I'm no big fan of Bernard Hopkins. Granted, I'd never seen him in his earlier days when he used to wear a silly mask and apparently lived up to his nom de plume.

But there's nothing worse than seeing a doddering granddad staggering around the ring, avoiding anything approaching a fight and selecting the weakest opponents with which to pump up his "20 defences" workrate. Granted, it's one way to get into the history books, but it saddens me that followers of the sport also buy into his "P4P" joke.

To date his two most notable wins have been over blown-up Welterweights who had no business being in the division in the first place. In order to fight the winner of Dela Hoya/Sturm (yeah... because Sturm was ever likely to win that one in Vegas, right?) he matched up with an opponent he'd already faced twice, and beaten once (one NC). The Hopkins-Allen trilogy may be up there with Barrera-Morales and Ali-Frazier in terms of edge-of-your-seat excitement, but could Hopkins really justify that match?

Most galling of all for me was the showing against Eastman. Granted, Eastman turned in a joyless, soulless and unimaginative performance, but while Hopkins was only too happy to offload on smaller guys, against the Hard Tumping Eastman Hopkins was arrested for hit and run. When you hear his fans describe it, you'd think it was a "hit and not get hit" sweet science masterclass by Ali himself. Instead it was a dismal display by someone desperate to get into the records by any means necessary... as long as those means didn't involve fighting.


But what really galled me is reading in Boxing News his future plans before retiring. After Taylor (admittedly a risk), apparently the Hopkins camp planned for... rematches with Tito Trinidad and Glen Johnson.

Granted, Johnson is a worthwhile opponent, and is currently the man at Light-Heavy. It would mean a step up in weight for Bernard to face a man with every reason to want to beat him: after all, Johnson acknowledges that while one or two of his defeats "could have gone either way", most of them were robberies, and out of his 9 losses/2 draws deficit, he claims that the Hopkins loss was the only one he considers legitimate.

But it's still a man he's defeated. Since the news, Tito has famously retired (which takes away the match, if not the intent), which leaves questions asked.

Okay, every boxer has to make money, but for his final two bow-out fights (after he's ran from Taylor to retain) Hopkins planned... two men he'd already beaten, one a much smaller guy.


Hall of Fame? Hall of Bull****, more like.



Upload: 12mb - Bernard Hopkins vs. Howard Eastman Clips Megamix (http://s23.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1BHTONDR4B0L71LOL3B30YYBAH)

Why do none of the British posters here like Hopkins? Maybe not all of them but most. I mean, you'll hype up Eamon Magee but Hopkins is a fraud :confused:

Seriously, did he piss on a Union Jack or something? What gives?

Why do none of the British posters here like Hopkins? Maybe not all of them but most. I mean, you'll hype up Eamon Magee but Hopkins is a fraud :confused:

Seriously, did he piss on a Union Jack or something? What gives?Why do all the US posters like him?

Seriously though, extract the nationality angle away from it. When have you ever heard ME hype up Eamon Magee? Never? In that case you're making a generalisation, aren't you?

As for Hopkins' style: consider his situation. The guy gets out of jail with no marketable skills except boxing. He's already getting to be quite old and has to somehow make a living off of this sport or else end up dead or back in jail like a lot of his former friends. He early managers take advantage of him and in his first fight he is in there to lose. So he has few friends inside or outside the sport.

Hopkins' style has always been about survival. Do what you can to survive this fight and make it to your next one. If he didn't do that, he wouldn't be fighting at 40 the way he is now. If he brawled and took too many chances, he would have been out of the sport before he had a chance to raelly make money. Despite his successes, his big paydays have been few and far between. He still has to do what he has to do to make it to his next fight in order to cash in as much as he can in these last few months of his career.

Even though you might not like his style, he built up a certain mentality early on that he's stuck with. Seeing as it has brought him success, why should he change it now?

See, this is what people always say. "He does what he has to to win and that's the important thing". But apart from the fact that if people don't like his style (and there were plenty of boos last time out), it's nothing to do with the honour of the sport and being a warrior and everything to do with getting himself a paypacket.

Also, it's not black-and-white. Because I say I don't like him running, that doesn't mean I expect him to get into a Coralles war. But all I'm saying is there's a whole heap of difference between Ali, Lewis, Toney, etc. and what Hopkins did against Eastman. Look at the clip I linked to above... that bit where he runs and trips is pathetic. He doesn't use footwork, either - he RUNS.

Well it comes as absolutly no suprise that I DON'T LIKE Bernard Hopkins... LOL!... ;)

The easiest way to descibe it is in the UK we have "Man United syndrome", I'll explain...

Everyone tells you that Manchester United are the BEST!... And they get loads of gift decsions, and referee's over look certain things they do, and punish others for doing the same etc... You get "Man Utd are amazing this, and Man Utd are amazing that!" And if they lose loads of excuses are made for them... After a while you get sick of it! And you start to question "WHY?" and it's then, when you look into them you find that they aren't that great at all...

See, this is what people always say. "He does what he has to to win and that's the important thing". But apart from the fact that if people don't like his style (and there were plenty of boos last time out), it's nothing to do with the honour of the sport and being a warrior and everything to do with getting himself a paypacket.

Also, it's not black-and-white. Because I say I don't like him running, that doesn't mean I expect him to get into a Coralles war. But all I'm saying is there's a whole heap of difference between Ali, Lewis, Toney, etc. and what Hopkins did against Eastman. Look at the clip I linked to above... that bit where he runs and trips is pathetic. He doesn't use footwork, either - he RUNS.

Would you have even have noticed if the fight wasn't against a British boxer? Look, I'm not trying to turn this into a big thing or anything. But I noticed that after the Eastman loss a lot of the British posters here suddenly decided that the guy was worthless. I think that you're so offended that your boy lost that you're trying to discredit the guy who beat him.

I'm not an American, I'm an objective observer here, and you cannot tell me that national loyalties aren't coming into play here.

So Hopkins took a night off. So the hell what? Every great fighter has at one time. You think Ali was giving Patterson everything he had the first time they fought? Eastman was an easy opponent and Hopkins knew it. Sorry if he didn't show your fellow contryman any respect, but he didn't deserve any either.

That's a funny video Anorak!... LOL!... :D

Did you make that?

Would you have even have noticed if the fight wasn't against a British boxer? Look, I'm not trying to turn this into a big thing or anything. But I noticed that after the Eastman loss a lot of the British posters here suddenly decided that the guy was worthless. I think that you're so offended that your boy lost that you're trying to discredit the guy who beat him.I think you have a slight point in that secretly UK posters who like Eastman were pissed off at the lazy Nuff Tumper for not trying harder or coming up with something better on the night. But I already disliked Hopkins when I saw how average he was, and the calibre of opponents that were pushing him towards his p4p status.

So Hopkins took a night off. So the hell what? Every great fighter has at one time. You think Ali was giving Patterson everything he had the first time they fought? Eastman was an easy opponent and Hopkins knew it. Sorry if he didn't show your fellow contryman any respect, but he didn't deserve any eitherYeah, I concede the first point. (Though even Hopkins's nights on are hardly blistering affairs, are they?). Hopkins may have considered a win against the Nuff Tumper "easy" but it was clear that he had doubts as to whether he could take Eastman's shots... and Eastman could easily take his. Put little Dela Hoya in there and he'd be beating him up all night.

That's a funny video Anorak!... LOL!... :D

Did you make that?
Cheers man! :) Yeah, I did. I was gonna do one about Ruiz set to that 60s tune "Hold Tight" with images of his constant clinches (and him getting KOed when he lets go) but... I couldn't be arsed.

Maybe it would be better if Hopkins retired after the Taylor fight. But if Glen Johnson beats Tarver I think he should fight Johnson at 175.

But there's nothing worse than seeing a doddering granddad staggering around the ring, avoiding anything approaching a fight and selecting the weakest opponents with which to pump up his "20 defences" workrate.

Admittedly you have not seen his fights vs the best middleweights out there (and yes he did fight them all who were available). This makes your judgement next to useless. Also you judge Hopkins for running 4-5 rounds when he was FORTY vs Eastman, and still you fail to acknowledge the whipping Hopkins gave Eastman in the last half of the fight. Bernard hasn't avoided anyone. Styles don't make you great anyway, buddy, if that's what you are saying. Style is all a amtter of taste.

I root against Bernard EVERY TIME HE FIGHTS. I don't like his style, etc. However, anyone who doesn't understand that Bernard is great is a complete joke that I cannot take seriously. If Bernard isn't a great fighter, no one from any country in the last 10 years is...period.

Admittedly you have not seen his fights vs the best middleweights out there (and yes he did fight them all who were available). This makes your judgement next to useless. Also you judge Hopkins for running 4-5 rounds when he was FORTY vs Eastman, and still you fail to acknowledge the whipping Hopkins gave Eastman in the last half of the fight. Bernard hasn't avoided anyone. Styles don't make you great anyway, buddy, if that's what you are saying. Style is all a amtter of taste.

I root against Bernard EVERY TIME HE FIGHTS. I don't like his style, etc. However, anyone who doesn't understand that Bernard is great is a complete joke that I cannot take seriously. If Bernard isn't a great fighter, no one from any country in the last 10 years is...period.

See, this is what people always say in defence of Hopkins (and you don't even like him that much)... "he fights that way because he's forty".


For one thing there's a banger who admittedly doesn't have Hopkins's skill (Carl "The Cat" Thompson), who is 41 yet bangs like a young 'un. He's world class if not a world beater, and is currently the 5th rated Cruiser on Boxrec. I would say he's not that famous because he's a Limey, but he's not that famous over here either, despite always being watchable.

But the most important point is, if he can't box to the fullest of his ability because of his age (and I agree, he's nearly ready to be taken now)... he should just get the **** out. Seriously. Look at the title of this thread. Fight or retire.

If he doesn't want to fight, then he should just piss off out of the ring. Leave his silly grandaddy dancing for a wedding disco and let people who actually want to fight to have a go.


Again - "style". I have nothing against an evasive, countering style. Hopkins vs. Eastman wasn't.

Admittedly you have not seen his fights vs the best middleweights out there (and yes he did fight them all who were available). This makes your judgement next to useless. Also you judge Hopkins for running 4-5 rounds when he was FORTY vs Eastman, and still you fail to acknowledge the whipping Hopkins gave Eastman in the last half of the fight. Bernard hasn't avoided anyone. Styles don't make you great anyway, buddy, if that's what you are saying. Style is all a amtter of taste.

I root against Bernard EVERY TIME HE FIGHTS. I don't like his style, etc. However, anyone who doesn't understand that Bernard is great is a complete joke that I cannot take seriously. If Bernard isn't a great fighter, no one from any country in the last 10 years is...period.
I'm sorry fella but that's only your opinion, and I would say that I know more people that would dissagree with that than agree with it.

Maybe it's because you live in the States, and they drum all this marketing stuff into you on the tv? :dunno: But outside the US Bernard is seen very differently.

I think some boxing fans, (I dunno maybe you?) have the Citizen Kane syndrome... All film critics say it's the greatest film ever, and they won't change their opinion on that because they're scared that other critics won't take them seriously... It's like the blind leading the blind.

I prefer people to just shoot straight with me and say, "Citizen Kane is NOT the best film ever, it's ok but there are far better films out there!".

Same **** with Bernard... You don't have to follow the pack on everything, that's just f**kin' boring... Stray away and have an individual opinion, and then give reasons WHY you think that way.

I actually WANT someone to justify WHY Bernard's so "great". Because he wobbles around like a silly old ****er on a zimmer frame? I don't give two ****s about what he was like THEN, I want to know why he's so great NOW.

It's irrelevant to me what he was like years ago (you're talking the "getting schooled by Roy" era, right?) because he wasn't top of the p4p list then.

Maybe it's because you live in the States, and they drum all this marketing stuff into you on the tv? :dunno: But outside the US Bernard is seen very differently.


Well I'm from Canada and people like him just fine over here. People seem to be bringing up either the RJJ-loss Hopkins or the current Hopkins. I mean, what the hell, how about the 10 years in between those two fights.

Seriously, for vintage Hopkins check out these fights:

Trinidad, of course
Glencoffe
Vanderpool
Echols I and II (two is admittedly dirty as hell, but a great scrap nonetheless)
Mercado II

And those are just off the top of my head.

Hopkins has out-smarted every fighter he's come up against in his glory years. He can change his tactics in the middle of a fight (unlike say Trinidad). He sizes you up and then defeats you in the way you deserve. If he has to work for the win, he will work. If he doesn't, he won't.

He gave Trinidad a head-to-toe beating because he knew he had to keep the pressure up to keep him at bay. He takes it easy with Eastman or say Robert Allen because there's no point to exhausting himself beating those guys.

When he has to be he's a stalker. He kept his fists at bay against Oscar until it was time to take care of business. Once he had him figured out, Oscar was down within a couple of rounds.

So you have a fighter who is a student of the game, who can beat you at your own game, and has managed to get through a career that started late with his head still on his shoulders and a few fistfulls of cash to boot. What more needs to be said?

B, I agree about the Oscar fight, he played him like a ***** until Oscar lay down so they could rake in the cash and embark on a promotional management... er, I meant, until Oscar got KOed.

But stuff years ago is no reflection on why he's ranked #1 p4p NOW.

B, I agree about the Oscar fight, he played him like a ***** until Oscar lay down so they could rake in the cash and embark on a promotional management... er, I meant, until Oscar got KOed.

But stuff years ago is no reflection on why he's ranked #1 p4p NOW.

I guess we could go around and around debating this. I would personally put Mayweather at #1, so in a way I agree with you. Things always happen this way, though. A guy gets to be number one and maybe he stays there longer than he should because of what he's done over his entire career. Sort of a lifetime achivement award in a way. When RJJ was up there people were saying the same thing. Suddenly none of his opponents were any good. Suddenly he hadn't done anything recently to deserve the rnaking. Suddenly he wasn't really that good a fighter, just a guy with a hard punch and inhuman reflexes. Same thing, see?

Maybe some people here are overdoing the Hopkins-love a bit. I'm not sure because I only notice that when it's fighters that I don't like, like Margartio (well, in that case, I like the guy people are saying he will beat). For sure he's showing his age, but I will be impressed if he beats Taylor because he is getting to be so old and because Taylor is tailor-made (no pun inteneded) to beat him: he hits hard and he's a smart fighter as well.

I hate to inform you Anorak.....but you need to watch more Hopkins fights man. You seem to have this idea that he runs from everyone. That is only as of late.

He used to be the most rugged inside fighter who chased everyone around the ring. People were scared of him....because of the way he fought: Which was coming straight at you and taking the fight to you.

I hate to inform you Anorak.....but you need to watch more Hopkins fights man. You seem to have this idea that he runs from everyone. That is only as of late.

He used to be the most rugged inside fighter who chased everyone around the ring. People were scared of him....because of the way he fought: Which was coming straight at you and taking the fight to you.Yeah, but this is what I'm saying. I said right from my very first post that I acknowledge he used to lived up to his Executioner name. But lately he's pretty mediocre.

I think that's what gets me... all the praise. I don't see talent. Not excessive talent. Roy Jones pre-Tarver could have fought tin cans and I would still have been impressed by the skill.

Yeah, but this is what I'm saying. I said right from my very first post that I acknowledge he used to lived up to his Executioner name. But lately he's pretty mediocre.
.

Yes. Lately he has been pretty mediocre. Cheers.

Yeah, but this is what I'm saying. I said right from my very first post that I acknowledge he used to lived up to his Executioner name. But lately he's pretty mediocre.

I think that's what gets me... all the praise. I don't see talent. Not excessive talent. Roy Jones pre-Tarver could have fought tin cans and I would still have been impressed by the skill.

This is from your first post:

To date his two most notable wins have been over blown-up Welterweights who had no business being in the division in the first place.

Doesn't sound like you're just talking about the present to me.

This is from your first post:

To date his two most notable wins have been over blown-up Welterweights who had no business being in the division in the first place.

Doesn't sound like you're just talking about the present to me.You kind of got me there, but then we'll just end up quibbling over terms which is really avoiding the issue.

Why I brought those two into it is that they're both part of his last seven fights, and neither go back further than four years. That's recent history, which might sound like I'm trying to get out of it, but if your last seven fights included two little guys, a man you'd already beat and a guy you spent the whole night running from, what does that say about your post-Millennial rep? p4p No.1, I guess...

I'm no big fan of Bernard Hopkins. Granted, I'd never seen him in his earlier days when he used to wear a silly mask and apparently lived up to his nom de plume.

But there's nothing worse than seeing a doddering granddad staggering around the ring, avoiding anything approaching a fight and selecting the weakest opponents with which to pump up his "20 defences" workrate. Granted, it's one way to get into the history books, but it saddens me that followers of the sport also buy into his "P4P" joke.

To date his two most notable wins have been over blown-up Welterweights who had no business being in the division in the first place. In order to fight the winner of Dela Hoya/Sturm (yeah... because Sturm was ever likely to win that one in Vegas, right?) he matched up with an opponent he'd already faced twice, and beaten once (one NC). The Hopkins-Allen trilogy may be up there with Barrera-Morales and Ali-Frazier in terms of edge-of-your-seat excitement, but could Hopkins really justify that match?

Most galling of all for me was the showing against Eastman. Granted, Eastman turned in a joyless, soulless and unimaginative performance, but while Hopkins was only too happy to offload on smaller guys, against the Hard Tumping Eastman Hopkins was arrested for hit and run. When you hear his fans describe it, you'd think it was a "hit and not get hit" sweet science masterclass by Ali himself. Instead it was a dismal display by someone desperate to get into the records by any means necessary... as long as those means didn't involve fighting.


But what really galled me is reading in Boxing News his future plans before retiring. After Taylor (admittedly a risk), apparently the Hopkins camp planned for... rematches with Tito Trinidad and Glen Johnson.

Granted, Johnson is a worthwhile opponent, and is currently the man at Light-Heavy. It would mean a step up in weight for Bernard to face a man with every reason to want to beat him: after all, Johnson acknowledges that while one or two of his defeats "could have gone either way", most of them were robberies, and out of his 9 losses/2 draws deficit, he claims that the Hopkins loss was the only one he considers legitimate.

But it's still a man he's defeated. Since the news, Tito has famously retired (which takes away the match, if not the intent), which leaves questions asked.

Okay, every boxer has to make money, but for his final two bow-out fights (after he's ran from Taylor to retain) Hopkins planned... two men he'd already beaten, one a much smaller guy.


Hall of Fame? Hall of Bull****, more like.



Upload: 12mb - Bernard Hopkins vs. Howard Eastman Clips Megamix (http://s23.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1BHTONDR4B0L71LOL3B30YYBAH)

The first fight with Allen was a no contest, thus the second fight. The third time around, Allen was Hopkins's mandatory for one of his belts.

Are U ****in serious? Hall of Bull****? The guy has not lost in 20 defenses & 12 years. Granted that the division has not been the strongest, over 12 years I'm sure he has ran across pretty good fighters. You are right some of his fights are not the most exciting, but if he fought like Corrales or Castillo do you think he'd be going strong at 40. Hell No! He wouldn't be able to spell forty. He is a WINNER & he does what he needs to win. Isn't that what sports are all about? WINNING. Tom Brady isn't Michael Vick but he is a WINNER. I fell like some people just don't get it. Are you another European mad because he supposedely ducked Calzaghe. Please, Calzaghe doesn't deserve to wipe Hopkins ass. At a time in his career when he is looking for big paydays, Why fight Calzaghe? In the states the name "Calzaghe" excites no one. HOPKINS IS ONE OF THE BEST FIGHTERS OF ALL TIME & THE ONLY THING THAT BELONGS IN THE HALL OF BULL**** IS YOUR THREAD!

Why do none of the British posters here like Hopkins? Maybe not all of them but most. I mean, you'll hype up Eamon Magee but Hopkins is a fraud :confused:

Seriously, did he piss on a Union Jack or something? What gives?
He did school Howard Eastman. Give them a break dawg.

Yeah, but this is what I'm saying. I said right from my very first post that I acknowledge he used to lived up to his Executioner name. But lately he's pretty mediocre.

I think that's what gets me... all the praise. I don't see talent. Not excessive talent. Roy Jones pre-Tarver could have fought tin cans and I would still have been impressed by the skill.
Lately he might be mediocre but the still dominates his opponents easily.

Well I guess all Eastman had to do was catch a "running 40 year old" to become undesputed but still couldn't do it. Actually no one's been able to do it for a little over a decade...

Well I guess all Eastman had to do was catch a "running 40 year old" to become undesputed but still couldn't do it. Actually no one's been able to do it for a little over a decade...


'Sup mooks ! In case you didnt notice.
Congrats on the 4,000 posts dude :cool:

Thanx thrilla lol I didn't even notice. Ah man 4K already wow...

Hopkins doesnt deserve to be in the hall of fame? Hall of bull****? LMFAO. Anorak is still mad about Hopkins' cautious win over his countryman Eastman.

Are U ****in serious? Hall of Bull****? The guy has not lost in 20 defenses & 12 years. Granted that the division has not been the strongest, over 12 years I'm sure he has ran across pretty good fighters. You are right some of his fights are not the most exciting, but if he fought like Corrales or Castillo do you think he'd be going strong at 40. Hell No! He wouldn't be able to spell forty. He is a WINNER & he does what he needs to win. Isn't that what sports are all about? WINNING. Tom Brady isn't Michael Vick but he is a WINNER. I fell like some people just don't get it. Are you another European mad because he supposedely ducked Calzaghe. Please, Calzaghe doesn't deserve to wipe Hopkins ass. At a time in his career when he is looking for big paydays, Why fight Calzaghe? In the states the name "Calzaghe" excites no one. HOPKINS IS ONE OF THE BEST FIGHTERS OF ALL TIME & THE ONLY THING THAT BELONGS IN THE HALL OF BULL**** IS YOUR THREAD!Wow, you've posted a grand total of four times and already you're mouthing off like that?

Yet more "Hopkins fights like **** because he's old, so there" anti-logic.

Derision of Calzaghe, someone I never even mentioned, someone who's not even in the same DIVISION as Hopkins. (Clue: Winky Wright IS).

Mr. Coop? Isn't a coop something that's full of bird ****? Prick.

Hopkins doesnt deserve to be in the hall of fame? Hall of bull****? LMFAO. Anorak is still mad about Hopkins' cautious win over his countryman Eastman.:D I KNEW as soon as I saw Godzhand as the last poster on this thread it would contain the word "Anorak" and something to do with it being a Limey angle. Good to see you didn't let me down, G. :)

The guy only beat 2 worthwile opponents, ODLH who has been accused of taking a dive and Tito who for one is already too small and a total style mismatch. No way Hopkins belong top 5.

To someone going on about nationality, most people dont give a ****e. Most people support boxers thats not from their country, specially UK as theres not many top boxers from here atm. Hopkins is just a very boring fighter who's beaten nobody. He beaten ODLH, wow so what, it wasnt even very convincing until after the dive. Then theres Tito whos naturally smaller and posseses no boxing skills on that lvl.

As for all this 20 title defense crap, well Im sure there are many fighters out there who can go 100wins undefeated by fighting b class opponents or picking on guys 6 weight classes below them.

I'm sorry fella but that's only your opinion, and I would say that I know more people that would dissagree with that than agree with it.

Maybe it's because you live in the States, and they drum all this marketing stuff into you on the tv? :dunno: But outside the US Bernard is seen very differently.

I think some boxing fans, (I dunno maybe you?) have the Citizen Kane syndrome... All film critics say it's the greatest film ever, and they won't change their opinion on that because they're scared that other critics won't take them seriously... It's like the blind leading the blind.

I prefer people to just shoot straight with me and say, "Citizen Kane is NOT the best film ever, it's ok but there are far better films out there!".

Same **** with Bernard... You don't have to follow the pack on everything, that's just f**kin' boring... Stray away and have an individual opinion, and then give reasons WHY you think that way.


American media hardly ever mentions boxing. No one who isn't really into boxing has ever heard of B-Hop in America. It has NOTHING to do with the media.

B, I agree about the Oscar fight, he played him like a ***** until Oscar lay down so they could rake in the cash and embark on a promotional management... er, I meant, until Oscar got KOed.

But stuff years ago is no reflection on why he's ranked #1 p4p NOW.

Wow, you're a ****ing moron. Have you ever been punched there?

For one thing there's a banger who admittedly doesn't have Hopkins's skill (Carl "The Cat" Thompson), who is 41 yet bangs like a young 'un. He's world class if not a world beater, and is currently the 5th rated Cruiser on Boxrec. I would say he's not that famous because he's a Limey, but he's not that famous over here either, despite always being watchable.

But the most important point is, if he can't box to the fullest of his ability because of his age (and I agree, he's nearly ready to be taken now)... he should just get the **** out. Seriously. Look at the title of this thread. Fight or retire.

He shouldn't retire if he can still beat the best middleweights out there. He beat Eastman. He is top 5. He could also beat Taylor. By the way I picked Eastman to beat Hops and I pick Taylor to. Cat Thompson doesn't sound like a guy who boxes to the fullest of his ability, sounds more like a guy who is too dumb to know when to get on his toes and move his head. Also, don't bring up boxrec's rankings if you want to be taken seriously. That won't do. Hopkins' style is not to bang, especially at 40. Thompson's is...so what?

Hopkins is boxing to the smartest of his ability. He is 40 and obviously no one at 40 still has the physicality they had at 25 or even 36 in Hopkins' case. That's life. If you can't use 40 yrs old as a reason to box cautiously when you have as much on the line as Hopkins does, then you never can.

When Hopkins did stop and fight vs Eastman, he whipped him. The first half he acted lame, but the latter half he showed why he is great, easily dominating a top 5 middleweight. What more can you ask for? For him to beat Taylor? Well he may very well do that soon. You say fight or retire, and well, he's fightin' so you have your answer, just not the one you want.

And Martin...STFU already. Damn you act like a rube, boy. You think Americans are all hot-doggin yankees who only form opinions from the tube. Get over yourself. Media doesn't even discuss boxing here.

I have to admit , I am a big Fan of B-hops work ethic , and i do respect what he has accomplished since coming out of jail , i cannot knock his hustle . As a fight fan though I do not respect not moving up in weight classes to find bigger and better challenges . Just about every great fighter has gone up to higher weight classes to seek challenges after domiating the weight class they started in . B-Hop started his career at light Heavy, lost and went down in weight never to challenge a bigger opponent. True he beat DLH + Tito but they had already dominated there respected weight classes . I just dont like the fact that he has domiated Middle weight for so long that he never has tried to challenge himself with a bigger fighter. If a big payday was what he was looking for he didnt have to look any further but to move up in weight .

i actually like the whole not moving in weight. It's less of a challenge, but it shows because the boxer is healthier in the end. Hopkins' inhuman strength and stamina at his age is a representation of staying at a consistent weight his entire life. The man rarely breathes hard, stays consistent, and is strong! As you saw with Roy Jones, moving weight classes brings enormous damage to your body, especially when done in short periods of time. Part of me wishes that Roy had stayed where he was, so that he'd still be dominant at super middleweight, but he wouldn't have accomplished as much there. It is hard for me to bash any boxer because I respect what they have to go through. Hopkins falls into my category of professional fighters. He does whatever it takes to win. So does Winky, and both of them are very successful, although neither of them draw big money fights. They'll never be superstars like Roy, Mayweather, Morales, or Tyson, because they live safely, but they always get the win and you can make a safe bet on that. I hold him on the p4p list because of that.

Wow, you're a ****ing moron. Have you ever been punched there?One thing I've noticed about you BadMagick is that you have no manners whatsoever. It's okay making a point and so on, but you're often just plain rude and obnoxious. You ought to watch that.

And Martin...STFU already. Damn you act like a rube, boy. You think Americans are all hot-doggin yankees who only form opinions from the tube. Get over yourself. Media doesn't even discuss boxing here.I thought they discuss boxing after organising lynching and chicken fights. Then they get the loser of a boxing match and make him squeal like a pig.

I thought they discuss boxing after organising lynching and chicken fights. Then they get the loser of a boxing match and make him squeal like a pig.

lol??? :confused: I'm laughing and scratching my head at the same time.

lol??? :confused: I'm laughing and scratching my head at the same time.
I was just messing around, sorry. :)

Wow, you've posted a grand total of four times and already you're mouthing off like that?

Yet more "Hopkins fights like **** because he's old, so there" anti-logic.

Derision of Calzaghe, someone I never even mentioned, someone who's not even in the same DIVISION as Hopkins. (Clue: Winky Wright IS).

Mr. Coop? Isn't a coop something that's full of bird ****? Prick.
WHO GIVES A ****? YEAH I DID ONLY HAVE 4 POSTS, BUT AT LEAST THEY ARE NOT POSTS BASED ON HATRED. IF YOU CAN'T SEE HOPKINS IS A GREAT FIGHTER YOU MUST BE ****IN BLIND. SOMETIMES COOPS ARE FULL OF ****. SOMETIMES MY TOENAILS ARE AFTER I PULL THEM OUT OF ANORAKS ASS. ****IN ******. IF HOPKINS IS NOT A GREAT FIGHTER YOU NEED TO STOP HITTIN THAT GLASS DICK CAUSE YOUR MINDS PLAYIN TRICKS ON YOU.

I actually WANT someone to justify WHY Bernard's so "great". Because he wobbles around like a silly old ****er on a zimmer frame? I don't give two ****s about what he was like THEN, I want to know why he's so great NOW.

It's irrelevant to me what he was like years ago (you're talking the "getting schooled by Roy" era, right?) because he wasn't top of the p4p list then.


Hopkins is so "Great" because he hasnt lost in over 11 years and the last time he did lose was against arguably the greatest fighter of this generation. I'm not a big Hopkins fan, but I recognize that he is certainly "Great", and will make it into the hall of fame before Howard Eastman. If you want to be mad about Hopkins' performance against your nuff tumper, be mad at that nuff tumper. EASTMAN proved that HE isnt great because he did nothing but follow Hopkins around like a dog on a leash instead of cutting off the ring or at least sticking a jab out there. Whether you like it or not, Hopkins is a legend. 20 defenses of his title makes him "Great", every defense cant be a top tier performance, nor can it always be against the absolute best opposition. You know how boxing works. I cant believe someone could call a boxer average that has beaten every man in front of him for 11+ years, has the undisputed middleweight title, and can still compete at top level of the sport at the age of 40. C'mon Anorak, this doesnt even make any sense. He fought cautiously against Eastman, and yes when he slipped that one time he actually jogged a little. Seriously though you dont have to be a nuff tumper every fight to be a champion and legend. It has nothing to do with Hopkins being american. It's about what he's accomplished, and if he were to die tomorrow, no one could take away his AMAZING accomplishments and achievements. (let's see the next time someone defends their title 20 times in the next century, ****, let's see Ricky Hatton defend his title 20 times)

:D I KNEW as soon as I saw Godzhand as the last poster on this thread it would contain the word "Anorak" and something to do with it being a Limey angle. Good to see you didn't let me down, G. :)


Thats the only sense I can make out of this. Sour grapes for him cautiously beating Eastman. He is considered #1 P4P because of his accomplishments and the fact that no one has been able to beat him in over a decade of him defending his title and turning back all opposition.

Hopkins is so "Great" because he hasnt lost in over 11 years and the last time he did lose was against arguably the greatest fighter of this generation. I'm not a big Hopkins fan, but I recognize that he is certainly "Great", and will make it into the hall of fame before Howard Eastman. If you want to be mad about Hopkins' performance against your nuff tumper, be mad at that nuff tumper. EASTMAN proved that HE isnt great because he did nothing but follow Hopkins around like a dog on a leash instead of cutting off the ring or at least sticking a jab out there. Whether you like it or not, Hopkins is a legend. 20 defenses of his title makes him "Great", every defense cant be a top tier performance, nor can it always be against the absolute best opposition. You know how boxing works. I cant believe someone could call a boxer average that has beaten every man in front of him for 11+ years, has the undisputed middleweight title, and can still compete at top level of the sport at the age of 40. C'mon Anorak, this doesnt even make any sense. He fought cautiously against Eastman, and yes when he slipped that one time he actually jogged a little. Seriously though you dont have to be a nuff tumper every fight to be a champion and legend. It has nothing to do with Hopkins being american. It's about what he's accomplished, and if he were to die tomorrow, no one could take away his AMAZING accomplishments and achievements. (let's see the next time someone defends their title 20 times in the next century, ****, let's see Ricky Hatton defend his title 20 times)


If not this, what makes you think that Hopkins isnt great Anorak?

let's see the next time someone defends their title 20 times in the next century, ****, let's see Ricky Hatton defend his title 20 timesYou see, this is why you're naughty. :) I like you and your posts, they always interest me, but you always try and infer I've got Limey bias that isn't even there. :) When did I ever big up Hatton? He did well on Saturday - to a degree - but I've never been a big fan.

Anyway, topic at hand. I'm just not seeing it, sorry. I do take your points, but I think what's bothering me is the question of whether Hopkins would have been able to rule at any other era in the Middleweight division. I know, I know, that's a lousy argument - the Heavyweight division is up for grabs at the moment, Vitali possibly excepted - but I'm just not feeling that beating up a couple of little guys and the likes of Robert Allen is doing it for me. Even taking away the Nuff Tumper (and you're right, Howard pisses me off in title bouts, lazy Nuff Tumper) I'm still not sold.

I tell you what... if he beats Taylor and then goes on to beat Winky Wright I'll have more to say about him. Cos Hopkins lies awake at night knowing I'm not praising him, you know. :)

You see, this is why you're naughty. :) I like you and your posts, they always interest me, but you always try and infer I've got Limey bias that isn't even there. :) When did I ever big up Hatton? He did well on Saturday - to a degree - but I've never been a big fan.

Anyway, topic at hand. I'm just not seeing it, sorry. I do take your points, but I think what's bothering me is the question of whether Hopkins would have been able to rule at any other era in the Middleweight division. I know, I know, that's a lousy argument - the Heavyweight division is up for grabs at the moment, Vitali possibly excepted - but I'm just not feeling that beating up a couple of little guys and the likes of Robert Allen is doing it for me. Even taking away the Nuff Tumper (and you're right, Howard pisses me off in title bouts, lazy Nuff Tumper) I'm still not sold.

I tell you what... if he beats Taylor and then goes on to beat Winky Wright I'll have more to say about him. Cos Hopkins lies awake at night knowing I'm not praising him, you know. :)


I said nothing bad about Hatton, i just happened to use him as an example. I could have used another champions name, i just threw his name out there. Also, you certainly did have a "limey" bias on Eastman. Not Hatton though, so it's all good. If your not down with Hopkins it's quite alright, I see what your saying about the choice of opponents. You gotta give him props for beating Tito, but I didnt see his win over DLH that great. We agree to disagree then, that's a good conclusion. :)

I said nothing bad about Hatton, i just happened to use him as an example. I could have used another champions name, i just threw his name out there. Also, you certainly did have a "limey" bias on Eastman. Not Hatton though, so it's all good. If your not down with Hopkins it's quite alright, I see what your saying about the choice of opponents. You gotta give him props for beating Tito, but I didnt see his win over DLH that great. We agree to disagree then, that's a good conclusion. :)Yeah, fair play. Though again the two opponents you mention are little guys.

The "Limey bias" with Eastman. I wouldn't call it bias. All it is that a large percentage of people on this site have only seen the Hopkins fight, which was crap from a Nuff Tump POV. Some may have seen the Hopkins one and the Joppy one, which was better, and saw Howard put some fun into it, but he still lost on points (although that was close, and the audience booed the decision).

All it is is that because I'm a Limey and his fights are on TV over here I'll sometimes say "I've seen a lot of his fights, and..." I'm not even necessarily bigging up these Limeys, I just get frustrated when you get people on here (not you) slagging fighters as if they're an authority on 'em when in the vast majority of cases they haven't even seen the guys. Take Junior Witter. Got slagged off on here for ages after the poor Judah fight (for which he had, IMO, legitimate excuses for an off-night). Yet now he's done better against Lovemour N'Dou people are talking about him as a prospect. But I've watched the guy on Limeyvision for years and could have told you all the time that the Judah thing was a genuine off-night and should have been excused.


As for Howard... lazy git, was joyless and unimaginative against Hopkins. It's really maddening, because I've seen at least eight or nine of his fights at European level (maybe he just isn't world class?) and he goes right through them.