View Full Version : Bernard Hopkins Over Rated! any one agree?


Joey Giardello
01-10-2010, 08:41 PM
For me he is not in the same league as other legends he is always geting compared to! such as archie moore! his 2 defeats to taylor and calzaghe were bad defeats as i dont rate them both as great fighters! now if hopkins was as great as he says he should of beat them both!

His best wins are against blown up welterweights and most of his title defence's were just the ibf title, were as most of former middleweight king carlos monzon title defences were the wbc and wba. He also priced himself out of super fights with james toney and a roy jones rematch, which hurt his legacy.What are your thoughts on hopkins being over rated?

HaglerSteelChin
01-10-2010, 08:57 PM
I think it depends how high the person rates BHOP. If they say he is better than MW's as Harry Greb,Monzon,Marcel Cedan, Hagler, Zale etc., than i think he is overrated. I do think BHOP is atleast a top 10 MW of all time though.

My biggest issue with BHOP is that it took him 3 shots to be a MW champ and it was just for IBF. He lost to Jones Jr by atleast 4 or 5 points- i had it 117-111 the judges had it 116-112. His second shot for MW champ was a Draw with Segundo mercado. Mercado even floored him twice and some used the excuse that it was the high elevation of Ecuador. Eventually, he won the IBF Title with a KO of Mercado in the rematch.

I do give him credit for his 20 title defenses but his greatest two wins were with DLH and Trinidad guys who were better at WW and JR MW. Nonetheless, BHOP is a top 10 MW easily. I only say he is overrated when people say he is better than Greb, Zale, Monzon, hagler etc.

Joey Giardello
01-10-2010, 09:00 PM
I think it depends how high the person rates BHOP. If they say he is better than MW's as Harry Greb,Monzon,Marcel Cedan, Hagler, Zale etc., than i think he is overrated. I do think BHOP is atleast a top 10 MW of all time though.

My biggest issue with BHOP is that it took him 3 shots to be a MW champ and it was just for IBF. He lost to Jones Jr by atleast 4 or 5 points- i had it 117-111 the judges had it 116-112. His second shot for MW champ was a Draw with Segundo mercado. Mercado even floored him twice and some used the excuse that it was the high elevation of Ecuador. Eventually, he won the IBF Title with a KO of Mercado in the rematch.

I do give him credit for his 20 title defenses but his greatest two wins were with DLH and Trinidad guys who were better at WW and JR MW. Nonetheless, BHOP is a top 10 MW easily. I only say he is overrated when people say he is better than Greb, Zale, Monzon, hagler etc.
good post, i also think in middleweight match ups, monzon, hagler, greb, la motta, burley and billy conn all beat hopkins

dagrtst
01-10-2010, 09:12 PM
The Calzaghe and Taylor fights are controversial. People scored it differently.

I wouldn't say he's overrated. He's beat DLH, Trinidad, Wright, Tarver, G. Johnson and Pavlik. That's pretty good for a guy who was around his 40's.

Obama
01-10-2010, 10:33 PM
If any of you actually watched the first Mercado fight you wouldn't call it a draw. :nonono:

B-Hop won by a mile. And losing to a near peak RJJ when you're 4 years away from entering your prime is nothing to be ashamed of.

Counting the Calzaghe loss against Hopkins is plain sad. The man was 43 years old and fighting an elite undefeated top p4p fighter who wins fights on speed and activity, two things old fighters have a very difficult time coping with. Calzaghe was the damn favorite for a reason. The fact that Hopkins managed to leave the fight with a SD does him credit.

If you're going to under play Hopkins wins over Trinidad and De La Hoya, you need to under play Hagler's wins over Hearns and Duran, and flat out condemn him for losing to Leonard.

Ripping on the fact that most his title defenses are of the IBF belt is also sad. If you knew who the other champions where around the time he won the belt, you'd know better. Joppy was one. He'd go on to defeat Joppy later, and he also beat the man that beat Joppy (Trinidad) to win the title. After Gerald McClellan vacated the WBC title it was in no serious hands. An over the hill Jackson won it back, immediately lost it to Quincy Taylor, who in turn immediately lost it to Keith Holmes. Holmes then proceeded to duck Hopkins until the Don King MW tournament, where Hopkins beat him easily and took the title. And I'm not even going to mention the WBO title, which wasn't even recognized at the time. It'd be like talking about the IBO title today.

In reality Hopkins was the most avoided fighter at 160 lbs. Without ATGs seeking glory like Trinidad and DLH, and don king's MW tournament, the man would not have been given the opportunity to unify all the titles (only man to actually hold all 4 major belts at the same time).

HaglerSteelChin
01-10-2010, 11:01 PM
You make some good points Obama. As i said in my first post it depends how high people rank BHOP for me. If he is rated higher as guys we see as the top MW's than i say he is Overrated. But i do consider him easily a top 10 MW.

Here is a few differences i have with the comparisons with his fights with DLH and Trinidad compared to Hagler vs Hearns and Duran. DLH never belonged at MW. In fact, his only win for the WBO title was a gift decision against Felix Sturm. In addition, DLH started at 130 and was physically much smaller than BHOP. Trinidad lost the BHOP fight right before the bell rung. Once he was made to re-wrap that solid punch that KOD Wiliam Joppy mysteriously gone. Joppy never was even KOD by BHOP and J-Taylor, it was obvious Tito had something in those gloves fishy.

Hagler beat Thomas Hearns who was both taller and had a greater reach. The fact that Hearns started as a WW was inconsequential as he would fights as high as crusierweight. Duran was not much smaller than Hagler. Hagler was like 5-9 and even SRL was taller and they had almost same reach about 74 inches. Hopkins is like 6-1 and never had to deal with bigger guys like Hagler did. Hagler fought much taller guys as Minter, Obeljimias, Geraldo to name a few. Both Hearns and Duran are much higher in boxing history than DLH or Trinidad can ever wish for.

I have the BHOP Vs Mercado fight on DVD, haven't seen it in years. But here is the thing. BHOP got KD twice in two different RDS. That means he needs to make up for 4 points in 10RDS. Even if he wins 7 out of those 10 RDS than he has a draw. He would need to win 8 of the 10 non kd rds to win the fight. BHOP might have been able to squeak it out but he was in the other guy's country and needed to do more to win the vacant title. In fact, i remember Don King and Butch Lewis arguing after the fight. Don King said something like " We shoudln't come out with a draw my fighter KD twice and had control of the fight." BHOP was like "only one of them should have been scored as a KD and he thought he pulled it by a point."

Nonetheless, I do consider BHOP as one of the greatest MW champs. I just don't think he is a top 5 MW.

mickey malone
01-10-2010, 11:18 PM
He does get overrated by some people, but he's still one helluva fighter..
His mental resolve and attitude is reminiscent of old school, and Hopkins at whatever age, in whatever era, would fight twice a month if you let him..
Without doubt, he should be in everyones AT top 10, but below Monzon, Hagler, SRR, Greb, Jones, Burley and possibly Les Darcy if he'd lived long enough..
I think he'd have won close DC's over LaMotta, Zale, Cerdan, Fulmer, Pender, Graziano, Griffith, Conn and Toney, but it's common knowledge that Bernard can be upset by certain styles, and someone like the fleet footed Freddie Steele would'a given him fits!
I'd put him at around 7 or 8 in the MW list.. Is that overrated?

ILLuminato
01-10-2010, 11:59 PM
good post, i also think in middleweight match ups, monzon, hagler, greb, la motta, burley and billy conn all beat hopkins

MAYBE Hagler or Monzon but Hopkins beats the rest of your list. He destroys Lamotta.

One more round
01-11-2010, 01:39 AM
Hopkins is an ATG, and one of the most skilled fighters i have ever seen.

In my opinion he has a chance of beating every MW there ever was, and none would handle him easily.

DeepSleep
01-11-2010, 02:09 AM
Remember that Hopkins losses are:

- His first ever pro fight which I don't think effects his legacy at all since a defensive wizard like Hopkins who doesn't rely on reflexes would need quite a few Professional fights before he would really hit his stride. Also take note this fight was at LHW not MW.

- Prime Roy Jones Jr. who is a stylistic nightmare for a defensive fighter like Hopkins since his unorthodox punches and freakish speed would make landing his right hand counter very difficult.

- Jermain Taylor x 2, he was 40 years old. How many fighters legacy are determined by fights they took in their forties? Jermain Taylor is a solid MW who pushed a post-prime Hopkins to the limit and won two very narrow decisions that many gave to Hopkins. Again he was 40 years old here hardly a man in his prime.

- Joe Calzaghe, he was 43. Just because Hopkins is talented enough defensively to beat Kelly Pavlik does not equate to Hopkins is in his prime. Again take note he was 43 years old. If Hopkins had been 34 years old in this fight I'd favor him to teach Joe a lesson.

I rate Hopkins as a top 5 MW of all time and his defensive skills makes him an extremely tough fight for any middleweight not named Roy Jones Jr. or Harry Greb in my eyes.

TheStoneRoses
01-11-2010, 02:18 AM
I Don't agree, Hopkins is one of the greatest p4p champs ever

General Zod
01-11-2010, 06:24 AM
To be overrated is not necessarily a bad thing it just means his not as good as people think he is. For example he simply doesnt have the competition to be considered a legendary fighter.

Delahoya: was a A+ ww, but a poor mw he should be 0-2 at mw, he would move back down to jmw and say that he had no business at mw. So a win over him is good but not great.

Tito: At ww he was A+, but at mw he was at best B, he lost by complete shut outs to the two best mw's he faced. The fact that he went 3-2 at mw and then retired shows that mw was not his prime division. Also the hand wrap issue hurts his legacy as well, where did his punching power go after the Hopkins dressing room fiasco? So a win over him is good but not great.

Jones: he lost clearly to Jones and priced himself out of a rematch, how could Hopkins demand 50-50 split with Jones whose belt would of been on the line, and was a much more popular fighter?

Toney: Hopkins priced himself out of this as well, on the day the contracts were to be signed he refused to sign complaining about money problems.

Taylor: Back to back losses to Taylor who just wasnt very goo and is now 1-4 in his last 5 fights.

So if people want to say he is good/solid champion etc, I have no problem with that, but to say he is legendary or the like, then I have to disagee with that.

Dynamite Kid
01-11-2010, 06:41 AM
For me he is not in the same league as other legends he is always geting compared to! such as archie moore! his 2 defeats to taylor and calzaghe were bad defeats as i dont rate them both as great fighters! now if hopkins was as great as he says he should of beat them both!

His best wins are against blown up welterweights and most of his title defence's were just the ibf title, were as most of former middleweight king carlos monzon title defences were the wbc and wba. He also priced himself out of super fights with james toney and a roy jones rematch, which hurt his legacy.What are your thoughts on hopkins being over rated?




I dont think he is overrated. I think Roy Jones is overrated (legacy wise)

Although id agree a criticism that can be leveled at Hopkins is that a part of his greatness is attributed to his longevity later in his career.


IMO you cant disregard some of the elite fighters he has beaten though, smaller or not. Some fighters never fight an elite fighter in their career yet Hopkins has fought Winky, DLH, Tito, Tarver, Jones, Calzaghe,plus when you add his Middleweight reign (20 defences)and solid wins like Pavlik, Echols, Glen Johnson,Holmes,Joppy.

I can understand why someone could think he is overrated but is there a fighter out there that you could not find valid arguments for to question their resume, which looks strong from the outset but when get into it you can find reasons why its not as strong as it looks?

On the whole and say Hopkins is rated accordingly, however i dont disagree with anyone who think its overrated.

BOLLOCKS
01-11-2010, 06:45 AM
I agree.....

TheHolyCross
01-11-2010, 06:46 AM
can i just put this out there? hopkins was as prime as can be against roy jones
you get less athletic as you age, after jones he started declining(in his 30's)
hopkins actually had power at that time, great stamina and all, to say the hopkins that fought jones could'nt beat the midgets tito and oscar de la hoya is truely ignorance

and his style changed? obviously when your 35 your not gonna be fighting like a 28 year old, what a stupid myth

Obama
01-11-2010, 06:51 AM
Here is a few differences i have with the comparisons with his fights with DLH and Trinidad compared to Hagler vs Hearns and Duran. DLH never belonged at MW. In fact, his only win for the WBO title was a gift decision against Felix Sturm. In addition, DLH started at 130 and was physically much smaller than BHOP. Trinidad lost the BHOP fight right before the bell rung. Once he was made to re-wrap that solid punch that KOD Wiliam Joppy mysteriously gone. Joppy never was even KOD by BHOP and J-Taylor, it was obvious Tito had something in those gloves fishy.


DLH's body was more suited for MW than Duran. And Hopkins fought him at a catchweight of 156 lbs. DLH weighed in at 155, 1 lb over the JMW limit. DLH was the #1 rated JMW before "losing" to a prime HOF bound Shane Mosley under the influence of EPO, HGH, and the Clear. DLH was also clearly out of shape for the Sturm fight, and in top condition for the Hopkins fight. DLH also weighed 160 for Sturm.

Hopkins natural size compared to Hagler's size cannot be used against him in regards to greatness in 1 specific weight division. It only has legitimacy in rating them p4p, then again, Hopkins actually moved up and won the Ring LHW title while Hagler retired as a MW.

You're clutching at straws claiming Trinidad was nothing without his hand wraps. And even if you want to pretend the wraps made him, he would have needed to land clean punches to KO Hopkins, who has a very good chin. I don't recall when he was doing this. At no point in the fight does a viewer sit there and say to himself "Tito would be in this fight if he hit harder."

And seriously, there was nothing illegal in the hand wraps. The manner in which they were wrapped was the issue. Different commissions have different rules when it comes to wrapping. Nazim Richardson has witnessed both the Tito and the Margarito hand wraps. He's on record stating that what Margarito did was far worse than what Tito did.


Hagler beat Thomas Hearns who was both taller and had a greater reach. The fact that Hearns started as a WW was inconsequential as he would fights as high as crusierweight. Duran was not much smaller than Hagler. Hagler was like 5-9 and even SRL was taller and they had almost same reach about 74 inches. Hopkins is like 6-1 and never had to deal with bigger guys like Hagler did. Hagler fought much taller guys as Minter, Obeljimias, Geraldo to name a few. Both Hearns and Duran are much higher in boxing history than DLH or Trinidad can ever wish for.


It is not inconsequential where Hearns started. He was above his best weight, as was Trinidad. Main difference between Trinidad and Hearns was one man got disinterested in fighting after he lost, while the other didn't. Thus Hearns continued to climb the scales. And while he got to CW, he clearly had no business fighting at that point. Anyways, Hearns resume at MW is far from impressive. He also got KTFO by Iran Barkley.

Once again with Duran, I don't care how small you think Hagler was. Duran started his career at Featherweight for Christ's sake. He even beat a future FW Champion while he was there, Ernesto Marcel. Duran's best weight division was LW, this much cannot be argued. DLH's best on the other hand was WW. Which one is closer to MW?

Hopkins also fought larger Middleweights, few were bigger than him, but he fought them. As stated before it doesn't really matter, Hopkins moved up to LHW, Hagler didn't.

Tarver, Pavlik, Holmes, and Mercado are all at least 6'2. And while guys like Echols weren't that tall, he was a very built man.


I have the BHOP Vs Mercado fight on DVD, haven't seen it in years. But here is the thing. BHOP got KD twice in two different RDS. That means he needs to make up for 4 points in 10RDS. Even if he wins 7 out of those 10 RDS than he has a draw. He would need to win 8 of the 10 non kd rds to win the fight. BHOP might have been able to squeak it out but he was in the other guy's country and needed to do more to win the vacant title. In fact, i remember Don King and Butch Lewis arguing after the fight. Don King said something like " We shoudln't come out with a draw my fighter KD twice and had control of the fight." BHOP was like "only one of them should have been scored as a KD and he thought he pulled it by a point."

Nonetheless, I do consider BHOP as one of the greatest MW champs. I just don't think he is a top 5 MW.

Your memory of the fight is shady.

Round 1: 10 - 9 Hopkins
Round 2: 10 - 9 Hopkins
*Round 3: 10 - 9 Hopkins
Round 4: 10 - 9 Hopkins
Round 5: 8 - 10 Mercado
*Round 6: 10 - 9 Hopkins
Round 7: 8 - 10 Mercado
Round 8: 9 - 10 Mercado
Round 9: 10 - 9 Hopkins
Round 10: 10 - 9 Hopkins
Round 11: 10 - 9 Hopkins
Round 12: 10 - 9 Hopkins

Final Score: 115 - 111 Hopkins

This was a really easy fight to score.

The starred rounds are rounds in which Hopkins was robbed of a knockdown. He was robbed blind in the 3rd, and mildly robbed in the 6th (Mercado sat on the ropes to keep himself up). In both instances Mercado was very noticeably hurt. Anyways, Hopkins won 9 rounds. 2 KDS doesn't make up for that.

General Zod
01-11-2010, 06:58 AM
I dont think he is overrated. I think Roy Jones is overrated (legacy wise)
Jones moved up to fighter bigger fighters, while Hopkins moved down to fight smaller fighters, so Jones in my opinion should always be ranked higher.


IMO you cant disregard some of the elite fighters he has beaten though, smaller or not. Some fighters never fight an elite fighter in their career yet Hopkins has fought Winky, DLH, Tito, Tarver, Jones, Calzaghe,plus when you add his Middleweight reign (20 defences)and solid wins like Pavlik, Echols, Glen Johnson,Holmes,Joppy.
If the fighters you beat dont achieve anything in the weight class you beat them like Winky and Pavlik, then the wins are good but not great. Winky was Hopkins wbc mandatory I believe but Hopkins chose to fight a green Taylor instead. He lost to Jones and Calzaghe so im not sure why you are listing them? Johnson, Joppy and Echols were good fighters but not great fighters, none of them are ATG or even HOFers.


I can understand why someone could think he is overrated but is there a fighter out there that you could not find valid arguments for to question their resume, which looks strong from the outset but when get into it you can find reasons why its not as strong as it looks?

On the whole and say Hopkins is rated accordingly, however i dont disagree with anyone who think its overrated.
Where do you rate him on the ATG list? Also why has he only ever fought one bigger fighter, if you can class Tarver as a bigger fighter seeing as how Hopkins pro debut was at lhw?

Obama
01-11-2010, 07:09 AM
Also why has he only ever fought one bigger fighter, if you can class Tarver as a bigger fighter seeing as how Hopkins pro debut was at lhw?

You can class a lot of people as bigger fighters if you monitor the night of the fight weights. Hopkins was not a natural LHW when he started his career, he merely was unconditioned at the time. Hopkins was willing to make 154 lbs up to age 39, so it's quite foolish to suggest he was natural for 175 when he was 23. Hopkins actually offered to fight DLH at 154, but DLH pushed the weight up to 156 just so Hopkins would put his MW titles on the line.

Dynamite Kid
01-11-2010, 07:12 AM
[QUOTE]Jones moved up to fighter bigger fighters, while Hopkins moved down to fight smaller fighters, so Jones in my opinion should always be ranked higher.

Although id agree a criticism that can be leveled at Hopkins is that a part of his greatness is attributed to his longevity later in his career.[QUOTE]


Marvin Hagler fought big men like Juan Roldan,Fully Obell, Sibson (huge) but no one gave him the problems the smaller Leonard, Duran did, reason? Duran, Leonard were elite where as the aforementioned were just solid fighters.


[QUOTE] If the fighters you beat dont achieve anything in the weight class you beat them like Winky and Pavlik, then the wins are good but not great. Winky was Hopkins wbc mandatory I believe but Hopkins chose to fight a green Taylor instead. He lost to Jones and Calzaghe so im not sure why you are listing them? Johnson, Joppy and Echols were good fighters but not great fighters, none of them are ATG or even HOFers.


Well Duran achieved what as a Middleweight? I did not say Pavlik was a great win i said it was a solid win, Wink walks around at 175 as Roy Jones has stated, plus when all said and done he is/was an elite! fighter. Again i did not call Johnson, Joppy and Echols great wins, infact i specifically stated they were solid wins.




Where do you rate him on the ATG list? Also why has he only ever fought one bigger fighter, if you can class Tarver as a bigger fighter seeing as how Hopkins pro debut was at lhw?

I dont have an ATG list because they are too contentious. I rank him above Roy Jones though.

General Zod
01-11-2010, 07:17 AM
DLH's body was more suited for MW than Duran. And Hopkins fought him at a catchweight of 156 lbs. DLH weighed in at 155, 1 lb over the JMW limit. DLH was the #1 rated JMW before "losing" to a prime HOF bound Shane Mosley under the influence of EPO, HGH, and the Clear. DLH was also clearly out of shape for the Sturm fight, and in top condition for the Hopkins fight. DLH also weighed 160 for Sturm.

It doesn't matter if he was in shape or not, he lost that fight and was given a gift decision. His record at mw should be 0-2, hardly the record of a great mw. Duran after losing to Hagler went on to beat Barkely, DLH after losing to Hopkins went back down to jmw.


Hopkins natural size compared to Hagler's size cannot be used against him in regards to greatness in 1 specific weight division. It only has legitimacy in rating them p4p, then again, Hopkins actually moved up and won the Ring LHW title while Hagler retired as a MW.

Not really a valid arguement, Hopkins pro debut was at lhw, then he moved down to have 20 fights at smw, before moving down again to mw. Hagler as a amateur was a jmw before moving up to mw. He spent his entire career fighting guys his own size, something which Hopkins didnt. Hopkins resume at lhw is also completely shocking after beating Tarver he has now faced 4 blown ups and is ducking the no 2 lhw Dawson.



And seriously, there was nothing illegal in the hand wraps. The manner in which they were wrapped was the issue. Different commissions have different rules when it comes to wrapping. Nazim Richardson has witnessed both the Tito and the Margarito hand wraps. He's on record stating that what Margarito did was far worse than what Tito did.

Bouie Fisher:
I tell you, Ike. They have been getting away with that for a long time. I sent my people to Trinidad's locker room to make sure everything was right. When they got there they came back to me and told me that Trinidad's left hand was wrapped before they got there. So, I had to go over to his dressing room myself, this is my business and I have been doing it for over 50 years. When I got there I told them to unwrap the hand and do it over because we need to see the hand being wrapped. They refused to unwrap the hands so I told them I guess the fight will not happen then, we can reschedule to another date. The officials came in and said we don't have time to do this over. I told them, well we must do this right or no fight. They know the rules, no tape on the skin or tape on the ankle. His left hand was heavy just like your camera.
http://www.east side boxing.com/Interview-Fisher.html

Naz richardson has changed his story over the years, back in the days it was more in lines with Bouies now he plays it down.


Hopkins also fought larger Middleweights, few were bigger than him,but he fought them. As stated before it doesn't really matter, Hopkins moved up to LHW, Hagler didn't.

Tarver, Pavlik, Holmes, and Mercado are all at least 6'2. And while guys like Echols weren't that tall, he was a very built man.

Since beating Tarver in 2006, why hasnt fought any lhw's?

bojangles1987
01-11-2010, 07:22 AM
I think he's slightly overrated, too many people think he might be the best middleweight ever. His longevity is impressive but he is not among the top 5.

General Zod
01-11-2010, 07:25 AM
You can class a lot of people as bigger fighters if you monitor the night of the fight weights. Hopkins was not a natural LHW when he started his career, he merely was unconditioned at the time.

I find that hard to believe that, this was his big chance to do something with his life and you want me to believe that he turned up out of shape? Also just because A fighter doesnt drain himself doesn't mean he doesnt belong in that wieght class see Mayweather, Corley and now Pac, who come fight night are always near the official weight limit. Im also interested in where you got this info from?


Hopkins was willing to make 154 lbs up to age 39, so it's quite foolish to suggest he was natural for 175 when he was 23. Hopkins actually offered to fight DLH at 154, but DLH pushed the weight up to 156 just so Hopkins would put his MW titles on the line.
Come fight night Hopkins was back up to 169 lbs (lhw).

General Zod
01-11-2010, 07:33 AM
Marvin Hagler fought big men like Juan Roldan,Fully Obell, Sibson (huge) but no one gave him the problems the smaller Leonard, Duran did, reason? Duran, Leonard were elite where as the aforementioned were just solid fighters.


Hagler fought the wrong fight with Duran he was way to cautious, his best rounds were went he started turning up the pressure in rounds 6,7,14 and 15. He was over the hill when he fought Leonard, which is why Leonard chose to fight him at that time.



Well Duran achieved what as a Middleweight?
Beat Barkley to get the WBC belt


I did not say Pavlik was a great win i said it was a solid win, Winky walks around at 175 as Roy Jones has stated, plus when is all said and done he is/was an elite! fighter. Again i did not call Johnson, Joppy and Echols great wins, infact i specifically stated they were solid wins.

Fair enough, my mistake



I dont have an ATG list because they are too contentious. I rank him above Roy Jones though.
We will have to agree, to disagree.

oaklandstephen
01-11-2010, 07:51 AM
good post, i also think in middleweight match ups, monzon, hagler, greb, la motta, burley and billy conn all beat hopkins

i think hopkins beats all of them

Obama
01-11-2010, 08:15 AM
I find that hard to believe that, this was his big chance to do something with his life and you want me to believe that he turned up out of shape? Also just because A fighter doesnt drain himself doesn't mean he doesnt belong in that wieght class see Mayweather, Corley and now Pac, who come fight night are always near the official weight limit. Im also interested in where you got this info from?


You find it hard to believe that he wasn't in top physical condition yet he lost his first fight against a nobody? .......

Whether or not fighters belong in their weight class is entirely dependent on how good they are and how good the division is. If fighters are simply good enough, they can compete successfully above their natural weight.

As for Hopkins, he didn't drain himself to make weight, he did it comfortably, illustrated in his performances.

Also, I'm old enough to be around when it happened, I don't need to be pulling sources out of my ass.


Come fight night Hopkins was back up to 169 lbs (lhw).

You do realize Junior Middleweights often come in that heavy? Chad Dawson is a Light Heavyweight. He comes into the ring at 190 lbs.

Dynamite Kid
01-11-2010, 08:17 AM
Hagler fought the wrong fight with Duran he was way to cautious, his best rounds were went he started turning up the pressure in rounds 6,7,14 and 15. He was over the hill when he fought Leonard, which is why Leonard chose to fight him at that time.



Beat Barkley to get the WBC belt


Fair enough, my mistake



We will have to agree, to disagree.



Or you could say that Hagler fought two of the best Boxers!! he has ever been in the ring with. Its okay being bigger but being bigger with inferior skills is what got Iran Barkley an ass whoopin against (blown up LW)Duran, Barkley was a very big MW to, possibly a natural LHW.

If Iran Barkley win validates Duran as a great MW win for Hagler then do you concede that Tito annihilating William Joppy legitimatized Tito as a good MW win for Hopkins?

Obama
01-11-2010, 08:21 AM
It doesn't matter if he was in shape or not, he lost that fight and was given a gift decision. His record at mw should be 0-2, hardly the record of a great mw. Duran after losing to Hagler went on to beat Barkely, DLH after losing to Hopkins went back down to jmw.


Duran also went on to lose to Robbie ****in Sims. Sturm > Sims. Both DLH and Duran were out of shape in both fights. Duran officially lost to the lesser opponent, DLH officially beat the better opponent.

And of course DLH went back down in weight, he hadn't given up on staying in the best possible shape (unlike Duran). And if Hopkins didn't hold ALL the belts at MW, DLH could easily have entertained other bouts.

Dynamite Kid
01-11-2010, 08:26 AM
Duran also went on to lose to Robbie ****in Sims. Sturm > Sims. Both DLH and Duran were out of shape in both fights. Duran officially lost to the lesser opponent, DLH officially beat the better opponent.

And of course DLH went back down in weight, he hadn't given up on staying in the best possible shape (unlike Duran). And if Hopkins didn't hold ALL the belts at MW, DLH could easily have entertained other bouts.

Just wondering, who do you reckon would win in a fight between DLH & Robbie Sims at MW?

Just curious, no reason.

Obama
01-11-2010, 08:30 AM
Just wondering, who do you reckon would win in a fight between DLH & Robbie Sims at MW?

Just curious, no reason.

If DLH came in the same condition he fought Sturm in, Sims has a chance but still probably loses. If he came in the condition he fought Hopkins in, Sims doesn't win 4 rounds.

TheHolyCross
01-11-2010, 08:42 AM
You find it hard to believe that he wasn't in top physical condition yet he lost his first fight against a nobody? .......

oh wow, so you and some fans just made that excuse up, you dont really know what happened right?

i think it's more a case of if hopkins can't bully you he can't beat you, that's why he lost to taylor and probabley mitchell, that's why he stays down at the lower weights, smaller guys, he can sap the energy out of through clinching and just being all round bigger and stronger

lets also ignore that the hopkins-hoya fight was fixed

and glen johnson was simply just a good win back then, he literally lost to bums after that and fought nothing but bums beforehand, he was much better when he switched to his aggressive style

Dynamite Kid
01-11-2010, 08:54 AM
If DLH came in the same condition he fought Sturm in, Sims has a chance but still probably loses. If he came in the condition he fought Hopkins in, Sims doesn't win 4 rounds.

People can criticize Hopkins and say his longevity late in his career enhances his legacy more than it should be, but by the same token Duran's wins at LMW, MW enhance his legacy because of what he had done at the lower weights more so that than at those weights, it seems as though his losses at those particular weights are ignored he get exonerated because he can pull the odd win against Barkley/Moore.



oh wow, so you and some fans just made that excuse up, you dont really know what happened right?

i think it's more a case of if hopkins can't bully you he can't beat you, that's why he lost to taylor and probabley mitchell, that's why he stays down at the lower weights, smaller guys, he can sap the energy out of through clinching and just being all round bigger and stronger

lets also ignore that the hopkins-hoya fight was fixed



Nothing to do with the fact Hopkins was around 40 years old when he fought Taylor ? Hopkins lost to Taylor because Taylor was a lot younger, if that fight happens in Hopkins prime Taylor gets KTFO and you know that. Taylor beat Hopkins because Hopkins did/could not work at a pace due to his age. Taylor is capable of beating anyone if you dont test his stamina but look what happens when you do test his stamina, he get KTFO by lumbering B class fighters like Pavlik/Froch.

Question, what happens to Taylor when a prime Hopkins puts him under the kinda pressure he put Mercado, Glen Johnson under? he gets KTFO thats what happens.

Obama
01-11-2010, 09:08 AM
oh wow, so you and some fans just made that excuse up, you dont really know what happened right?

i think it's more a case of if hopkins can't bully you he can't beat you, that's why he lost to taylor and probabley mitchell, that's why he stays down at the lower weights, smaller guys, he can sap the energy out of through clinching and just being all round bigger and stronger

lets also ignore that the hopkins-hoya fight was fixed

and glen johnson was simply just a good win back then, he literally lost to bums after that and fought nothing but bums beforehand, he was much better when he switched to his aggressive style

Sad. You clearly didn't watch Hopkins fight in the 90s or in the early 2000s. The man was never even known as a clincher in the 90s.

De La Hoya fight was fixed....ok. I see you are simply beyond reason.

Also, undefeated Glen Jonhson was better than the one who was losing to everyone in the SMW division afterward. 2004 Glen Johnson was better tho, I'll give you that.

donkim
01-11-2010, 09:47 AM
Its okay being bigger but being bigger with inferior skills is what got Iran Barkley an ass whoopin against (blown up LW)Duran, Barkley was a very big MW to, possibly a natural LHW.



A complete and utter myth.Duran never came close to producing such a result.



It's highly questionable whether Duran deserved the decision in the first place.





He was over the hill when he fought Leonard, which is why Leonard chose to fight him at that time.





Hagler lost to a washed up,inactive welterweight who had spent his lengthy hiatus from the ring snorting cocaine.

Dynamite Kid
01-11-2010, 09:59 AM
A complete and utter myth.Duran never came close to producing such a result.



It's highly questionable whether Duran deserved the decision in the first place.







Hagler lost to a washed up,inactive welterweight who had spent his lengthy hiatus from the ring snorting cocaine.



You could argue that. I have never scored the fight but it was a very close fight where by the nostalgia may have played a part in the decision.

I will score it next time i watch it.

GJC
01-11-2010, 09:59 AM
Just a matter of where you rate him really, top ten atg MW is not over rating him, top 5 might be, top one definately is.
He is a great fighter and would set problems to any MW in history.

THE REED™
01-11-2010, 10:06 AM
I really just think it's who you talk to about him.

He's a lot better than some give him credit for, but his status isn't as high as other say it is.

Nonetheless, one of the best fighters of our era, no doubt.

TheHolyCross
01-11-2010, 12:22 PM
Sad. You clearly didn't watch Hopkins fight in the 90s or in the early 2000s. The man was never even known as a clincher in the 90s.

De La Hoya fight was fixed....ok. I see you are simply beyond reason.

Also, undefeated Glen Jonhson was better than the one who was losing to everyone in the SMW division afterward. 2004 Glen Johnson was better tho, I'll give you that.

are you that naive? that fight was clearly fixed

glen johnson was good when undefeated, but after losing to hopkins he suddenly became **** until moving up? clown clown clown, just shut the **** up

dynamite kid shut me up on alot of it, but you just prove your a clueless fan boy, maybe you should do some reasearch

the best thing about hopkins tho, is how his prime is when he's a clinching not near as much stamina as he used to have 38 year old man as oppossed to the version jones fought which was a hopkins too inexperienced to throw his head

dagrtst
01-11-2010, 01:28 PM
lets also ignore that the hopkins-hoya fight was fixed

What gives you that idea?

ironalex
01-11-2010, 06:09 PM
Totally disagree. If anything he's underrated.

HaglerSteelChin
01-11-2010, 08:29 PM
Hagler fought the wrong fight with Duran he was way to cautious, his best rounds were went he started turning up the pressure in rounds 6,7,14 and 15. He was over the hill when he fought Leonard, which is why Leonard chose to fight him at that time.


Truer words couldn't be spoken and unlike what the infamous troll said SRL was in great shape, SRL is taller than hagler and they have the same reach at 74. I have hagler's fights the guy was begging SRL to fight him way before 1987. Leonard inactivity was paradoxically toward his benefit. Hagler fought some of the most grueling fights you ever will see between 1983 to 1986. He had the fight with DUran 1983 that lasted 15 rounds, a tough challenge by the heavy handed puncher Roldan in 1984, the war with Hearns in 1985, and John the F***** Beast Mugabi. Mugabi hit Hagler with such hard heavy body punches that Hagler was urinating blood a fact that of course the TROLL will leave out. SRL now ALL OF SUDDEN wants hagler. WHY? Hagler had slowed and was easy to counter. SRL even said "Mugabi made him miss but never made him pay for it...........I will." After the Roldan fight, hagler begged SRL to fight him but the time wasen't right. Leonard never would fight Hagler until he felt he had a chance.

SRL leonard was much more rusty with his fight with Kevin Howard where he suffered from his first KD. SRL in 1987 was older and it would be natural for his 5-10 frame to fight at MW. In addition, SRL got three stipulations the infamous TRoll would also not concede. 1) He got the fight to be 12RDS instead of 15, 2) the glove size was what SRL wanted, 3) he got the huge ring size so he could dance around and get on his bike. Of course, Hagler detractors as the infamous troll who contributes nothing to this forum will conveniently leave those FACTs out. But i will give him credit for calling me a cu*t and giving me Red with class.

donkim
01-11-2010, 08:53 PM
Lol at this joker.


bottle it up son,bottle it up.


Hagler was beaten by a man who had fought just once in five years.That will never leave his resume and will always haunt his career be he had everything stacked in his favour just y the smaller,washed up welterweight showing up and he still couldn't finish the smaller,washed up fighter off.


The fight not only exposed Hagler as a fighter,it also exposed Marvis as a person.I don't think we really need to go into what Hagler got upto once he was beaten by the smaller,washed up welterweight,but a little research and you can find out yourself

Mikhnienko
01-11-2010, 11:07 PM
good post, i also think in middleweight match ups, monzon, hagler, greb, la motta, burley and billy conn all beat hopkins

God yes, he's a good fighter but not an ATG by a long shot, especially at 160. Most of his career in particular the last few years is smoke & mirrors.

gibo
01-12-2010, 03:28 AM
For me he is not in the same league as other legends he is always geting compared to! such as archie moore! his 2 defeats to taylor and calzaghe were bad defeats as i dont rate them both as great fighters! now if hopkins was as great as he says he should of beat them both!

His best wins are against blown up welterweights and most of his title defence's were just the ibf title, were as most of former middleweight king carlos monzon title defences were the wbc and wba. He also priced himself out of super fights with james toney and a roy jones rematch, which hurt his legacy.What are your thoughts on hopkins being over rated?

Joey, you hit it right on the head. He beat welterweight TITO and joya to claim his fame. Lost to "a white boy" Lost twice to mashed potato chin Taylor. And DUCKED ROY JONES JR. (who beat him with one hand) for YEARS!!!!!

Dynamite Kid
01-12-2010, 03:30 AM
Lol at this joker.


bottle it up son,bottle it up.


Hagler was beaten by a man who had fought just once in five years.That will never leave his resume and will always haunt his career be he had everything stacked in his favour just y the smaller,washed up welterweight showing up and he still couldn't finish the smaller,washed up fighter off.


The fight not only exposed Hagler as a fighter,it also exposed Marvis as a person.I don't think we really need to go into what Hagler got upto once he was beaten by the smaller,washed up welterweight,but a little research and you can find out yourself

I can never fully respect for Hagler for the way he reacted to that loss, Hagler acted like he won the fight by a mile like 8 rounds to 4.

l_sealey
01-12-2010, 03:37 AM
Wait before you rate him!? He is still active and boxing. He may surprise some people. I am not a fan of his, just a fan of boxing.:boxing:

gibo
01-12-2010, 03:38 AM
the guy is a "legend in his own mind" recently stating that when "the books are written and the movies are made" about himself!!! LOL He must be paying OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET for them! Just like oscars' CD'S!!!

Dynamite Kid
01-12-2010, 03:45 AM
the guy is a "legend in his own mind" recently stating that when "the books are written and the movies are made" about himself!!! LOL He must be paying OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET for them! Just like oscars' CD'S!!!

Sure your not talkin about Antonio Tarver?

General Zod
01-12-2010, 01:16 PM
Lol at this joker.


bottle it up son,bottle it up.


Hagler was beaten by a man who had fought just once in five years.That will never leave his resume and will always haunt his career be he had everything stacked in his favour just y the smaller,washed up welterweight showing up and he still couldn't finish the smaller,washed up fighter off.


The fight not only exposed Hagler as a fighter,it also exposed Marvis as a person.I don't think we really need to go into what Hagler got upto once he was beaten by the smaller,washed up welterweight,but a little research and you can find out yourself
Let the hate go dude, love is a beautiful thing, lol.

General Zod
01-12-2010, 01:20 PM
De La Hoya fight was fixed....ok. I see you are simply beyond reason.

I believe that Oscar took a dive, 'The acting Amigo', was the nickname Burt Sugar gave Oscar after that fight.

ИATAS
01-12-2010, 01:24 PM
lol this thread is fail.

For me he is not in the same league as other legends he is always geting compared to! such as archie moore! his 2 defeats to taylor and calzaghe were bad defeats as i dont rate them both as great fighters! now if hopkins was as great as he says he should of beat them both!

First you should point out that he was 40 years old by the time he finally lost to Jerimain Taylor and 43 against Calzaghe. Those facts should be considered when speaking about someones career - were they still in their primes when the lost.

Secondly, all three of those fights, Taylor I, II and Calzaghe were all very close fights. Hopkins didn't get dominated. Hopkins didn't get beat up. He lost on points, by split decision two of them and all three fights are highly debatable. That speaks volumes about the man - even when he loses it's only by a point or two and a lot of people don't believe he lost.

Third, regardless of who you thought won or loss, what was it about hopkins that made those fights close? Was it that he wasn't as good as taylor or calzaghe? I don't think so and most other people don't think so. It's a combination of his age and his low out-put, that is to say, he simply didn't throw enough punches to impress the judges in certain rounds. Again, does that mean he's not as good as those two guys? No, it simply means that as he got older, he became more defensive and less offensive. In any one of those fights, you can make the argument that if bernard simply threw a few more punches in a couple more rounds, he would have won the fight.

General Zod
01-12-2010, 01:32 PM
You find it hard to believe that he wasn't in top physical condition yet he lost his first fight against a nobody? .......

Has Hopkins in his entire career ever admitted to losing without resorting to excuses? Maybe he just wasn't a very good fighter at that time.Have you got a link for that fight, so I can see it for myself?


Whether or not fighters belong in their weight class is entirely dependent on how good they are and how good the division is. If fighters are simply good enough, they can compete successfully above their natural weight.

As for Hopkins, he didn't drain himself to make weight, he did it comfortably, illustrated in his performances.

Hopkins is on record saying that he found it hard to make the mw limit for his last couple of years in that divison.


Also, I'm old enough to be around when it happened, I don't need to be pulling sources out of my ass.
Great, so I should just take the word of Hopkins no 1 fan. Let me guess, he lost to Jones because he was green, lost to Taylor*2, because he was robbed and he was suffering from a Thyroid condition when he lost to Calzaghe.:dance:

dde91
01-12-2010, 01:53 PM
To be overrated is not necessarily a bad thing it just means his not as good as people think he is. For example he simply doesnt have the competition to be considered a legendary fighter.

Delahoya: was a A+ ww, but a poor mw he should be 0-2 at mw, he would move back down to jmw and say that he had no business at mw. So a win over him is good but not great.

Tito: At ww he was A+, but at mw he was at best B, he lost by complete shut outs to the two best mw's he faced. The fact that he went 3-2 at mw and then retired shows that mw was not his prime division. Also the hand wrap issue hurts his legacy as well, where did his punching power go after the Hopkins dressing room fiasco? So a win over him is good but not great.

Jones: he lost clearly to Jones and priced himself out of a rematch, how could Hopkins demand 50-50 split with Jones whose belt would of been on the line, and was a much more popular fighter?

Toney: Hopkins priced himself out of this as well, on the day the contracts were to be signed he refused to sign complaining about money problems.

Taylor: Back to back losses to Taylor who just wasnt very goo and is now 1-4 in his last 5 fights.

So if people want to say he is good/solid champion etc, I have no problem with that, but to say he is legendary or the like, then I have to disagee with that.

actually taylor went 2-2-1 in his next 5 fights.

Mikhnienko
01-12-2010, 06:42 PM
the guy is a "legend in his own mind" recently stating that when "the books are written and the movies are made" about himself!!! LOL He must be paying OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET for them! Just like oscars' CD'S!!!

lol this whole post is full of win, another saying that applies to him is:

"In the land of the blind the man with one eye is king"
That pretty much sums up his entire "reign" at 160

General Zod
01-13-2010, 06:03 AM
actually Taylor went 2-2-1 in his next 5 fights.
I said in his last five fights:

Arthur Abraham:L ko 12
Carl Froch: ko 12
Jeff Lacy: w ud 12
Kelly Pavlik: L ud 12
Kelly Pavlik: L ko 7

The fact that he went life and death (after beating Hopkins*2) with blown up jmw's in his next three fights before getting koed by Pavlik shows just how good he was.

General Zod
01-13-2010, 07:32 AM
You do realize Junior Middleweights often come in that heavy? Chad Dawson is a Light Heavyweight. He comes into the ring at 190 lbs.
And the point is, that the fight was a great win because come fight night other jmw's weigh in the same amount? Why is it always Hopkins facing guys who have had to move up, why doesn't he ever move up and face bigger opponents? I remember him complaining about having to move up to fight Jones at lhw, he had no problem with Pavlik and Winky moving up to face him though.

donkim
01-23-2010, 01:41 PM
If any of you actually watched the first Mercado fight you wouldn't call it a draw. :nonono:

B-Hop won by a mile.


Hopkins didn't win anything "by a mile".You could easily argue a decision in Mercado's favour actually.


I'm not one for scoring fights,but I took the time out a few nights ago to score this for the first time and Hopkins simply doesn't have a case for being robbed.



round 1 hopkins
round 2 hopkins
round 3 hopkins
round 4 mercado
round 5 mercado(10-8)
round 6 hopkins
round 7 mercado(10-8)
round 8 mercado
round 9 mercado
round 10 hopkins
round 11 hopkins
round 12 hopkins



Hopkins should have been credited with two knockdowns but even then he still didn't win it "by a mile".

Calilloyd
01-23-2010, 10:25 PM
I find that hard to believe that, this was his big chance to do something with his life and you want me to believe that he turned up out of shape? Also just because A fighter doesnt drain himself doesn't mean he doesnt belong in that wieght class see Mayweather, Corley and now Pac, who come fight night are always near the official weight limit. Im also interested in where you got this info from?


Come fight night Hopkins was back up to 169 lbs (lhw).

How do you know this?

General Zod
01-24-2010, 09:19 AM
How do you know this?
Jim Lampley mentions it during the fight (Delahoya-Hopkins) when he talks of how proud Hopkins is of his 36 inch waist and that tonight he has rehydrated back up to 169 lbs.

Dynamite Kid
01-24-2010, 11:10 AM
lol this thread is fail.



First you should point out that he was 40 years old by the time he finally lost to Jerimain Taylor and 43 against Calzaghe. Those facts should be considered when speaking about someones career - were they still in their primes when the lost.

Secondly, all three of those fights, Taylor I, II and Calzaghe were all very close fights. Hopkins didn't get dominated. Hopkins didn't get beat up. He lost on points, by split decision two of them and all three fights are highly debatable. That speaks volumes about the man - even when he loses it's only by a point or two and a lot of people don't believe he lost.

Third, regardless of who you thought won or loss, what was it about hopkins that made those fights close? Was it that he wasn't as good as taylor or calzaghe? I don't think so and most other people don't think so. It's a combination of his age and his low out-put, that is to say, he simply didn't throw enough punches to impress the judges in certain rounds. Again, does that mean he's not as good as those two guys? No, it simply means that as he got older, he became more defensive and less offensive. In any one of those fights, you can make the argument that if bernard simply threw a few more punches in a couple more rounds, he would have won the fight.


First you should point out that he was 40 years old by the time he finally lost to Jerimain Taylor and 43 against Calzaghe. Those facts should be considered when speaking about some


People love to omit these small facts when speaking about Hopkins career.

TheHolyCross
01-24-2010, 11:22 AM
First you should point out that he was 40 years old by the time he finally lost to Jerimain Taylor and 43 against Calzaghe. Those facts should be considered when speaking about some


People love to omit these small facts when speaking about Hopkins career.

the funny thing was taylor and calzaghe were the only fighters with a heartbeat and his size.....and he lost

last time he faced someone his own size that was worth a damn, he also lost, despite the opponent fighting one-handed

he faced pavlik and he looked 10 year younger =O

coincidence?

Dynamite Kid
01-24-2010, 11:38 AM
the funny thing was taylor and calzaghe were the only fighters with a heartbeat and his size.....and he lost

last time he faced someone his own size that was worth a damn, he also lost, despite the opponent fighting one-handed

he faced pavlik and he looked 10 year younger =O

coincidence?


The only thing coincidental about the Taylor/Calzaghe losses is that they both fought him when he was 40 odd and both outworked because of his age.


Yeah! that was Roy Jones not some scrub, plus Hopkins was not the slick technical fighter that he developed into. Jones did not beat Hopkins when he was elite he beat Hopkins when he was closer to his physical prime but very raw technically/defensively.

The jump in weight clearly effected Pavlik's performance as he was not letting his hands go at all!! Its the Jermain Taylor situation reversed, if you dont make Hopkins work he has the skills of an elite fighter to beat you, if you let him fight at his own pace he can outbox you, that is why he beat Pavlik, Pavlik did not make him work.

Jermain Taylor has elite Boxing skills but he just does not have the stamina and mental toughness to make him an elite fighter. If you dont make Taylor work and test his stamina his elite skills are capable of beating hence the reason he was Boxing Froch's ears off before he wore down. Hopkins was too old to pressure him and wear him down he had to have a Boxing match with him and he lost because....

A. he was almost 40 and his reflexes would obviously have left him be then. At this point Hopkins lives on his timing because his reflexes are done.

B. Taylor has elite skills if you get into a Boxing match with him.


Answer me this, does Taylor beat Hopkins in his prime ?

Jermain Taylor lost to both Pavlik and Froch who are much lesser fighters to Hopkins because they did not try to Box him they tried to put the pressure on him or take him late and apply the pressure, both are younger than Hopkins though.

TheHolyCross
01-24-2010, 11:46 AM
i dunno, it depends, when was hopkins prime? against trinidad when he was 36?
who is at their prime at 36?

Dynamite Kid
01-24-2010, 11:47 AM
i dunno, it depends, when was hopkins prime? against trinidad when he was 36?
who is at thier prime at 36?

Id take Hopkins from the Glen Johnson fight as prime tbh.

TheHolyCross
01-24-2010, 11:52 AM
Id take Hopkins from the Glen Johnson fight as prime tbh.
me too, and yea, that hopkins would ko taylor

Dynamite Kid
01-24-2010, 12:03 PM
me too, and yea, that hopkins would ko taylor

Cool.:boxing:

I would of love to have seen Hopkins vs Jones 2. I still think Roy might of won but it woud of been much closer affair imo.

I have a DVD on my hard drive and its Toney vs Glen Wolfe, Wolfe lost majority of the rounds but he actually made Toney fight harder than what he wanted to, it just shows how good Roy Jones was that he was able to blast Wolfe out there with minimal fuss, unreal, particularly when you look at the trouble Malinga gave Eubank & Benn and how Jones dealt with him also.

Jones was on another level at times.

TheHolyCross
01-24-2010, 12:13 PM
Cool.:boxing:

I would of love to have seen Hopkins vs Jones 2. I still think Roy might of won but it woud of been much closer affair imo.

I have a DVD on my hard drive and its Toney vs Glen Wolfe, Wolfe lost majority of the rounds but he actually made Toney fight harder than what he wanted to, it just shows how good Roy Jones was that he was able to blast Wolfe out there with minimal fuss, unreal, particularly when you look at the trouble Malinga gave Eubank & Benn and how Jones dealt with him also.

Jones was on another level at times.

yep, same with reggie johnson, it was all the roids.
























nah im kiddin, he is my favourite fighter afterall

MOTHER DUCKER
01-24-2010, 12:16 PM
The only thing coincidental about the Taylor/Calzaghe losses is that they both fought him when he was 40 odd and both outworked because of his age.


So let me get this right? the excuse is that he is 40 + well hasn't his big name wins on his resume all come after 39 years of age?

Oscar, Winky, Tarver and Pavlik..

The guy is a good fighter but his fans reckon he is some top 50 ATG however which is rubbish, it's not his fault MW division was so bare but fighting different guys multiple times rather then moving up and facing the likes of Jones, Hopkins, Calzaghe earlier don't do him any favours.

General Zod
01-24-2010, 12:23 PM
So let me get this right? the excuse is that he is 40 + well hasn't his big name wins on his resume all come after 39 years of age?

Oscar, Winky, Tarver and Pavlik..

The guy is a good fighter but his fans reckon he is some top 50 ATG however which is rubbish, it's not his fault MW division was so bare but fighting different guys multiple times rather then moving up and facing the likes of Jones, Toney, Calzaghe earlier don't do him any favours.
Good points

Dynamite Kid
01-24-2010, 12:26 PM
So let me get this right? the excuse is that he is 40 + well hasn't his big name wins on his resume all come after 39 years of age?

Oscar, Winky, Tarver and Pavlik..

The guy is a good fighter but his fans reckon he is some top 50 ATG however which is rubbish, it's not his fault MW division was so bare but fighting different guys multiple times rather then moving up and facing the likes of Jones, Hopkins, Calzaghe earlier don't do him any favours.


Well he was 36 when he beat Tito and even younger when he beat Glen Johnson. Tarver was coming down from HW and fought like it, Wink was a LMW coming up and ODLH isn't even considered one of his great win in truth, ODLH lost to Sturm clearly.

Those wins look like great wins and whilst they are, they are no greater than the aforementioned in truth. Pavlik was also effected by weight, if you watch the fight he is not throwing any punches.

General Zod
01-24-2010, 12:32 PM
Well he was 36 when he beat Tito and even younger when he beat Glen Johnson. Tarver was coming down from HW and fought like it, Wink was a LMW coming up and ODLH isn't even considered one of his great win in truth, ODLH lost to Sturm clearly.

Those wins look like great wins and whilst they are, they are no greater than the aforementioned in truth. Pavlik was also effected by weight, if you watch the fight he is not throwing any punches.

How many great fighters would of been capable of dominating at their own weight class if they had stayed in their natural weight division? loads!!!

Great fighters seek out challenges by moving up if there are none at their own weight class. Having a tidy little career in the comfort zone of your own weight class and beating B class opponents do not impress me that much.

Id give Joe more props if he had 5 losses but had wins over elite fighters in their prime because it would mean he fought the best, not the best available to him in his own weight class.
Do you consider Hopkins a great fighter?

Dynamite Kid
01-24-2010, 12:33 PM
Do you consider Hopkins a great fighter?


Hopkins fought Tarver did he not? Tarver was 175 pounder ?

General Zod
01-24-2010, 12:45 PM
Hopkins fought Tarver did he not? Tarver was 175 pounder ?

here is the hopkins quote from ring mag:

"If they knew what I had to go through all those years to stay at middleweight and rack up those 20 defenses, I'd get a blue ribbon for that. If they knew how disciplined I had to be through all those years, at 6'1" with a 36-inch waist, built like a wide receiver, the question should have been: How in the hell has Bernard been able to stay at 160?"
At that stage in his career he had no choice but to move up, he was struggling to make the mw limit as quoted above also he had lost all his belts. Its not exactly the same as a guy who moves up because he has cleaned out his division and is looking for bigger challenges.

Dynamite Kid
01-24-2010, 12:51 PM
At that stage in his career he had no choice but to move up, he was struggling to make the mw limit as quoted above also he had lost all his belts. Its not exactly the same as a guy who moves up because he has cleaned out his division and is looking for bigger challenges.

What are you trying to say then ?

Hopkins already beat Trinidad thats one more elite fighter in his prime that Calzahe never beat much less fought, then he has solid wins over Glen Johnson a guy that put Jones lights out and beat Tarver.


Even if you believe Hopkins best wins are at the latter part of his career what difference does that make? it proves he was even greater! in his prime because he was able to beat these guys when he was past his best.

General Zod
01-24-2010, 01:00 PM
What are you trying to say then ?

Hopkins already beat Trinidad thats one more elite fighter in his prime that Calzahe never beat much less fought, then he has solid wins over Glen Johnson a guy that put Jones lights out and beat Tarver.
Hopkins only moved up because he had to, I bet if he beat Taylor he would still to this day be trying to fight at mw. The fact that he refuses to fight any lhw's and is still targeting mw and smw confirms my belief. After Tito he should of moved up there was nothing in that divison for him


Even if you believe Hopkins best wins are at the latter part of his career what difference does that make? it proves he was even greater! in his prime because he was able to beat these guys when he was past his best.
The problem with this logic is because when he wins evreryone says his an ATG and ageless, but as soon as he loses its his 40+ etc. Either he is still an elite fighter or his not.
Him chasing a fight with Roy is just embarrasing at this point and equivalent to Calzaghe trying to rematch Mario Veit.

Dynamite Kid
01-24-2010, 01:06 PM
Hopkins only moved up because he had to, I bet if he beat Taylor he would still to this day be trying to fight at mw. The fact that he refuses to fight any lhw's and is still targeting mw and smw confirms my belief. After Tito he should of moved up there was nothing in that divison for him


The problem with this logic is because when he wins evreryone says his an ATG and ageless, but as soon as he loses its his 40+ etc.
Him chasing a fight with Roy is just embarrasing at this point and equivalent to Calzaghe trying to rematch Mario Veit



You still have not explained exactly what it is that your arguing about, what are you saying, that he is not a great fighter, that Joe Calzaghe is as great as him or has a resume as good as his, what ?

The problem with your logic is that your acting as if he never fought anyone before he hit 40, which he did, he beat Glen Johnson, Tito, Joppy, John David Jackson, Holmes and had other solid wins before that, those wins are the cherry on the cake that add to his status as an ATG.

All you have proven is that Hopkins must of been something special in his prime to be that good at that age.

General Zod
01-24-2010, 01:14 PM
You still have not explained exactly what it is that your arguing about, what are you saying, that he is not a great fighter, that Joe Calzaghe is as great as him or has a resume as good as his, what ?
Im saying he is a good fighter but not as good as people on this forum try to make him out to be. Bert Sugar has him at 91 on his ATG list and I would say thats a fair placement.

The problem with your logic is that your acting as if he never fought anyone before he hit 40, which he did, he beat Glen Johnson, Tito, Joppy, John David Jackson, Holmes and had other solid wins before that, those wins are the cherry on the cake that add to his status as an ATG.

All you have proven is that Hopkins must of been something special in his prime to be that good at that age.
Im saying that Hopkins fans cant have it both ways either he is still elite now or he is not. When he wins everyone says he is ageless and a ATG, when he loses its oh well his old etc. He loses to Taylor its his old he beats Pavlik its hi s amazing

General Zod
01-24-2010, 01:19 PM
He should have moved up after his win over Tito, there was nothing to keep him in the barren wasteland that was called the mw divison. Even though Toney threw away many years of his career I would always rank Toney above him in terms of opposition faced.

Dynamite Kid
01-24-2010, 01:26 PM
Im saying he is a good fighter but not as good as people on this forum try to make him out to be. Bert Sugar has him at 91 on his ATG list and I would say thats a fair placement.

Im saying that Hopkins fans cant have it both ways either he is still elite now or he is not. When he wins everyone says he is ageless and a ATG, when he loses its oh well his old etc. He loses to Taylor its his old he beats Pavlik its hi s amazing

Well i can live with that.

But the reason it goes both ways is because he still has elite skills to outbox anyone, thus leaving people with the impression he is not past it and he is still elite. Hopkins is not elite anymore and the reason is because his physical (stamina/reflexes) does not match his Boxing skills, where as it did in his prime, if Hopkins fought Taylor in his prime he would not lose because even IF! he was having trouble with Taylor and getting outboxed he could do what Pavlik/Froch did and take advantage of Taylor's biggest flaw which is what stops Taylor being an elite fighter, his poor stamina, Hopkins would jump all over him the way he jumped all over Mercado & Glen Johnson and KO him.

MOTHER DUCKER
01-24-2010, 01:29 PM
Well he was 36 when he beat Tito and even younger when he beat Glen Johnson. Tarver was coming down from HW and fought like it, Wink was a LMW coming up and ODLH isn't even considered one of his great win in truth, ODLH lost to Sturm clearly.

Those wins look like great wins and whilst they are, they are no greater than the aforementioned in truth. Pavlik was also effected by weight, if you watch the fight he is not throwing any punches.

See that's what i don't understand your saying Tito and Johnson were his best wins (forgive me i may have misinterpreted here) yet those 2 wins are solid imo, not great ones, the Tito fight was masterful but when you break it down Tito is still 3-2 at MW.

He is a solid fighter for me in the top 10 of the last decade, i just don't buy some of his fans acting like he is the best MW ever and a active ATG

MOTHER DUCKER
01-24-2010, 01:34 PM
You still have not explained exactly what it is that your arguing about, what are you saying, that he is not a great fighter, that Joe Calzaghe is as great as him or has a resume as good as his, what ?

The problem with your logic is that your acting as if he never fought anyone before he hit 40, which he did, he beat Glen Johnson, Tito, Joppy, John David Jackson, Holmes and had other solid wins before that, those wins are the cherry on the cake that add to his status as an ATG.

All you have proven is that Hopkins must of been something special in his prime to be that good at that age.

He has a pretty similar resume to Calzaghe actually they both fought in divisions which were not stocked with "great" talent and racked up numerous defenses. Hopkins has the benefit of fighting the likes of Oscar/Tito huge names but not top fighters at MW imo.

Dynamite Kid
01-24-2010, 01:34 PM
See that's what i don't understand your saying Tito and Johnson were his best wins (forgive me i may have misinterpreted here) yet those 2 wins are solid imo, not great ones, the Tito fight was masterful but when you break it down Tito is still 3-2 at MW.

He is a solid fighter for me in the top 10 of the last decade, i just don't buy some of his fans acting like he is the best MW ever and a active ATG


Check Duran's record at LMW and there are people who will tell you he was a good LMW despite losing to Laing, Benitez and struggling with Nino Gonzalez and getting ktfo against Hearns. That point you made before is pointless anyway, as i said all it proves is that Hopkins was even better!! in his prime when he had reflexes, stamina.


Tito annihilated William Joppy and with all respect to Tito and im saying this as a fan of his, he would not of beaten Winky if Winky had been a WW, his style was all wrong for Tito, plus he knew the game plan to beat Tito because he saw Hopkins of all people execute it.

Thats fair if you think that way.