.