Who will be remembered as the greater fighter: Bernard Hopkins or Floyd Mayweather?

[IamInuit]

Floyd took half of his prime years off. Why? Cause he picked his fights and was rich. Shares half the blame for the biggest non fight in history and retired instead of honouring a rematch contract with Oscar. The question is who will historians remember as the greater fighter. It makes little difference whether or not one believes Floyd beats Hopkins in some hypothetical. When you take all things into account Hopkins wins hands down. Just his age alone almost wins the thing let alone his list of accomplishments at his advanced age throughout his 26 years. Like I said, not even close. Prove me wrong and make the case the other way. And don’t speak down to me like somehow I'm blinded by something and don’t believe what I'm saying. A question was asked and I answered it because I believe it to be so or I would not have said so.

[powerpuncher]

Floyd took half of his prime years off. Why? Cause he picked his fights and was rich. Shares half the blame for the biggest non fight in history and retired instead of honouring a rematch contract with Oscar. The question is who will historians remember as the greater fighter. It makes little difference whether or not one believes Floyd beats Hopkins in some hypothetical. When you take all things into account Hopkins wins hands down. Just his age alone almost wins the thing let alone his list of accomplishments at his advanced age throughout his 26 years. Like I said, not even close. Prove me wrong and make the case the other way. And don’t speak down to me like somehow I'm blinded by something and don’t believe what I'm saying. A question was asked and I answered it because I believe it to be so or I would not have said so.

Longevity is only one factor. Bhop has really raised his legacy because of it. That doesn't mean that he is the best fighter ever. Other than longevity, what else does Bhop have over Floyd? I ask it honestly. Cleaning out his division is the only thing I can think of but his list of opponents at middleweight aren't that impressive. Floyd could have done the same thing but chose to move up in weight to fighter better competition.

[IamInuit]

Floyd took half of his prime years off. Why? Cause he picked his fights and was rich. Shares half the blame for the biggest non fight in history and retired instead of honouring a rematch contract with Oscar. The question is who will historians remember as the greater fighter. It makes little difference whether or not one believes Floyd beats Hopkins in some hypothetical. When you take all things into account Hopkins wins hands down. Just his age alone almost wins the thing let alone his list of accomplishments at his advanced age throughout his 26 years. Like I said, not even close. Prove me wrong and make the case the other way. And don’t speak down to me like somehow I'm blinded by something and don’t believe what I'm saying. A question was asked and I answered it because I believe it to be so or I would not have said so.

Longevity is only one factor. Bhop has really raised his legacy because of it. That doesn't mean that he is the best fighter ever. Other than longevity, what else does Bhop have over Floyd? I ask it honestly. Cleaning out his division is the only thing I can think of but his list of opponents at middleweight aren't that impressive. Floyd could have done the same thing but chose to move up in weight to fighter better competition.

I know it is but I swear to God that when questions such as this get asked there are certain people that default to Floyd w/o even thinking about it. Its not just his longevity but its what he accomplished during it and how old he was when he started it. Maybe many of these people believe Bieber is better then the Stones. I've gone to bat for Floyd on just as many occasions as I've gone to bat for Hopkins and I wouldn't hang out with either of them.

When an historian looks at these questions he or she takes everything into account. Collecting trinkets although impressive I guess is not what it used to be. Floyd never unified one division he fought in. He never had to right. He was calling is own shots and anyone else in any of those 7 divisions would have been rubbed out right. He gets credit for no time served and yes I realize how good he was but he actually under achieved and at every question or any inquiry to the reasons there is always an excuse.

The question is, "who will be remembered as the greater fighter" I'm saying that it will be Hopkins if people bother to actually take an honest look. To be perfectly clear, I don't see anyone presently fighting that compares overall and even further I cant think of anyone who has retired over the last decade that compares which include many of my favourites who I cheered for when they fought him.

If anyone would like to do a comparison and make the case on the front page of this forum in favour of Mayweather and lay it on the line against Hopkins then I'm your huckleberry. Let me know when you'd like to make the submissions.

[Beanflicker]

Floyd took half of his prime years off. Why? Cause he picked his fights and was rich. Shares half the blame for the biggest non fight in history and retired instead of honouring a rematch contract with Oscar. The question is who will historians remember as the greater fighter. It makes little difference whether or not one believes Floyd beats Hopkins in some hypothetical. When you take all things into account Hopkins wins hands down. Just his age alone almost wins the thing let alone his list of accomplishments at his advanced age throughout his 26 years. Like I said, not even close. Prove me wrong and make the case the other way. And don’t speak down to me like somehow I'm blinded by something and don’t believe what I'm saying. A question was asked and I answered it because I believe it to be so or I would not have said so.

1. Floyd announced his retirement in June 2008. On May 2009, he announced he would be coming back to fight JMM in July 2009. Mayweather got hurt in training and the bout was pushed back to September 2009. So Mayweather was officially retired for about 11 months.

2. Bernard's accomplishments: fantastic career, and has had longevity like no one else in the history of boxing. Are we going completely off of longevity though? In that case, we don't need to talk anymore about it, because Bernard Hopkins is the undisputed #1 of all time, surpassing everyone. If we're talking about opposition beat (and I believe we are, because that always becomes the topic of discussion with Mayweather), who did he beat that puts him so far above Mayweather?

Why are guys like Trinidad and De la Hoya (both who really didn't belong at MW), Tarver, Wright, Pavlik, Pascal, Cloud, and whoever else you want to throw in there so much better than the guys Mayweather fought?

And when we talk about accomplishment, why don't we also talk about shortcomings, of which Floyd has none even after 18 years of professional fighting? Hopkins came up short vs Jones (no shame there, prime Jones was practically unbeatable), came up short vs Jermain twice, came up short vs Calzaghe and Dawson. Now granted, you can make the argument that those losses were in the advanced part of his career (but really, when you're talking about Hopkins, 40 wasn't an advanced part of his career), which is fair enough, but then again I'd have to ask who Hopkins beat during his 10 plus years as middleweight king that was so far above who Mayweather beat?

[Beanflicker]

Now discussing pure in-ring ability, the two areas where Floyd usually dwarfs everyone else (discipline and ring intelligence), Hopkins matches him, and probably exceeds him in the discipline category. Both guys were master boxers, true ring generals. That being said, Mayweather had more adaptability to change gears if something wasn't working. He had more depth in his game, whereas Hopkins was more apt to stick to his one style. When Hopkins ran up against a bad style for him (Taylor, Dawson) he wasn't able to make the adjustments and find a way to win, even in the rematches. Floyd was always able to make adjustments and get better as the fight progressed, and in the few rematches he had, he was always a different man in the second fight and went on to dominate.

Mayweather had more tools in his arsenal, and had superior athletic ability than Bhop. When I say better athlete, I'm speaking of speed, agility and reflexes (all of which Hopkins had an abundance of, but Mayweather's levels were off the charts). Mayweather was also the better puncher (something that isn't said too often).

[Rantcatrat]

Did Bernard ever hold a belt at 168? I don't think so. I was just thinking that if he so, he'd be a three weight class champion above 160, which has to be rare.

The OP's question cannot be answered yet because both fighters are still fighting.

Will Kovalev go on to have a HOF career? Will Bernard beat Stevenson to become the lineal champion before bowing out? Will Floyd fight GGG or even Kid Chocolate or even have another celebrated win at 147?

With all that said, although Bernard's opposition may be better, he lost to the best he faced: Joe Calzaghe, Sergiy Kovalev, Roy Jones, Jermain Taylor, Chad Dawson. Floyd never faced a Calzaghe or Roy Jones but he also hasn't lost. They both beat Oscar.

Who we admire more and who is ranked historically higher are two different things, I think.