After watching the awsome figth between Chris Eubank and Nigel Benn,I thought to myself. Could either of these guys have beaten Benard Hopkins? Both looked very impressive in the fight, Eubank was a good mover and had awsome counter skills with some good power, while Benn reminded me and what masterdirector has said "a middleweight version of Tyson", he had explosive power and semeed to come back from every big punch/flurry he took. Now I dont know enough about either guy but does anyone here think they give Hopkins a challenge or perhaps stop him?

Bernard Hopkins is the most grossly over-rated fighter in the world. As Emmanuel Steward (a fan of Benn and Eubank) said, here's what Manny said - "The last world-class, natural Middleweight that Hopkins fought was Roy Jones, and he lost every round." Trinidad and Oscar were just 'blown-up' Welterweight's so Hopkins has NEVER beaten a decent Middleweight because 160 has been empty for 10 years now and that's why he stands alone at 40 years old - a testiment to how poor 160 has been for atleast 10 years.

This sums it up nicely - Back in the 1980s and 1990s, a never-ending conveyorbelt of top fighters graced the division - Marvin Hagler, Roy Jones, Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran, Mike McCallum, James Toney, Gerald McClellan, Iran Barkley, Sumbu Kalambay, Felix Trinidad, Michael Nunn, Julian Jackson, Bernard Hopkins, Nigel Benn, Chris Eubank and Steve Collins to name just a few.

But nowadays the division has a distinctly shallow look and Hopkins stands alone.

Here's the link - http://www.secondsout.com/Legends/update.cfm?ccs=233&cs=8560

To be honest with you, ALL of those names mentioned beat Hopkins! Yes Hagler, Jones, Leonard, Hearns, Duran, McCallum, Toney, McClellan, Barkley, Kalambay, Trinidad, Nunn, Jackson, Benn, Eubank, Collins - most of those guys are Younger than Hopkins and were all rated above Hopkins. It's just that they all either moved up in weight or retired, yet Hopkins remained.

No.

Benn was too raw and couldn't fight well at all when he was backing up. Bernard Hopkins makes free swingers pay.

Chris Eubank was a better fighter than Benn, but he wouldn't be able to deal with a guy like Hopkins who is probably a superior counter puncher and has quicker hands. I don't know what fights you've seen of Eubank, but he was susceptible to right hands and a good body puncher could really discourage him. Hopkins is very quick with the sneak right and right counter, is a deceptively good body puncher, and is one of the most crafty bastards to ever step in a ring. All of that being said, Eubank had a lot of good things going for him as well and would have made it a tough fight. He was an excellent finisher when he had his man hurt (before the second Watson fight of course). I see Hopkins winning by a close 12 round decision.

Oh and neither of them would be able to knock him out. Ever since Hopkins fought Mercado he's been able to take a punch with the best of em. Watch the second Echols fight for evidence of this.

In a word...NO

benn at his best would of beaten hopkins by ud(steward said so),eubank would of gave him hell but hopkins would edge a decision over eubank.although hopkins has never fought anyone like eubank it must be noted.

steward said in january 05 interview "nigel (benn) had tonnes of natural talent,perpetual uppercuts when used,a beautiful left hook when used,a good bobber and weaver when used,good ability at cutting the ring off and he could hurt you to the body if he decided to too,but nigel's problem was his concentration.thats how watson and eubank bettered him,they remained in their concentration.with nigel he was mentally held back because he lacked patience and was prone to going ragged and abit wreckless rather than remain focused.but he could of beaten any middleweight of the past 15 yrs had he had concentration,had he used his best punches,actually bob and weave that he was good at and had he been patient.he would beat any middleweight of the past 15 yrs by unanimous verdicts as long as he paced himself and didnt waste punches early on by putting too much power and effort into punches that miss.if he got that right,he would beat them all."

roy jones said "you underestimate benn's boxing skills at your peril"

marvin hagler said in the late 80s that benn was his favourite prospect.

Props to Manny :D

But Benn did have abit of a wild right hand, even though it was a killer right hand it was abit wide sometimes and could be countered with a straight left that would wobble Benn. Although I suppose that's more to do with Benn's lack of patience as Manny points out, especially in his early career he just wanted to kill you out with every single punch he threw.

You only have to watch Benn's fight against Nicky Piper in 1992 to see what a talented fighter Benn was. Now I know Piper's no world-beater (good fighter though), but Benn got on top off him and just totally dominated. Piper was competitive for two rounds before it was a one-sided beatdown and systematic beating. But it wasn't a wild Benn here, it was a mature Benn that we hadn't seen before. He was flawless that night, what he did was work the body all night long - his body shots were nice and accurate and his timing just seemed to be good, also Benn's upper body was moving from side to side constantly and Piper just couldn't land (due to being very apprehensive and hurt too) Benn looked so sharp and really did chop Piper down like a tree - he sapped him to the body until Piper's head finally fell in the latter rounds and what a good finisher Benn is - he finished him alright.

In a word...NO
Oh what a suprise :rolleyes: You've blatantly been hating on Benn, Eubank and Brit fighters in loads of threads, so it was no suprise you'd say that.

Oh what a suprise :rolleyes: You've blatantly been hating on Benn, Eubank and Brit fighters in loads of threads, so it was no suprise you'd say that.
My Aunt whos not a boxing fan what so ever and is from London was in town a few weeks back and I asked her if she knew who Ricky Hatton was (it was right after Hatton Tyszu) and she had no idea. She told me the only fighters that she knew from England were Lennox Lewis, Naseem Hamed and one she couldnt name. That one fighters name came back to her later and it was Nigel Benn. Im guessing they were real popular even to the casual fan?

Marvelous Marvin Hagler would've destroyed them all. I think Hopkins would've beat both Benn & Eubank. Hopkins & Hagler would've been the fight I would've loved to see. I would've still picked Hagler over Hopkins. Jones fight was closer then you think. I had 7 rounds for Jones & 5 for Hopkins.

My Aunt whos not a boxing fan what so ever and is from London was in town a few weeks back and I asked her if she knew who Ricky Hatton was (it was right after Hatton Tyszu) and she had no idea. She told me the only fighters that she knew from England were Lennox Lewis, Naseem Hamed and one she couldnt name. That one fighters name came back to her later and it was Nigel Benn. Im guessing they were real popular even to the casual fan?
Your Aunt would know who Chris Eubank is but probably wouldn't know that he was once a boxer! She'd say "oh he's the guy with the monocle and the cane and the silly voice".

Lewis and Hamed not very well known to the general public to be honest, neither is Benn really. Michael Watson is because of his injuries.

Oh what a suprise :rolleyes: You've blatantly been hating on Benn, Eubank and Brit fighters in loads of threads, so it was no suprise you'd say that.


what a surprise a guy with eubank in his avatar and is a blatent londoner lover say that benn and eubank can beat hopkins :rolleyes:

To suggest that Benn & Eubanks 'couldnt' beat Hopkins (as in "NO" chance) is plain foolish,ofcourse they could !

The question is how many times in 10 would they beat him ? I think that HOP would beat Benn more times than Benn and Eubanks would beat HOP put together and HOP would beat Eubanks more times than Benn and Eubanks would beat Hop put together.

HOP back in the early 90s tho would lose to Eubanks most times,and its a interestin point that the guy brings up earlier that Eubanks is actualy younger than HOP ! so I think HOP mist be a gr8 example of a fighter getting better with age like a fine wine,

Bernard Hopkins is the most grossly over-rated fighter in the world. As Emmanuel Steward (a fan of Benn and Eubank) said, here's what Manny said - "The last world-class, natural Middleweight that Hopkins fought was Roy Jones, and he lost every round." Trinidad and Oscar were just 'blown-up' Welterweight's so Hopkins has NEVER beaten a decent Middleweight because 160 has been empty for 10 years now and that's why he stands alone at 40 years old - a testiment to how poor 160 has been for atleast 10 years.

This sums it up nicely - Back in the 1980s and 1990s, a never-ending conveyorbelt of top fighters graced the division - Marvin Hagler, Roy Jones, Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran, Mike McCallum, James Toney, Gerald McClellan, Iran Barkley, Sumbu Kalambay, Felix Trinidad, Michael Nunn, Julian Jackson, Bernard Hopkins, Nigel Benn, Chris Eubank and Steve Collins to name just a few.

But nowadays the division has a distinctly shallow look and Hopkins stands alone.

Here's the link - http://www.secondsout.com/Legends/update.cfm?ccs=233&cs=8560

To be honest with you, ALL of those names mentioned beat Hopkins! Yes Hagler, Jones, Leonard, Hearns, Duran, McCallum, Toney, McClellan, Barkley, Kalambay, Trinidad, Nunn, Jackson, Benn, Eubank, Collins - most of those guys are Younger than Hopkins and were all rated above Hopkins. It's just that they all either moved up in weight or retired, yet Hopkins remained.
Hang on a min , Hopkins did beat Trinidad lol !

But i see ur point. But my argument would be that HOP has gotten better with age like a fine wine,so no he wasnt at his best when he was 25-30 hes at his best when he was 35-40 becos he works his ass off and learns with experience and doesnt get lazy man.

Bernard Hopkins is the most grossly over-rated fighter in the world. As Emmanuel Steward (a fan of Benn and Eubank) said, here's what Manny said - "The last world-class, natural Middleweight that Hopkins fought was Roy Jones, and he lost every round." Trinidad and Oscar were just 'blown-up' Welterweight's so Hopkins has NEVER beaten a decent Middleweight because 160 has been empty for 10 years now and that's why he stands alone at 40 years old - a testiment to how poor 160 has been for atleast 10 years.

This sums it up nicely - Back in the 1980s and 1990s, a never-ending conveyorbelt of top fighters graced the division - Marvin Hagler, Roy Jones, Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran, Mike McCallum, James Toney, Gerald McClellan, Iran Barkley, Sumbu Kalambay, Felix Trinidad, Michael Nunn, Julian Jackson, Bernard Hopkins, Nigel Benn, Chris Eubank and Steve Collins to name just a few.

But nowadays the division has a distinctly shallow look and Hopkins stands alone.

Here's the link - http://www.secondsout.com/Legends/update.cfm?ccs=233&cs=8560

To be honest with you, ALL of those names mentioned beat Hopkins! Yes Hagler, Jones, Leonard, Hearns, Duran, McCallum, Toney, McClellan, Barkley, Kalambay, Trinidad, Nunn, Jackson, Benn, Eubank, Collins - most of those guys are Younger than Hopkins and were all rated above Hopkins. It's just that they all either moved up in weight or retired, yet Hopkins remained.


We'll see if this post is valid the night he fights Taylor.

All I can say is, he really made Eastman look like a *****. And what's funny is Eastman dominated your ***** *****-made WWF division over there.

Bernard Hopkins' legacy currently is far greater than any fighter from your continent, ever, could say for themselves...Benn, Lewis, Calzaghe, any of them. Hatton won't even live up to it because of his aggressive style, he will take hella punishment in the top echelon- ESPECIALLY if him and floyd have a trilogy -i like the guy but he'll reign maybe 4-5 years TOPS, assuming he doesnt get punked by mayweather in the first six rounds.- so your opinion is overlooked, as usual.


edit: Eubanks beat hopkins? ROFLMAO. eubanks was always an A- fighter, kind of like bruno, the loser that england loved.

We'll see if this post is valid the night he fights Taylor.

All I can say is, he really made Eastman look like a *****. And what's funny is Eastman dominated your ***** *****-made WWF division over there.

Bernard Hopkins' legacy currently is far greater than any fighter from your continent, ever, could say for themselves...Benn, Lewis, Calzaghe, any of them. Hatton won't even live up to it because of his aggressive style, he will take hella punishment in the top echelon- ESPECIALLY if him and floyd have a trilogy -i like the guy but he'll reign maybe 4-5 years TOPS, assuming he doesnt get punked by mayweather in the first six rounds.- so your opinion is overlooked, as usual.


edit: Eubanks beat hopkins? ROFLMAO. eubanks was always an A- fighter, kind of like bruno, the loser that england loved.
That post is abit of a mess :)

As for Eastman, the guy sucks and always has done. He's nobody really. I caused him more problems in sparring than Hopkins did.

As for Eastman, the guy sucks and always has done. He's nobody really. I caused him more problems in sparring than Hopkins did.

he sure tore his division a new ******* over there though, what's that say about boxing where he's from

owned

he sure tore his division a new ******* over there though, what's that say about boxing where he's from

owned
It says that the Middleweight division has sucked for 10 years, bigtime!

JUYJUY

I actually agree with what you said abouts Hopkins man lol

steward also said that he noticed benn could throw triple jabs in quick succession with ease while taking steps forward at the same time but didnt really use this hardly ever.

what a surprise a guy with eubank in his avatar and is a blatent londoner lover say that benn and eubank can beat hopkins
:D :D thats rich mate :D :D

given your posting name and love for germans boxers bratworsts!

Julian Jackson
Nigel Benn
MikeMcCallum
Chris Eubank
James Toney
Michael Nunn
Roy Jones-Nard fought like a ***** not an executioner
Sumbu Kalambay
Thomas Tate
Gerald McClellan
Michael Watson
Herol Grahm

I dont know if they could have beaten Hopkins but I look at his list of middleweight title defenses and ther are no middleweights on the list that impress me. Sure Oscar and Tito are great fighters but does anyone want to argue they are real middleweights. NArd is many peoples p4p #1 fighter and he got there by beating welterweights.

I dont know who of the list above would or could have beaten him (besides Jones who outclassed him) but each of the guys above are better than any fighter Nard has defended his title against. He is a great fighter no doubt but he is fortunate because he has never faced any formidable middleweight except Jones and we all now how that went.

Julian Jackson
Nigel Benn
MikeMcCallum
Chris Eubank
James Toney
Michael Nunn
Roy Jones-Nard fought like a ***** not an executioner
Sumbu Kalambay
Thomas Tate
Gerald McClellan
Michael Watson
Herol Grahm

I dont know if they could have beaten Hopkins but I look at his list of middleweight title defenses and ther are no middleweights on the list that impress me. Sure Oscar and Tito are great fighters but does anyone want to argue they are real middleweights. NArd is many peoples p4p #1 fighter and he got there by beating welterweights.

I dont know who of the list above would or could have beaten him (besides Jones who outclassed him) but each of the guys above are better than any fighter Nard has defended his title against. He is a great fighter no doubt but he is fortunate because he has never faced any formidable middleweight except Jones and we all now how that went.
It's good that you admit the truth..

It's good that you admit the truth..


Juuj Im an equal opportunity kind of guy!

he has never faced any formidable middleweight except Jones and we all now how that went.

when nard fought jones he was a totally different fighter. he was using a style that wasnt right for him, a guy with great reflexes and long arms like that should not be an aggressive fighter like he was trying to be. a guy like that is much better looking to start out slow and counterpunch


id bet on today's bernard against yesteryear's roy jones any time


Edit- not to mention the fact that jones has been boxing his whole life and nard just started at age 25ish

i actually think nard did okay for being so inexperienced..

The Man 40 Years Old If He Beat Jermain Taylor At 40... Damn...and Taylor Weighed 175 On The Hbo Scale Last Fight...

Jones Hopkins Scores Was 116 112 On All Three Cards Thats Prety Damn Close Cuz Hopkins Wasnt Even In His Prime

when nard fought jones he was a totally different fighter. he was using a style that wasnt right for him, a guy with great reflexes and long arms like that should not be an aggressive fighter like he was trying to be. a guy like that is much better looking to start out slow and counterpunch


id bet on today's bernard against yesteryear's roy jones any time


Edit- not to mention the fact that jones has been boxing his whole life and nard just started at age 25ish

i actually think nard did okay for being so inexperienced..

Todays Nard vs. yesterdays Jones...I dont know about that...there is ahuge difference in hand speed and I dont need to tell you who comes out on top in that department.

Boxing Jones from the outside and counterpunching like you suggest would be one tall order-hell the first 6 rounds vs. Oscar were basically a draw, I gotta believe Jones Jr would better that. I would go with Roy in an even more boring fight then their first...

Jones Hopkins Scores Was 116 112 On All Three Cards Thats Prety Damn Close Cuz Hopkins Wasnt Even In His Prime

That is really an over-simplification of their fight, believe me.

The thing is, Hopkins as a PRESSURE fighter in 1993 was pretty much as good as he ever was as a PRESSURE fighter. To beat Roy, he tried to apply lots of pressure, and would use the same tactic vs Roy in any other year. Roy is just too good for Hopkins, as a result. Hopkins increasing his boxing skills with age (to SOME degree; Hopkins was by no means "green" when he fought Roy as some would like to believe...he just fought people who were less skilled than Roy after 1993) does not mean he beats Roy, or even that the fight is any closer. Hopkins wouldn't be outboxing Jones anyway and we already saw, as I stated earlier, what happened when Hopkins pressured him all night.

Also, you must take into account that Jones improved some after 1993 as well.

So in my opinion, a rematch would have just been more of the same, and 8-4 decision for Roy, and maybe even bigger than that if Hopkins thinks of trying to outbox Roy.

Hopkins did have an amatuer career, and an extensive one. He had 99 fights and went 95-4, and also fought boxing tournaments in prison. Also, he had more pro fights than Roy had when him and Roy met for the title in 1993.

SL, we disagree once again. You know that Hopkins wasn't NEARLY the fighter in '93 that he was in say, '98-'00.

Hopkins had fought 0 live fighters before Jones, so he was extremely untested and was very green. If you can prove this wrong then please, be my guest.

I'll be damned if the Hopkins that KOed Echols with one arm, or the Hopkins that dominated and KOed Trinidad, would be dropped twice by Segundo Mercado. I'll also be damned if he lost to the middleweight version of Roy that decisively too.

It'd be a close decision either way IMO, but all things considered, I'd still lean towards a close Jones decision.


EDIT: Roy had already faced decent tests before he fought Hopkins. Castro was lightyears ahead of anyone that Hopkins had faced to that point.

I do believe Roy faced the better comp when they had met, but Hopkins was not green at all. People talk like he was a rook when he had been in the boxing game for YEARS.

My point is, although Hopkins did improve, his improvement would not have mattered vs Roy because he would have HAD to use the same style he used vs Roy in 93 if they had fought again.

I am in the belied that Hopkins would have stopped Tito and DLH in 1993 just as he did when he was older. I just think it is played out and bought into too much how people say Hopkins improved so much after Roy. I don' think so. A lot of it is no one he fought after Roy was as good as Roy, so you had a chance to see just how good Hopkins was all along (to some degree, because yes I do agree Hopkins boxing skills increased some after Roy, but probably not as much as you do).

Yeah I guess we'll just agree to disagree again. We've been doing that a lot lately huh...haha.

I do believe Roy faced the better comp when they had met, but Hopkins was not green at all. People talk like he was a rook when he had been in the boxing game for YEARS.

My point is, although Hopkins did improve, his improvement would not have mattered vs Roy because he would have HAD to use the same style he used vs Roy in 93 if they had fought again.

I am in the belied that Hopkins would have stopped Tito and DLH in 1993 just as he did when he was older. I just think it is played out and bought into too much how people say Hopkins improved so much after Roy. I don' think so. A lot of it is no one he fought after Roy was as good as Roy, so you had a chance to see just how good Hopkins was all along (to some degree, because yes I do agree Hopkins boxing skills increased some after Roy, but probably not as much as you do).

Yeah I guess we'll just agree to disagree again. We've been doing that a lot lately huh...haha.


I can acknowledge that Hopkins had been in the game for a long time and had a great amateur career, but his pro competition to the point that he fought Roy was very very weak.

I really do think that he improved a lot after Roy and he really shored up his defensive/inside game. I think it speaks volumes that he was being taken to the limit by guys like Mercado, but he was never in trouble against guys like Trinidad and Echols. Mercado was a nice puncher, but never really amounted to anything, and wasn't nearly on the level of the aforementioned fighters (even though Echols was kind of a bust too). I don't think it's so much that he improved his natural skills or punching. I think it has more to do that he drastically refined the abilities that he already possessed and he really mastered every little facet of the game.

Anyway, the whole agreeing to disagree thing is fine. It's just friendly banter. I respect your opinion even if it differs from mine...but its just that my opinion is better. :p muhahaha

It's weird because I'm looking at the lists of Golden Gloves finalists and all the US Under-19 finalsists and Bernard Hopkins' name doesn't come up anywhere.. maybe they were all prison bouts as an amateur?

Hopkins has beaten the fighters that he has fought save for RJJ. That's all you can do as a fighter is to win fights. I do think the competition has been worse than the fighters in 80's and 90's faced but that's not Hop's fault. Benn would give Bernard problems though. He took massive blows from McClellan and still came back banging. I don't recall Hopkins ever facing that type of fighter before. I believe it would be a close fight that could go either way. I haven't seen many fights of Eubank though other than the match he had with Benn so I can't really comment on him.

It's weird because I'm looking at the lists of Golden Gloves finalists and all the US Under-19 finalsists and Bernard Hopkins' name doesn't come up anywhere.. maybe they were all prison bouts as an amateur?


So in summary if you are not a golden gloves champ or an under 19 US Amatuer stud your pro career is missing something?

What non-prison tournaments did he take part in, if any?