If B Hop beats Wright.....

[Samson3000]

He's top 20 for sure imo. He's the 3rd greatest middleweight of all time behind SRR and Hagler, and now he's facing a TOP fighter. Even at 170 lbs, Winky Wright is no worse then the 3rd best fighter in the world. Honestly I don't get how that is lost on people.

He's already reached the top 20 imo. Look at this.

From the period of 1993 to 2005, 12 years, he was undefeated. Wins over Glenn Johnson, Felix Trinidad, Antwun Echols, William Joppy, Oscar De La Hoya and Howard Eastman. Yet he's not a top 20 fighter? Very few fighters have taken on all comers and beat every one of them soundly. Then he goes up to 175 at 42 years old and beats THE champion yet he is still slighted as insignificant? B-Hop is the most under appreciated fighter of our time. Boring fighter? Yeah especially in recent years but who cares? Now he's going up against the number 2 fighter in the world yet if he wins it means nothing? That would be one of the biggest victories of this entire decade.

Top 10? That's a stretch but I think he sits very comfortably in the top 20. And I think somewhere in the top 15, if he wins even higher maybe. But he has to be considered when you put together a top 10.

C'mon man, the names just highlight how weak his resume is in comparison with other "greats".

He faced three "stars" - Roy, Oscar and Tito. Roy BEAT him on the bridle. Oscar and Trinidad were out of their depth Welterweights.

The rest of the names are VERY GOOD wins but Johnson, Echols (twice), Joppy and Eastman are outstanding names? Don't think so. And in amongst the GOOD fighters you have the likes of Robert Allen THREE times, Morrade Hakker, Carl Daniels.

Jermain Taylor was his first serious test in years. Young, ambitious and an equal physical foe. Hopkins gets BEATEN twice. (spare me the cries of robbery )

His win over Tarver was excellent. But it was also brilliant matchmaking. Tarver was not only coming off a lacklustre performance against ancient-Roy but had blown up in weight, at 37 years old, to fanny about making movies in Hollywood.

Hopkins is a "great" middleweight. But he reigned in a weak division and was a very shrewd fight picker.

No-way is he top 10/20 GREATEST EVER

CC AGAIN FEN,you broke that shat down beautifully. I like B Hop alot but to call him one of20 greatest fighters that has ever lived,based on that resume,absolutely no way whatsoever. We can't even say he was the greatest middleweight ever either,and although it was not entirely his fault that his era was poor,his shrewd match making has not helped and it's a fact that in his first challenge in a long long time,from JT,someone physical,young,hungry and at his natural weight,B Hop lost twice(regardless of what we think,the record books back this up). A great fighter but no way in the top 20 that ever lived.

One thing I've always had a question of, is when people speak of the top 20 fighters that ever lived, are heavyweights included? I only ask because people often do a top 10 heavyweights of all time, and so I'm not sure if the top 20 fighters of all time is non heavyweights, or all fighters in general including heavyweights. If it's including heavyweights, I agree, Hopkins is not top 20, but if it's excluding heavyweights, I think he could be on the cusp of being in that last spot. For one thing, whenever this argument comes up, none of us even care to say who the people taking up the top 20 spots are that are keeping Hopkins, or any fighter out. And personally, I think (if we're talking non-heavyweights, there's only like 9 or 10 fighters who are gonna be unanimous on everyone's top 20 list. Those would be Robinson, Pep, Armstrong, Hagler, Hearns, Leonard, Duran, Sal Sanchez, and Whitaker. These are guys who there is no arguing that they don't belong in the top 20 of all time. So if heavyweights aren't included, it's very reasonable to assume Hopkins deserves a spot.

I totally agree. One thing B-Hop gets sh!t on for is that his win over Trinidad was just a case of beating a smaller fighter. If Hopkins was a natural welterweight, he'd have beaten Felix at 147 just as well. He didn't win because he was bigger, he won because he was better. DLH clearly had no business at 160, but that's not how it was with Trinidad. And on his two losses to Taylor, on the positive side, number 1, Taylor is still undefeated (and if you don't want to hear about Hopkins-Taylor decision controversy, don't bring up Taylor-Wright decision controversy), so that being said, Taylor has proven himself to be elite, and although losing it bad, it's much better to lose to someone who is formidable than to someone who is not. Number 2, he rebounded from the losses by moving up 2 weight classes and beating Tarver, no matter how out of shape Tarver may have been, we saw by that fight as well that Hopkins was clearly better, and IMO would have beaten him had Tarver not gone up in down in weight for the movie as well. Most importantly as Skyler mentioned, out of the top 20 fighters, only 10 are certain (I'd add Archie Moore to your list to make it 10), and so by saying Hopkins is NO WAY deserving of top 20, you have to mention 10 other fighters who are clearly greater, and with getting those previous 10 greats out the way, it's actually trickier than you might think. This is if heavyweights are not part of the list.