Bob Fosters LHW Reign Vs Bernard Hopkins MW Reign. Overrated?

[IronDanHamza]

I hate this myth that hopkins only fought blownup welters,,, oscar and simon fit that descrpition

but holmes was a legit mw,, and frankly i thought tito was too, yes he started at welter, but he moved up just like many great fighters have done,, I think tito was a full fledged mw when he fought hopkins,,

echols, mercado, allen, johnson, eastman, joppy were all top ranked mw when hopkins fought them,,

It may have been a weak era, but i cant name any mw that hopkins didnt fight, except for maybe julio ceasar green??

like i said before, hopkins and foster were both in relative weak eras of the division, which was a major factor in their dominance,,

Much like the klits at heavy now,, weak division in historic terms,

It doesnt mean that guys like hopkins or foster werent great fighters, they were but the era was weak

I'd say Trinidad was much more a MW than Tiger was a LHW.

Tiger was the Champ at LHW and obviously a legit win but he was very small for the weight. He was absolutely dwarfed by Foster when they fought.

Trinidad was quite small for MW but no where near as small as Tiger was at LHW. Tiger never weighed more than 168 lbs.

[Ray Corso]

Heres the difference between me and most people on this forum. I do NOT consider Foster or Hopkins great fighters. Have skills and having power is a great advantage but neither of these men fought great! They maybe in a great fight once in a while but they are NOT great fighters the majority of their bouts! Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Benny Leonard, Ike Williams and others are "great fighters"!!! How can Hopkins be great and boring at the same time!!!
As for the OP topic I don't think Fosters reign was a weak one, he had good competition from tuff fighters as I mentioned and Hopkins wasn't terrible either. If you want terrible NOW is the time.
After watching Froch and whats his name last week I might stop watching this crap again. If those two are the top tier guys I don't know whats going on. To me they're horrible!!!!! Froch has the worst jab I've EVER seen! Let alone be a top tier guy! The kid chased him down after he threw his jab and he stood up into a right hand, sorry thats boxing 101!! Foster and Hopkins would reign over these fellows all day!

..and yes I do mean Ward too Foster would KO him! Ray

[IronDanHamza]

Heres the difference between me and most people on this forum. I do NOT consider Foster or Hopkins great fighters. Have skills and having power is a great advantage but neither of these men fought great! They maybe in a great fight once in a while but they are NOT great fighters the majority of their bouts! Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Benny Leonard, Ike Williams and others are "great fighters"!!! How can Hopkins be great and boring at the same time!!!
As for the OP topic I don't think Fosters reign was a weak one, he had good competition from tuff fighters as I mentioned and Hopkins wasn't terrible either. If you want terrible NOW is the time.
After watching Froch and whats his name last week I might stop watching this crap again. If those two are the top tier guys I don't know whats going on. To me they're horrible!!!!! Froch has the worst jab I've EVER seen! Let alone be a top tier guy! The kid chased him down after he threw his jab and he stood up into a right hand, sorry thats boxing 101!! Foster and Hopkins would reign over these fellows all day!

..and yes I do mean Ward too Foster would KO him! Ray

Just way off topic here.

My point is Hopkins reign is similar to Foster's yet Foster is consistently ranked highly (Including on this forum) whilst Hopkins is consistently ranked lower.

Thus, is Foster's reign overrated. Is the question being posed.

To me it is. Does anyone disagree? Does Foster's resume warrant a place in the Top 5 at LHW?

[Scott9945]

Just way off topic here.

My point is Hopkins reign is similar to Foster's yet Foster is consistently ranked highly (Including on this forum) whilst Hopkins is consistently ranked lower.

Thus, is Foster's reign overrated. Is the question being posed.

To me it is. Does anyone disagree? Does Foster's resume warrant a place in the Top 5 at LHW?

Foster's resume is not top 5 all time. His ability is top 5 though, IMO. I'm more inclined to rate on ability as opposed to resume, but based on the topic question it is no.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I think Foster gets alot of praise because he had a more exciting style, everyone always loves a big puncher and devastating ko, and foster had plenty of those,

Plus foster fought in an era when boxing popularity was peaking across the world, whereas hopkins fought in an era when boxing popularity has waned, especially in the states

Honestly i think hopkins is the better fighter, and i would favor hopkins over foster h2h


I dont know why foster is ranked higher than hopkins, i feel like it should be the exact opposite only for the fact that lhw has so much competition for the top 10 ATG, whereas mw division its not quite as deep and most of the great mw fighters were usually blownup welters like srr, basillo, etc whereas at lhw their is alot of guys who spent their peak years at lhw like conn, tunney, spinks, foster, muhammed, charles, moore, jones, etc

[IronDanHamza]

I think Foster gets alot of praise because he had a more exciting style, everyone always loves a big puncher and devastating ko, and foster had plenty of those,

Plus foster fought in an era when boxing popularity was peaking across the world, whereas hopkins fought in an era when boxing popularity has waned, especially in the states

Honestly i think hopkins is the better fighter, and i would favor hopkins over foster h2h


I dont know why foster is ranked higher than hopkins, i feel like it should be the exact opposite only for the fact that lhw has so much competition for the top 10 ATG, whereas mw division its not quite as deep and most of the great mw fighters were usually blownup welters like srr, basillo, etc whereas at lhw their is alot of guys who spent their peak years at lhw like conn, tunney, spinks, foster, muhammed, charles, moore, jones, etc

I'd say Middleweight Is the deeper divsion.

Arguably the deepest ever IMO.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I'd say Middleweight Is the deeper divsion.

Arguably the deepest ever IMO.

I dont think it has the top level talent that lhw does,,,

charles, moore, greb, conn, tunney, jones, spinks, foster, mustafa

mw: monzon, hagler, hopkins, tiger, greb

Im just talking about career guys or majority of career at mw or lhw
I guess mw is deeper if you throw in everyone that has fought at mw, but if you take out all the welters that moved up like srr, la motta, hearns etc I think lhw has alot more top heavy talent whereas with true career mw fighters, there isnt alot compared to true career lhw

[IronDanHamza]

I dont think it has the top level talent that lhw does,,,

charles, moore, greb, conn, tunney, jones, spinks, foster, mustafa

mw: monzon, hagler, hopkins, tiger, greb

Im just talking about career guys or majority of career at mw or lhw
I guess mw is deeper if you throw in everyone that has fought at mw, but if you take out all the welters that moved up like srr, la motta, hearns etc I think lhw has alot more top heavy talent whereas with true career mw fighters, there isnt alot compared to true career lhw

Lamotta? A Welterweight that moved up?? He was a Middleweight his whole career and a big one at that.

If you're talking guys who didn't move up in weight than how can you include Charles,Moore, Greb, Conn, and Roy Jones at LHW? They all moved up in weight and some of them multiple times before they reached LHW.

All it really boils down to is people who did good work at either weight and in my eyes the history of the MW divsion is much deeper.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Lamotta? A Welterweight that moved up?? He was a Middleweight his whole career and a big one at that.

If you're talking guys who didn't move up in weight than how can you include Charles,Moore, Greb, Conn, and Roy Jones at LHW? They all moved up in weight and some of them multiple times before they reached LHW.

All it really boils down to is people who did good work at either weight and in my eyes the history of the MW divsion is much deeper.

ok i stand corrected, i thought lamotta started at welter and moved up

charles, moore, conn, jones, they primarily had their careers at lhw, Greb is hard to pinpoint since he seemed to fight everywhere much like langford,,,

Mw has more fighters but i just think lhw has better top level talent and is much harder to rank an ATG

Im sure you can rattle off all the great mw fighters, i just think that lhw has tremendous talent in the top 10-15 guys, whereas mw has about 100 guys you could rank, but i dont think the upper tier is as packed

[IronDanHamza]

ok i stand corrected, i thought lamotta started at welter and moved up

charles, moore, conn, jones, they primarily had their careers at lhw, Greb is hard to pinpoint since he seemed to fight everywhere much like langford,,,

Mw has more fighters but i just think lhw has better top level talent and is much harder to rank an ATG

Im sure you can rattle off all the great mw fighters, i just think that lhw has tremendous talent in the top 10-15 guys, whereas mw has about 100 guys you could rank, but i dont think the upper tier is as packed

I don't think it really matters. There's fighters who moved up who had a longer time at MW than some of those guys did at LHW.

I disagree I think the MW's top tier is extremely packed with great fighters and talent.

Monzon, Hagler, Greb, Robinson, Fitzsimmons, Tiger, Lamotta, Cerdan, Hopkins, Burley

Who I'd put at the top of the pile which is ridiculous talent.

Then there's guys like Flowers, Walker, Steele, Fullmer, Williams the list goes on and on.

I think that "Upper Tier" is definitely better than what's on offer at LHW.

The only two divisions I'd say are as deep are Lightweight and Welterweight.