I scored the first fight for Taylor by 1 round and I scored the second fight for Bernard by 1 round...


But...



Bernard Hopkins is flat out as good as he is lucky...his resume is littered with Joe Calzaghe B level fighters and he should have naked posters of Trinidad and Oscar on his walls....

welterweights are the men who padded his bank account and cemented his legacy, he never ever beat an A level middleweight!

Sure he is a hall of famer but he is not a great hall of famer, stack his resume up to the greats, be CRITICAL, dont be assuming and you will see that this is a man that has been given a free pass...

Nard is a very good fighter,he may even be great but dont ever put him in the same breath as a Marvin Hagler...just dont do it!

This much has been proven tonight.

ok.....Now go to sleep!

I just said the exact same thing in another post of mine.

Since you made a thread about it, I'll re-post it.

For my part, I rate as him a Chavez-like champion. His challengers weren't great, he had one remarkable performance against Tito (a lighter man moving up), and doesn't rank among the great middleweights. You can argue pro and con whether he won the fight, but the fact remains that Bernard's pertormances have been clinical and uninspired of late, and he was due to have such nights when they didn't break right. He didn't get the shaft, he got the short end of the stick.

This message is hidden because Manny_P is on your ignore list.

Save it Manny. This is a thread for boxing pundits, not pre-pubescent twirps.

Nard is a very good fighter,he may even be great but dont ever put him in the same breath as a Marvin Hagler...just dont do it!



Agreed......

This message is hidden because Manny_P is on your ignore list.

Save it Manny. This is a thread for boxing pundits, not pre-pubescent twirps.
LOL!

I was about to say the same thing..

Scap I agree with this..
I just thought Hopkins would KNOCK him out and secure his legacy, right now I don't think he was better than Hagler and never would have but if he KOd him in the fashion I thought he would he would be a all time great.

Scap making good posts as always.

TuPrincipe said Pemberto would KO Jeff Lacy in 5 rounds. We all know what happened.

TuPrincipe said Hatton is a smarta fighta than Floyd......

TuPrincipe said Hop would KO Jermain Taylor late........



TuPrincipe all you need is a reciept now cuz I offically OWN YOU!

TuPrincipe who's that in your avatar? Gavilan?

TuPrincipe who's that in your avatar? Gavilan?

You're KIDDING???

Walker Smith Jr.

1 Million points if you know who Walker Smith Jr. is.

Bernard Hopkins is flat out as good as he is lucky...his resume is littered with Joe Calzaghe B level fighters and he should have naked posters of Trinidad and Oscar on his walls....

welterweights are the men who padded his bank account and cemented his legacy, he never ever beat an A level middleweight!




YAWN!

Who didn't Hopkins beat at Middleweight during his run?

Because Calzaghe had a LIST of top ranked Super-middleweights that he some how managed to NOT fight.

Hopkins was limited to who was around during his reign, but the longevity speaks for itself.

Don't mention him in the same breath as Hagler? Why the **** not? They're both top ten middleweights of all time.

Way too critical here Scap.

Not necessary. :rolleyes:

You're KIDDING???

Walker Smith Jr.

1 Million points if you know who Walker Smith Jr. is.
Sugar Ray Robinson, he just looks a bit different that pic, I read his whole biography.

YAWN!

Who didn't Hopkins beat at Middleweight during his run?

Because Calzaghe had a LIST of top ranked middleweights that he some how managed to NOT fight.

Hopkins was limited to who was around during his reign, but the longevity speaks for itself.

Way too critical here Scap.

Not necessary.

Fair point but all of the icons in the sport for the most part have great resumes. You can't say the same thing about Hopkins.

Sugar Ray Robinson, he just looks a bit different that pic, I read his whole biography.

There ya go:)

If I had the 1 million points I would give it to you also ;)

Yea...and Haglar is so great because he had wars with Duran and Hearns.

Ray Robinson lost a handful of fights during his middleweight reign.

Hopkins dominated just about every single one of his championship fights. The notable exceptions are the Jones Jr. and Mercado I, those was during the early years and against Taylor when he was 40! and they decided to give the fight to the younger and more marketable guy.

Yea...and Haglar is so great because he had wars with Duran and Hearns.

Ray Robinson lost a handful of fights during his middleweight reign.

Hopkins dominated just about every single one of his championship fights. The notable exceptions are the Jones Jr. and Mercado I, those was during the early years and against Taylor when he was 40! and they decided to give the fight to the younger and more marketable guy.

Blatantly biased an ill-informed opinions right there.

Fair point but all of the icons in the sport for the most part have great resumes. You can't say the same thing about Hopkins.


Hagler's resume wasn't star studded.

Joe Louis fought a string of weak fighters in his title reign.

Hopkins wanted to stay at middle and break the record for defenses, and he did so agaisnt all comers.

I think the 10 years without losing more than 4 rounds, and being the first and only fighter to unify the WBC/WBA/IBF/WBO titles is a pretty HOF worthy accomplishment.

He's a crafty throwback fighter who always came to fight and win.

Can't take that away from the man.

Blatantly biased an ill-informed opinions right there.

says the guy that said Pemberton would knockout Jeff Lacy in 5 rounds.

taylor won the fight.. hopkins looked good considering he's 40.. taylor clearly won the second one...

Both of those bastards owe me 100 dollars, for paying for PPV's that werent up to par. Both fought like *******s, both fights.

All that aside, Hopkins deserved the win, but both of them can kiss my ass for wasting my money. People talking about a Taylor/Lacy fight should relax, because that's a serious mismatch. Lacy will walk right through Taylor. Call the cops! Bernard Hopkins and Jermain Taylor stole $100 from me :) I'm going to sleep.

says the guy that said Pemberton would knockout Jeff Lacy in 5 rounds.

ROFL

He seriously picked Pemberton?

Blatantly biased an ill-informed opinions right there.
HAHAHAHAhAha!

Sugar Ray Robinson only lost 3 fights in his prime...

LaMotta, who he beat 5 times, and didn't train for that night and had a bad night..

Randy Turpin, same as LaMotta, except Robinson knocked him out once and beat him once...

Joey Maxim...light heavy king...Robinson started his career at lightweight, and he was BEATING Maxim, until that heat got to him, the heat was SO bad that they replaced a ref in the fight.

Retired.

Was never 1/10th of what he was in his prime.

Still managed to beat Fullmer twice(that draw was BS), beat Basilio with a FLU!!!!

He won the title a few times, then he got twice for it..

SRR=Greatest of al time

YAWN!

Who didn't Hopkins beat at Middleweight during his run?

Because Calzaghe had a LIST of top ranked Super-middleweights that he some how managed to NOT fight.

Hopkins was limited to who was around during his reign, but the longevity speaks for itself.

Don't mention him in the same breath as Hagler? Why the **** not? They're both top ten middleweights of all time.

Way too critical here Scap.

Not necessary. :rolleyes:


Im a critical thinker and when I look at fighters I look at them under a microscope and when I look at Hopkins I have always thought he has been given a free pass of sorts.

There were some very very good middleweights that were around when Nard was fighting...it is not the fault of worhty contenders that he never reached his prime until he was in his bottom half thirties...there were big names in the division that he never ever fought-do you want names?

ROFL

He seriously picked Pemberton?

he seriously did.

he even wrote a 3 paragraph post on why he THOUGHT so. He's dumb as rocks.

Hagler's resume wasn't star studded.

Joe Louis fought a string of weak fighters in his title reign.

Hopkins wanted to stay at middle and break the record for defenses, and he did so agaisnt all comers.

I think the 10 years without losing more than 4 rounds, and being the first and only fighter to unify the WBC/WBA/IBF/WBO titles is a pretty HOF worthy accomplishment.

He's a crafty throwback fighter who always came to fight and win.

Can't take that away from the man.

I disagree about Hagler..


He beat lot of great fighters, if he had the same opposition Hopkins had he would have KOd all of them...

Both of those bastards owe me 100 dollars, for paying for PPV's that werent up to par. Both fought like *******s, both fights.

All that aside, Hopkins deserved the win, but both of them can kiss my ass for wasting my money. People talking about a Taylor/Lacy fight should relax, because that's a serious mismatch. Lacy will walk right through Taylor. Call the cops! Bernard Hopkins and Jermain Taylor stole $100 from me :) I'm going to sleep.

*****,*****,*****.

Again bozo, this is a sport where you are measured by who you face.

Hopkins 2 biggest wins are over blown up lighter-weight fighters. You can say all you want about his 20 successful defences but the point is He didn't have the competition to be a top 5 MW of all time.

I would consider Hopkins to be in the second-tier of the MW division (the bottom 5 out of a top 10 list).

Im a critical thinker and when I look at fighters I look at them under a microscope and when I look at Hopkins I have always thought he has been given a free pass of sorts.

There were some very very good middleweights that were around when Nard was fighting...it is not the fault of worhty contenders that he never reached his prime until he was in his bottom half thirties...there were big names in the division that he never ever fought-do you want names?


We've had this conversation before, and your list concentrates on 93 - 95 with names like McClellen, Jackson, Benn, etc. When Bernard kicked off his title reign, those guys were shot, or in another division.

During his 10 year reign, he fought everyone available.

A ten year title reign fighting all comers and never losing more than 4 rounds nevermind a fight, is a pretty hefty accomplishment.

I would consider Hopkins to be in the second-tier of the MW division (the bottom 5 out of a top 10 list).


You say that like it's not impressive.

It most certianly is, and there are some pundits who have him top 5.

I disagree about Hagler..


He beat lot of great fighters, if he had the same opposition Hopkins had he would have KOd all of them...


Read my post again. I didn't say he fought soft competition, I said it wasn't star studded.

He's another guy who's resume leans more to the way he dominated who he fought and for how long rather than who he fought.

A ten year title reign fighting all comers and never losing more than 4 rounds nevermind a fight, is a pretty hefty accomplishment.

It is.Which is why I agreed with Scap when he said Hop is a very good fighter, possibly great.He didnt say not great,just that theres enough in Hops legacy to cast doubt.

It is.Which is why I agreed with Scap when he said Hop is a very good fighter, possibly great.He didnt say not great,just that theres enough in Hops legacy to cast doubt.


A top ten middleweight Champion of all time is great. Not possible great, great.

A top ten middleweight Champion of all time is great. Not possible great, great.

BY hopkins standard,Winky Wright has a VERY good chance of being a top 10 middleweight of ALL TIME.When Taylors career is done i think it will be considered better than Hop,even if dosent reign forever,but because he will have beaten good comp consistently.

BY hopkins standard,Winky Wright has a VERY good chance of being a top 10 middleweight of ALL TIME.When Taylors career is done i think it will be considered better than Hop,even if dosent reign forever,but because he will have beaten good comp consistently.


LOL, is Winky going to win the title and defend it for ten years?

How long does Taylor reign for?

Do you do lottery numbers too?

:rolleyes:

We've had this conversation before, and your list concentrates on 93 - 95 with names like McClellen, Jackson, Benn, etc. When Bernard kicked off his title reign, those guys were shot, or in another division.

During his 10 year reign, he fought everyone available.

A ten year title reign fighting all comers and never losing more than 4 rounds nevermind a fight, is a pretty hefty accomplishment.


I think Benn and McClellan proved they were not shot...plus a top notch contender like Lamar Parks would have been nice as opposed to a pretender like Lipsey.

Im as critical of Joe Calzaghe as anyone except maybe you...which Hopkins midddlweight victory stands out to you above the much inflated super middleweight record of Mr. Calzaghe? (I know Nard is in another class but lets be critical)

I will answer later my 2 week old is getting a bit fussy and my wife is being a ***** *****y.

LOL, is Winky going to win the title and defend it for ten years?

How long does Taylor reign for?

Do you do lottery numbers too?

:rolleyes:

I didnt say how long he would reign ,I said he would beat better fighters,because he has better competition,and its obvious he has talent,soyes i believe he'll win consistenly,but obviously thats just my opinion.

Do you ever take your head out of you ass :rolleyes:

And as for winky Im not a fan because he seems to be following Hopkins' example to the letter,fight a former great welter and people will call you great,hell, fight the same one!

Bozo the Clown, I know you're stubborn and you're sticking to your "he kept the title for 10 years, 20 successful defenses blah blah blah" but I still think that Taylor and Winky will beat better fighters then Nard ever beat and will retire with possibly not a better legacy (because no one can equal the number of years he kept the title) but definitely a better resume.

I didnt say how long he would reign ,I said he would beat better fighters,because he has better competition,and its obvious he has talent,soyes i believe he'll win consistenly,but obviously thats just my opinion.

Do you ever take your head out of you ass :rolleyes:

And as for winky Im not a fan because he seems to be following Hopkins' example to the letter,fight a former great welter and people will call you great,hell, fight the same one!


Don't talk about anyone other than you having 'head up ass' syndrom when you're using things that haven't happened yet in a debate.

It doesn't get much weaker than that.

This message is hidden because MemoryLane is on your ignore list.


Shhhhh,

I don't have time for people that post non sense and can't back up what they say, so I can no longer see what you're droning on about.

Remember? :rolleyes:

Awwwwwwww, that's not cool.

Shhhhh,

I don't have time for people that post non sense and can't back up what they say, so I can no longer see what you're droning on about.

Remember? :rolleyes:

Good decision.

Good decision.
Coming from the infamous "Bandwagon *****"? Weren't you the one defending me yesterday when I said that Cooney was one of the hardest hitters of all time you two-faced little ****head.

Coming from the infamous "Bandwagon *****"? Weren't you the one defending me yesterday when I said that Cooney was one of the hardest hitters of all time you two-faced little ****head.

LOL!!!!!!!!

Coming from the infamous "Bandwagon *****"? Weren't you the one defending me yesterday when I said that Cooney was one of the hardest hitters of all time you two-faced little ****head.

I wasn't backing you up you idiot..
I was telling him something else.

Don't talk about anyone other than you having 'head up ass' syndrom when you're using things that haven't happened yet in a debate.

It doesn't get much weaker than that.

Wow so no actual response from you? Thats not weak at all,and let me help you with MemoryLanes post since you missed it:

"Bozo the Clown, I know you're stubborn and you're sticking to your "he kept the title for 10 years, 20 successful defenses blah blah blah" but I still think that Taylor and Winky will beat better fighters then Nard ever beat and will retire with possibly not a better legacy (because no one can equal the number of years he kept the title) but definitely a better resume."
------------------
Maybe someday youll understand that setting a ****ing record isnt all that matters.And to recap,I never said Hopkins wasnt good,I questioned his overall greatness,obviously now he is ranked amongst the top 10,but not highly, fighters with better resumes than he are already emerging,and i was only speculating that he will eventualy be knocked off of that list.So go ahead and spin this however you care so you can think you got the last word.

still, you gotta love the comment from you. One minute, you're undoing Castillo's pants, the next minute your sucking Corrales dry. One minute you're licking the chowta of Taylor, the next your professing your love for Hopkins. What else? Oh yeah, one minute Wlad Klitschko is the best heavy, the next he's a bum. Man you're a hyppocrite...

still, you gotta love the comment from you. One minute, you're undoing Castillo's pants, the next minute your sucking Corrales dry. One minute you're licking the chowta of Taylor, the next your professing your love for Hopkins. What else? Oh yeah, one minute Wlad Klitschko is the best heavy, the next he's a bum. Man you're a hyppocrite...
You are a alter ego. **** off.

still, you gotta love the comment from you. One minute, you're undoing Castillo's pants, the next minute your sucking Corrales dry. One minute you're licking the chowta of Taylor, the next your professing your love for Hopkins. What else? Oh yeah, one minute Wlad Klitschko is the best heavy, the next he's a bum. Man you're a hyppocrite...

Oh man!!!!

You gonna let that Tha_Greatest?!

i was thinking that hop was gonna win because there is a ton of money for a trilogy but there is way more money for an undefeated fighter on hbo. hop is at the end of the road, hbo cant make no more money on him.....



taylor wins this fight imo.....



this is what i thought a few hours before the fight, i didnt watch but from what i hear it wasnt close and taylor flat out beat hopkins.

I think Benn and McClellan proved they were not shot...plus a top notch contender like Lamar Parks would have been nice as opposed to a pretender like Lipsey.

Hopkins won the IBF title in April of 95.

Two month before that, McClellen and Benn esentially ended eachother's careers. McClellen obviously, and Benn was never the same.

That fight was also for the WBC SUPER Middleweight title.

Two months after Hopkins won that first title, Julian Jackson was knocked out in 6 rounds by Quincy Taylor. Quincy Taylor was stopped in his next fight by Keith Holmes.

From the time Hopkins started his title reign, he defeated all comers.

Lipsey was not as bad as you're making him out to be, to this day Hopkins is the only one to convincingly beat Glen Johnson, and guys like Allan, Echoles, Vanderpool and Holmes aren't scrubs.

I agree it's not the most decorated list, but the fact reamins it was all that was there, and he showed up and won each fight with consistency. He took on all comers, and dominated one of the most prestegious division in boxing for a decade breaking a record set by Carlos Monzon.

Defintaly Hall of Fame material, definatly top ten all time at 160, and definatly great, not possibly great.


:D

Hopkins won the IBF title in April of 95.

Two month before that, McClellen and Benn esentially ended eachother's careers. McClellen obviously, and Benn was never the same.

That fight was also for the WBC SUPER Middleweight title.

Two months after Hopkins won that first title, Julian Jackson was knocked out in 6 rounds by Quincy Taylor. Quincy Taylor was stopped in his next fight by Keith Holmes.

From the time Hopkins started his title reign, he defeated all comers.

Lipsey was not as bad as you're making him out to be, to this day Hopkins is the only one to convincingly beat Glen Johnson, and guys like Allan, Echoles, Vanderpool and Holmes aren't scrubs.

I agree it's not the most decorated list, but the fact reamins it was all that was there, and he showed up and won each fight with consistency. He took on all comers, and dominated one of the most prestegious division in boxing for a decade breaking a record set by Carlos Monzon.

Defintaly Hall of Fame material, definatly top ten all time at 160, and definatly great, not possibly great.


:D

LOL!!!! You do it errrnight man. Victims afta victims. LOL! Keep up the boxing knowledge.

Wow so no actual response from you? Thats not weak at all,


I already told you, I have nothing left to say about your 'crystal ball' argument.

The discussion was about Hopkins legacy, and you're trying to be critical by saying Winky Wright and Jermain Taylor are going to go on to beat better fighters.

How the **** do you know?

They could both lose their next fights for all you know, nevermind beat a bunch of A class middleweights, nevermind dominate for years.

You have nothing to say, so pipe down.

Been reading this for a while and I feel that I have to take Bozo's side. Scap you're main argument is that Monzon, Hagler fought better guys, yes? Well look at it this way...Carlos Monzon is probably regarded as a top 3 middleweight of all time right? Well, three of Monzon's title defenses were against former welterweight champs (to Hopkins' two), Emile Griffith and Jose Napoles.

Also, one of Hagler's most notable win is his win over Duran in his first big title fight...Duran started his career as a LIGHTWEIGHT! Not to mention the fact that Duran didn't even have an aura of invincibility around him (already lost 4 fights). Hagler couldn't even hurt the formal lightweight and he even had to rally in the last 3 rounds to barely win a decision. Hagler's other career-defining wins were also against welterweights (Hearns and Leonard) and he lost to Leonard. Doesn't sound like a top middleweight to me.

Anyways, that's my two cents, feel free to state your opinions.

I don't like to drag other fighters down. I like Haglar too but if you rank him as #1 or #2 or whatever you've got to have Hopkins near there as well. Their records are quite similar, Haglar has slightly better opposition but Hopkins dominated his better and is also ahead in longevity and title defences.

Winky Wright is become quite overrated as well, the guy has losses to Vasquez, Harry Simon and Fernando Vargas. And he is an all out defensive fighter compared to Hopkins was a great offensive fighter a few years back.

Now all the Hopkin nuthugers can go away, simce I seen this coming when I gave bhop only three rounds in the first. :p

Nard is a very good fighter,he may even be great but dont ever put him in the same breath as a Marvin Hagler...just dont do it!

This much has been proven tonight.

Observation: Every big time fighter that loses a couple of times late in their career, didn't fight nobody and is no longer great. According to fans...I am starting to hate the word great, its thrown around too much and taken away too much. When Taylor loses somday I guarentee someone on this site going to say he never beat nobody, he was good but never great.

Observation: Every big time fighter that loses a couple of times late in their career, didn't fight nobody and is no longer great. According to fans...I am starting to hate the word great, its thrown around too much and taken away too much. When Taylor loses somday I guarentee someone on this site going to say he never beat nobody, he was good but never great.
very true man, very true, they will say, he beat a washed up old hopkins, never fought anyone else...i agree the story will change..what u think bout Max and Larry callen RJJ out to fight Hopkins

very true man, very true, they will say, he beat a washed up old hopkins, never fought anyone else...i agree the story will change..what u think bout Max and Larry callen RJJ out to fight Hopkins

I think he should do it, I didnt know about that. I didn't see the fight but like I said I hate the word great. Its taken away too much from people deserving of the title.

very true man, very true, they will say, he beat a washed up old hopkins, never fought anyone else...i agree the story will change..what u think bout Max and Larry callen RJJ out to fight Hopkins
Damn! That would ****ing rock....

2 old fighters but still, it would be great. The weight would be the issue though, right?

No way in hell I'll pay to see Roy fight Hopkins.

Now all the Hopkin nuthugers can go away, simce I seen this coming when I gave bhop only three rounds in the first. :p


Using that logic, if Tito's retired, what are you still doing here? :confused:

I dont see that many 'Nard "nuthugers" on this site to begin with.

No way in hell I'll pay to see Roy fight Hopkins.
then there is no way u are a boxing fan..........

then there is no way u are a boxing fan..........


Are you serious? After that dance show competition Roy put on in the third Tarver fight. 50 dollars to watch them dance around like idiots. Then BOTH Hops/Taylor fights, lackluster and didnt even come close to living up to the hype. 100 dollars. I LOVE boxing, but I've got bills to pay, and I'm not going to waste 50 dollars on something that's not going to live up to the hype. RJJ's gonna go in there and dance more than he throws combinations, and 'Nard will just follow him around with a grin on his face, trying to land a big shot.

Are you serious? After that dance show competition Roy put on in the third Tarver fight. 50 dollars to watch them dance around like idiots. Then BOTH Hops/Taylor fights, lackluster and didnt even come close to living up to the hype. 100 dollars. I LOVE boxing, but I've got bills to pay, and I'm not going to waste 50 dollars on something that's not going to live up to the hype. RJJ's gonna go in there and dance more than he throws combinations, and 'Nard will just follow him around with a grin on his face, trying to land a big shot.
then never watch another ppv again..cause far as i've seen none of the ppv's ever live up to the hype much..i got this one thinken hop was actually gonna try and ko someone..not...at least there would b some good humor during their fight..i'd pay 50 to watch 2legends go at it, specially 2 that already had a classic battle early in their careers, but then again, u give a gr8 point..bills are important

then never watch another ppv again..cause far as i've seen none of the ppv's ever live up to the hype much..i got this one thinken hop was actually gonna try and ko someone..not...at least there would b some good humor during their fight..i'd pay 50 to watch 2legends go at it, specially 2 that already had a classic battle early in their careers, but then again, u give a gr8 point..bills are important


If it were 2-3 years ago, I would definently pay for, but not at this stage in both of their careers, it just won't be worth it.. I'll buy more PPV's, just not ones that are certain to suck(like Hatton-Maussa, Mercer-Briggs(LOL),etc...)

If it were 2-3 years ago, I would definently pay for, but not at this stage in both of their careers, it just won't be worth it.. I'll buy more PPV's, just not ones that are certain to suck(like Hatton-Maussa, Mercer-Briggs(LOL),etc...)
yeah i feel ya...i'd only watch it cause it would b a peace of mind for me, but then again yeah everyone would claim there both washed up and old..i like how RJJ dodged the bit ? yet again.he been runnen from Hop since the first fight...but i feel ya man..u prove me wrong..

Hopkins won the IBF title in April of 95.

Two month before that, McClellen and Benn esentially ended eachother's careers. McClellen obviously, and Benn was never the same.

That fight was also for the WBC SUPER Middleweight title.

Two months after Hopkins won that first title, Julian Jackson was knocked out in 6 rounds by Quincy Taylor. Quincy Taylor was stopped in his next fight by Keith Holmes.

From the time Hopkins started his title reign, he defeated all comers.

Lipsey was not as bad as you're making him out to be, to this day Hopkins is the only one to convincingly beat Glen Johnson, and guys like Allan, Echoles, Vanderpool and Holmes aren't scrubs.

I agree it's not the most decorated list, but the fact reamins it was all that was there, and he showed up and won each fight with consistency. He took on all comers, and dominated one of the most prestegious division in boxing for a decade breaking a record set by Carlos Monzon.

Defintaly Hall of Fame material, definatly top ten all time at 160, and definatly great, not possibly great.


:D


Top 10 great?

Of course he is Top 10 great! What Im referring to is his possible status as the greatest middleweight champion ever which he is clearly clearly not the case.

Many had begun to buy into this theory. As I have said in the past Hopkins is as lucky as he is good... I guess your right he fought who was there (he certainly didnt go looking for challanges). In that same breath however simply fighting guys who were there does not make you the best middleweight of all time or the second best or the third.

Top ten your right but like I said he is not as great as he has been painted.

Observation: Every big time fighter that loses a couple of times late in their career, didn't fight nobody and is no longer great. According to fans...I am starting to hate the word great, its thrown around too much and taken away too much. When Taylor loses somday I guarentee someone on this site going to say he never beat nobody, he was good but never great.


Ok Nard is great but there are differetn levels and he is not on top of that level.

As for him being old, BULL****-he is the same fighter he was 5 years ago!

The two best middleweights he fought were Jones and Taylor...Bernard is 0-3 againt them.

I scored the first fight for Taylor by 1 round and I scored the second fight for Bernard by 1 round...


But...



Bernard Hopkins is flat out as good as he is lucky...his resume is littered with Joe Calzaghe B level fighters and he should have naked posters of Trinidad and Oscar on his walls....

welterweights are the men who padded his bank account and cemented his legacy, he never ever beat an A level middleweight!

Sure he is a hall of famer but he is not a great hall of famer, stack his resume up to the greats, be CRITICAL, dont be assuming and you will see that this is a man that has been given a free pass...

Nard is a very good fighter,he may even be great but dont ever put him in the same breath as a Marvin Hagler...just dont do it!

This much has been proven tonight.


I totally agree with you, Scap.

jest buy Pacquiao vs Morales. you definitely get money worth!

Top 10 great?

Of course he is Top 10 great! What Im referring to is his possible status as the greatest middleweight champion ever which he is clearly clearly not the case.

Many had begun to buy into this theory. As I have said in the past Hopkins is as lucky as he is good... I guess your right he fought who was there (he certainly didnt go looking for challanges). In that same breath however simply fighting guys who were there does not make you the best middleweight of all time or the second best or the third.

Top ten your right but like I said he is not as great as he has been painted.


lol, I haven't seen anyone talk about him as 'the' greatest Middleweight of all time.

Seems to me your tune is changing scrap.

It went from "possibly great" and "Don't mention him in the same breath as Hagler"

to

"Oh sure, he's top ten and all"


That puts him in the same breath as Hagler.

He's a great all time champion. Period.

lol, I haven't seen anyone talk about him as 'the' greatest Middleweight of all time.

Seems to me your tune is changing scrap.

It went from "possibly great" and "Don't mention him in the same breath as Hagler"

to

"Oh sure, he's top ten and all"


That puts him in the same breath as Hagler.

He's a great all time champion. Period.


damn 4 :Pwnages in 1 thread??? That's outerworldly!

then there is no way u are a boxing fan..........

That's like paying for Ali-Frazier IV

I was gonna rub it in all the Hopkins' fans' faces when I won this bet, that Taylor would win. But this is something I won't stand for.

There are a lot of jackasses here. No surprise there. Everytime an old fighter loses, all of a sudden his whole career is damaged or lessened somehow.

That's wrong, inexcusable, and pathetic.

Hopkins does belong in the same breath as Hagler. The only reason anyone would state otherwise is because they hate Hopkins, love Hagler, or just had a general sense of nostalgia for fighters of the past.

Bob Foster dominated in a ****ty era for lightheavyweights and no one claims he's not an all-time great in that weight-class.

Hopkins resume is decent. It's not great, but he did dominate his era and weight-class thoroughly. Even though I picked Taylor to beat Hopkins, I know and everyone else should know (if they're not uber-retarded) that Hopkins would give Taylor a real ass-whipping a few years ago. The fact is, people that thought Hopkins is as good now as he was 3 years ago were wrong. Hopkins doesn't have the stamina and tenacity of years past, and that's ok. It's understandable when you are 40 years old.

If anyone couldn't see Hopkins giving Hagler a hell of a fight in his prime, they have a problem. Hopkins was that damn good for a time. That time is over though.

Hopkins dominated his mediocre era just like other fighters dominated their mediocre eras of the past. Marciano did it, Jones did it, Foster did it, and now Hopkins. They are all great fighters. Good fighters don't dominate the way they did.

This discussion is over, and unless someone is saying Hopkins isn't that good NOW at age 40, they should shut the **** up for trying to claim he's not worthy of "all-time great" status.

I was gonna rub it in all the Hopkins' fans' faces when I won this bet, that aylor would win. But this is something I won't stand for.

There are a lot of jackasses here. No surprise there. Everytime an old fighter loses, all of a sudden his whole career is damaged or lessened somehow

That's wrong, inexcusable, and pathetic.

Hopkins does belong in the breath as Hagler. THe only reason anyone would state otherwise is because they hate Hopkins, love Hagler, or just had a general sense of nostalga for fighters of the past.

Bob Foster dominated in a ****ty era for lightheavyweights and no one claims he's not an all-time great in that weight-class.

Hopkins resume is decent. It's not great, but he did dominate his era and weight-class thoroughly. Even though I picked Taylor to beat Hopkins, I know and everyone else should know (if their ot uber retarded) that Hopkins would give Taylor a real ass-whipping a few years ago. The fact is, people that thought Hopkins is as good now as he was 3 years ago were wrong. Hopkins doesn't have the stamina and tenacity of years past, and that's ok. It's understandable when you are 40 years old.

If anyone couldn't see Hopkins giving Hagler a hell of a fight in his prime, they have a problem. Hopkins was that damn good for a time. That time is over though.

Hopkins dominated his mediocre era just like other fighters dominated their mediocre eras of the past. Marciano did it, Jones did it, Foster did it, and now Hopkins. They are all great fighters. Good fighters don't dominate the way they did.

This discussion is over, and unless someone is saying Hopkins isn't that good NOW, they shold shut the **** up for trying to claim he's not worthy of "all-time great" status.
Great unbiased post..

What you going to put in my avatar and sig?:D

I was gonna rub it in all the Hopkins' fans' faces when I won this bet, that aylor would win. But this is something I won't stand for.

There are a lot of jackasses here. No surprise there. Everytime an old fighter loses, all of a sudden his whole career is damaged or lessened somehow

That's wrong, inexcusable, and pathetic.

Hopkins does belong in the breath as Hagler. THe only reason anyone would state otherwise is because they hate Hopkins, love Hagler, or just had a general sense of nostalga for fighters of the past.

Bob Foster dominated in a ****ty era for lightheavyweights and no one claims he's not an all-time great in that weight-class.

Hopkins resume is decent. It's not great, but he did dominate his era and weight-class thoroughly. Even though I picked Taylor to beat Hopkins, I know and everyone else should know (if their ot uber retarded) that Hopkins would give Taylor a real ass-whipping a few years ago. The fact is, people that thought Hopkins is as good now as he was 3 years ago were wrong. Hopkins doesn't have the stamina and tenacity of years past, and that's ok. It's understandable when you are 40 years old.

If anyone couldn't see Hopkins giving Hagler a hell of a fight in his prime, they have a problem. Hopkins was that damn good for a time. That time is over though.

Hopkins dominated his mediocre era just like other fighters dominated their mediocre eras of the past. Marciano did it, Jones did it, Foster did it, and now Hopkins. They are all great fighters. Good fighters don't dominate the way they did.

This discussion is over, and unless someone is saying Hopkins isn't that good NOW, they shold shut the **** up for trying to claim he's not worthy of "all-time great" status.
much respect for that post man....

Bernard Hopkins is one of the top 5 middleweights of all time. Many people are criticizing Hopkins that he didn't fight that much competition and that his fights to fame were against two legendary welterweights. I agree, however Hopkins fought any middleweight that was avaliable and won consistently. Some people say don't even put Hopkins' name with Hagler. Well, why not? You can argue that Hagler's claim to fame was against Roberto Duran and Thomas Hearns, a lightweight and a welterweight. I just think people are overly criticizing current fighters because they are scared to put them with the legends of the past.

lol, I haven't seen anyone talk about him as 'the' greatest Middleweight of all time.

Seems to me your tune is changing scrap.

It went from "possibly great" and "Don't mention him in the same breath as Hagler"

to

"Oh sure, he's top ten and all"


That puts him in the same breath as Hagler.

He's a great all time champion. Period.


You actually laughed out loud? Is that how ridiculous Im being here?

You can put him in the same breath as Marvin Hagler but I wont...for example if Nard is the 9th best middleweight of all time I dont think that is quite the same as the top 3 of all time.

Like a smart man name Bozo once told me..."were splitting hairs here" I dont expect you to agree.

My tune is this (I apologize for being such a flip flopper) he is not as great as he has been painted.

I was gonna rub it in all the Hopkins' fans' faces when I won this bet, that Taylor would win. But this is something I won't stand for.

There are a lot of jackasses here. No surprise there. Everytime an old fighter loses, all of a sudden his whole career is damaged or lessened somehow.

That's wrong, inexcusable, and pathetic.

Hopkins does belong in the same breath as Hagler. The only reason anyone would state otherwise is because they hate Hopkins, love Hagler, or just had a general sense of nostalgia for fighters of the past.

Bob Foster dominated in a ****ty era for lightheavyweights and no one claims he's not an all-time great in that weight-class.

Hopkins resume is decent. It's not great, but he did dominate his era and weight-class thoroughly. Even though I picked Taylor to beat Hopkins, I know and everyone else should know (if they're not uber-retarded) that Hopkins would give Taylor a real ass-whipping a few years ago. The fact is, people that thought Hopkins is as good now as he was 3 years ago were wrong. Hopkins doesn't have the stamina and tenacity of years past, and that's ok. It's understandable when you are 40 years old.

If anyone couldn't see Hopkins giving Hagler a hell of a fight in his prime, they have a problem. Hopkins was that damn good for a time. That time is over though.

Hopkins dominated his mediocre era just like other fighters dominated their mediocre eras of the past. Marciano did it, Jones did it, Foster did it, and now Hopkins. They are all great fighters. Good fighters don't dominate the way they did.

This discussion is over, and unless someone is saying Hopkins isn't that good NOW at age 40, they should shut the **** up for trying to claim he's not worthy of "all-time great" status.


In your opinion what does Bernard Hopkins do today that tells you he is not the same fighter he was 3 years ago?

Stamin and tenacity 3 years ago...I think Nard has changed very little in the last 3 years, am I wrong to have that opinion?

yeah this thread wasn't necessary but i saw it coming...hop is a top 5 middleweight end of mf'in story.

yeah this thread wasn't necessary but i saw it coming...hop is a top 5 middleweight end of mf'in story.


This thread would not have been necessary if I had based my thoughts and opinions soley off of last nights fight.

I have held the opinion that Nard has been overated for a long long time.

Many posters will watch a fight like last nights and then come to the conclusion that the guy was overrated which is WRONG...but me it takes more then 1 night and I have watched Nard as close and as long as anyone...

Nard is a great story but once a con always a con and in the ring he is not what he portrays...the man talks about dying in the ring yet in both bouts with Taylor and his fight with Jones he wasnt even willing to remotely mix it up...I will forever have problems with this.

Nard is a great story but once a con always a con and in the ring he is not what he portrays...the man talks about dying in the ring yet in both bouts with Taylor and his fight with Jones he wasnt even willing to remotely mix it up...I will forever have problems with this.


You're kidding right?

He was the only one to win more than two rounds against Jones in his prime. He made for a very competitive fight. That comment is way off base.

You're entitled to your opinion, and we are splitting hairs here, but you're being very over critical, and many of your blanket statements clearly show bias.

For instance, you say Jones and Taylor were the only true middleweights he ever faced, and he lost to both, leaving out the 12 years inbetween that he went undefeated.

Outside of that, I thought he gave a prime Jones his toughest fight, and IMO he edged Taylor in both fights.

I can live with you thinking he's 5-10 of all time, but "Maybe great" is tough to read.

He was great without question, and there's split opinion on wheather he ranks 5-10 or 3-5.

You're kidding right?

He was the only one to win more than two rounds against Jones in his prime. He made for a very competitive fight. That comment is way off base.

You're entitled to your opinion, and we are splitting hairs here, but you're being very over critical, and many of your blanket statements clearly show bias.

For instance, you say Jones and Taylor were the only true middleweights he ever faced, and he lost to both, leaving out the 12 years inbetween that he went undefeated.

Outside of that, I thought he gave a prime Jones his toughest fight, and IMO he edged Taylor in both fights.

I can live with you thinking he's 5-10 of all time, but "Maybe great" is tough to read.

He was great without question, and there's split opinion on wheather he ranks 5-10 or 3-5.


I said that Jones and Taylor were the two best middlweights Nard ever face not the only two he faced, cmon Bozo Im dumb but not that dumb.

Again splitting hairs here but I would say that Montel Griffin and Eric Harding gave Roy just as much trouble if not more, I believe Harding was only down by a point at the time of the stoppage on 1 card? (Nard could never of beaten Jones...not a knock just a fact)

When I watch the Jones/Hopkins fight it is close your right but it is just as clear who is winning as it is close and even though it is very clear that Jones is going to win via decision we do not see an all out balls to the wall effor from Bernard....IMO.

We saw the same thing in both Taylor fights...razor thin fights where Bernard was content on giving the judges very little to go off of.

I tell my brother who loves Nard this all of the time, I say that Nard would never risk getting knocked out to try and pull off a victory-I dont know if that means anything but I'll throw another of my opinions out there.

I dont know how good Jermain Taylor is I just think he fought the right kind of fight which is simply based upon ACTIVITY. I watch Howard Eastman do absolutely nothing against Nard and yet he was barely losing rounds because Bernard just wont engage...Taylor was the first guy to atttempt this in a long time.

I will be curious to see Taylor in against his next opponent.

In your opinion what does Bernard Hopkins do today that tells you he is not the same fighter he was 3 years ago?

Stamin and tenacity 3 years ago...I think Nard has changed very little in the last 3 years, am I wrong to have that opinion?

Yes.

Did you even watch Hopkins vs Tito, Hakkar, Daniels, Joppy, Allen, Eastman, and Taylor? He OBVIOUSLY got worse over the course of those fights, and progressively so. He RAPED Joppy, demolished Tito, and was noticeably not as ferocious vs Allen. He then ran for 5 rds vs Eastman and 7-8 rds vs Taylor. Hopkins did NOT pull that lame **** in his prime. He quite obviously didn't have the gas to press the pedal like he did in earlier days.

Bernard is NOT a complete package anymore. He used to do it all. Now he just has great defense, average stamina, and one right hand.

Hopkins was overrated all along, he never beat no one any good.

Triidad was ****, and so Delhoya was a lightweight.

You're kidding right?

He was the only one to win more than two rounds against Jones in his prime. He made for a very competitive fight. That comment is way off base.

You're entitled to your opinion, and we are splitting hairs here, but you're being very over critical, and many of your blanket statements clearly show bias.

For instance, you say Jones and Taylor were the only true middleweights he ever faced, and he lost to both, leaving out the 12 years inbetween that he went undefeated.

Outside of that, I thought he gave a prime Jones his toughest fight, and IMO he edged Taylor in both fights.

I can live with you thinking he's 5-10 of all time, but "Maybe great" is tough to read.

He was great without question, and there's split opinion on wheather he ranks 5-10 or 3-5.
You think Taylor won both fights? Dawg what you been smoking?
hopkins lost .

you cant be unlucky twice in a row

Yes.

Did you even watch Hopkins vs Tito, Hakkar, Daniels, Joppy, Allen, Eastman, and Taylor? He OBVIOUSLY got worse over the course of those fights, and progressively so. He RAPED Joppy, demolished Tito, and was noticeably not as ferocious vs Allen. He then ran for 5 rds vs Eastman and 7-8 rds vs Taylor. Hopkins did NOT pull that lame **** in his prime. He quite obviously didn't have the gas to press the pedal like he did in earlier days.

Bernard is NOT a complete package anymore. He used to do it all. Now he just has great defense, average stamina, and one right hand.


This is a good debate and you bring a lot to the table Super!

I just tend to disagree...

A question for you that I like to ask others all of the time...

Set aside Oscar and Tito (who are welterweights greats-if you want to debate there greatness at weights above 147 we can) what is Bernard Hopkins crowning victory?


Is it Echols or Johnson?

Set aside Oscar and Tito (who are welterweights greats-if you want to debate there greatness at weights above 147 we can) what is Bernard Hopkins crowning victory?


Is it Echols or Johnson?

Aside from Oscar and Tito, which are good wins (not great) I would say Echols was his best win. Echols was a good one in his prime. But you have to put the Tito fight into context. We all knew Hops would beat Oscar but most everyone thought Tito would KO Nard. Nard beat Tito at his own game, which is difficult at any weight 160 or below.