Mr. Masterpiece
After Pavlik, is Hopkins the best of his era?

It was a fight all those who witnessed may never, ever forget. In a bloodstained Chicago ring, 'Sugar' Ray Robinson delivered one of the best performances of his career. 'Sugar' battered long time foe, Jake LaMotta from pillar to post. The latter was cut, swollen and bruised when Robinson ended proceedings via TKO in the 13th, when after a barrage of blows, referee Frank Sicora was forced to jump in. Robinson, at this time at age 30, was a middleweight and a few years gone from his prime down at 147lbs, but he gave everyone in attendance flashback in what proved to be the final bout in a historic 6 fight series.

Fast forward 37 years, and in a makeshift ring somewhere in Atlantic City, debutant Clinton Mitchell picked up the first win of his career via majority decision. Mitchell hoped it would be the first of many (he retired in 1998 with a 3-1-1 record). His opponent was a Philadelphian named Bernard Hopkins. Now 20 years after the fight with Mitchell, Hopkins has an excellent 49-5-1 record and is a sure-fire first ballot Hall of Famer. That B-Hop is great is unquestionable, but how great? Some say the best of his era, this writer agrees.

Look at who he's beaten. While rival Roy Jones was padding out his record with names like Richard Hall and David Telesco, Hopkins was busy beating other future Hall of Famers for fun. Oscar De La Hoya, Winky Wright and Felix Trinidad will one day have a plaque in Canastota, but what else do they all have in common, that's right, they've all lost to Hopkins. But it's not just these three, Kelly Pavlik and Antonio Tarver have a good chance of making the hall, and Hopkins outclassed both of them. Impressive? Also factor in wins against William Joppy, Glen Johnson, Antwun Echols and Syd Vanderpool. There's no doubting Hopkins resume.

Some detractors point to Hopkins' losses, but really, had the judges have been a bit kinder, he could have another 4 wins on his ledger. The loss to Mitchell was only via majority decision and was razor close. Both losses (especially the first) to Jermain Taylor are highly disputed, as is the April defeat to Joe Calzaghe. In fact, Hopkins has only ever been beaten definitively once, and that was to a near-prime Roy Jones, nearly 2 years before he won Hopkins won his first world title. There's no shame in that.

Hopkins is somewhat considered a late bloomer, he was 30 when he won his first alphabet world title, The Ring magazine middleweight world champion at 36 and he won the same belt up at light-heavyweight at the grand old age of 41. That's longevity for you, has any other fighter fought so consistently well over such a long period of time, not many. B-Hop's 20 title defences at 160lbs illustrate perfectly what little effect time has played on Hopkins. Even now at 43 he is the consensus #2 175lbs fighter in the world and is coming of a dominant win over the extremely dangerous Pavlik, 17 years his junior. That Hopkins can still do this in his forties is a testament to Hopkins' conditioning. Have you ever seen Hopkins come to a fight out of shape? Thought not.

But the Nay-Sayers always find something else to hold onto. Some say Hopkins' questionable character writes him of from 'great' status. But why? The infamous 'white boy' comment to Calzaghe was a misunderstanding. Hopkins was not discriminating, he was just pointing out that when he was younger, everyone would want to fight the white guy in the gym as he was perceived as weak. Granted, 'The Executioner' did so in a very poor way, but he has since apologised and it's not like he does this kind of think every fight, like some other greats did e.g. Muhammad Ali. Other's point to his unfortunate trait of holding, sometimes unnecessarily and his style which often is said to ruin fights and make the opponent look bad, but since when have we judged fighters on how he wins fights. As long as he wins, it shouldn't matter how he does it. And it's not like Hopkins has always fought this way, he was once a different fighter. In his youth he took far more risks and picked up a lot more knockouts. The only reason for his in-ring metamorphosis is age, which although hasn't stopped him winning, has slowed him down. He has to fight differently than he used to otherwise he'd get knocked out every time at the top level. Why would Hopkins voluntarily do this? Simple answer is, he wouldn't.

Like him or not Hopkins is and always will be 'The Executioner'. So few weaknesses and so many strengths, Hopkins is a phenomenal physical specimen, one of the best pure athletes the world has ever seen. His constant evolution into a new fighter every few years is what has kept him ahead of the pack. 20 Middleweight Title defences, more than anyone and titles in two of boxing's toughest, most respected divisions and he's still building his legacy. His rise is an incredible one, from the streets to prison, to the ring, to glory. And once he finally hangs up the gloves, it will be a short 5 years wait until one more step can be added to that list 'to the Hall of Fame'.