Bernard Hopkins took calculated risks, he is 1 of the most overrated modern ATG

[Chrismart]

PBP on fire in this thread.

I'm far from a Hopkins fan. I didn't like his antics inside the ring, or his style.

But, personally, i class him as a boxing legend.

[therealpugilist]

Key in bold. Different eras, different amount of belts.

You already know that after Hopkins won the IBF belt, he COULD NOT unify with the other title holders, due to boxing politics, in particular Don King keeping his title holders away from Hopkins. Those title holders were William Joppy (WBA) & Keith Holmes (WBC), and various no names and/or ******ed stuff going on with the WBO at the time. Hopkins eventually got to fight for the WBA after Trinidad beat Joppy and for good measure, Hopkins fought Joppy not long after that. Likewise he fought Holmes just before Trinidad, which was only possible because it was a tournament brought together by Don King himself and Hopkins had to sign a deal with King in order to participate, which was a tournament specifically for Trinidad (hell, the damn trophy had Tito's name on it!).

Monzon didn't have those problems. Monzon fought in an era with two belts, not four. He fought for both of those belts when he fought for Nino Benvenuti, and defended those two belts from there on out. Hopkins didn't have that luxury. Again, Hopkins was kept away from unifying, even though we all know he would have unified in 95/96 if given the chance (since we already know Hopkins would go on to whoop Joppy & Holmes).

Anyways, you're all over the place in this thread. You get defeated in one area and then move on to the next then talk about something else completely. Now you're saying "Hopkins is a great, great fighter, not top 10 or 20 all time great though", as if not being in the top 10-20 All Time means Hopkins is overrated! You said Hopkins can't beat certain types of fighters and he's only good at beating "head center defense" (come forward guys) and can't beat speed, etc., and yet you previously admitted that if Hopkins was in his prime, he would have beat Calzaghe and Taylor! You've been exposed. Take it & move on.

You also were not a "big fan" of Calzaghe in his early years, everyone in this thread is aware so stop lyin. Which is hilarious to me that you even claim that given the **** you give Golovkin for his resume yet Calzaghe was even worse. Golovkin actually consistently fights top ten MW's whereas Calzaghe avoided fighting the top ten for years and not because he couldn't get the fights he wanted as in the case of Golovkin, but because he chose not to fight them. It's like you're owning yourself the further you go.

spare me the paragraphs......different era different smera

you dont even know what you're talking about

he was the lineal champion and got stripped of one of his belts, and had to fight rodrigo valdez to get it back and be considered unified, even though he had already beat the man who beat the man

alphabet titles existed then and before then...the IBC, NBA, and NYSAC commission had their own recognized world titles and those alphabet politics and games have been around in boxing over 50 years.

[IMDAZED]

now after you do some research and put what i told you in context you'd realize fans were talking about these fights....winky was # 1 at 154, hopkins # 1 at 160 and calzaghe # 1 at 168

Hopkins fought both, but it wasnt around the time fans were talking about it

Hopkins-Calzaghe was a message board discussion post-2001. After Hopkins demolished Tito. No one was talking about Hopkins fighting Joe Calzaghe while he was in the midst of a middleweight tourney.

You downplay the leap to fight the lineal 175lb. champion and then further pretend that there was some group of people that wanted to see him fight Calzaghe instead. Not the Hopkins coming off successive losses to Taylor. Not the one who was the underdog and B-side to Antonio Tarver.

The one time the fight could have realistically been made was in 2002, when Hopkins was in the midst of negotiating a three-fight deal with Showtime that would ultimately lead to a bout versus Joe Calzaghe. Hops nixed the deal due to a financial dispute with promoter Don King. His career was stunted during that time. Breaking free and becoming his own promoter is how he got big fights, like the Calzaghe one.

I don't know how that translates into Hops thinking it would be wiser to wait until he turned 40 before trying that challenge. Watching the older version that fought on even terms with Joe, I'd think a younger one might have even done better. You don't need to downplay his accomplishments to get your point across. Or maybe, he's just not as overrated as you think.

[therealpugilist]

Difference between Floyd getting heat from people is because he claims to be the greatest ever. Which is far from the truth. Hopkins never makes those type of claims. Hopkins never even claims to be the greatest middleweight of all time. He's just humble and let's people place him where they may.

But to compare and say well Floyd was fighing guys at 21. Dude Hopkins was incarcerated as a young man and never really had a amateur career. He learned his craft on the job as he started boxing at an older age. . And for him to accomplish what he did for the way he came up is amazing.

Plus I know Floyds accomplishments. They are amazing too but I don't here anybody saying that Hopkins is greater than Floyd all time.

bro there was a thread on this forum that asked who had the best resume, Floyd or hopkins and last I checked Hopkins was up on it...thats bs knowing Mayweather has him beat in all stats and accomplishments except, alphabet title defenses, floyd has triple the lineal title defenses Hopkins has

if you dont think you are the best, you shouldnt compete in sports

no one gets into boxing to say someone is better than them. uou dont give your whole life to a sport to say someone else can beat you or was better

did you play sports man?

you have to be a non-athlete to even be moved by boxers making claims....Ali said he was the greatest before he ever won a world title......Floyd didnt say TBE until he put in over 15 years of work

if thats the case, penalize Ali for saying he is the GOAT but you dont

that has to be the dumbest crap I ever head....." he said he was the best doe"....no *****, he competes and fights for a living.

[therealpugilist]

Hopkins-Calzaghe was a message board discussion post-2001. After Hopkins demolished Tito. No one was talking about Hopkins fighting Joe Calzaghe while he was in the midst of a middleweight tourney.

You downplay the leap to fight the lineal 175lb. champion and then further pretend that there was some group of people that wanted to see him fight Calzaghe instead. Not the Hopkins coming off successive losses to Taylor. Not the one who was the underdog and B-side to Antonio Tarver.

The one time the fight could have realistically been made was in 2002, when Hopkins was in the midst of negotiating a three-fight deal with Showtime that would ultimately lead to a bout versus Joe Calzaghe. Hops nixed the deal due to a financial dispute with promoter Don King. His career was stunted during that time. Breaking free and becoming his own promoter is how he got big fights, like the Calzaghe one.

I don't know how that translates into Hops thinking it would be wiser to wait until he turned 40 before trying that challenge. Watching the older version that fought on even terms with Joe, I'd think a younger one might have even done better. You don't need to downplay his accomplishments to get your point across. Or maybe, he's just not as overrated as you think.

so basically you are admitting fans, talked about the fight? bro im not that creative

fights like Hopkins vs ODLH, Mosely, calzaghe, etc were being talked about on forums bro

if you wasnt around, thats on you.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Hopkins hung around with young top guys while he was in his late 40s. That's a good enough reason on its own.

[therealpugilist]

So now we're talking about title defenses? You're killing me bro. It's like trying to hit a moving target.

Hopkins title defenses by themselves aren't enough to warrant ATG status. But that accomplishment, combined with his entire body of work over the course of his career means he qualified.

It's like you are trying to pick his career apart accomplishment by accomplishment, as if that single accomplishment is the only thing that contributes to his greatness.

dude are you slow.....i....said...he.....was.....overrated..... as.....an...all....time....great.....

he is an all time great but his resume is inflated because of alphabet title defenses and other reasons I posted in the OP


its been over 10 pages and you still dont get it...im done

[IMDAZED]

so basically you are admitting fans, talked about the fight? bro im not that creative

fights like Hopkins vs ODLH, Mosely, calzaghe, etc were being talked about on forums bro

if you wasnt around, thats on you.

I knew I wrote too much

[therealpugilist]

I knew I wrote too much

no, you just underhandedly admitted fans spoke about the fight prior to it happening in the late 2000s and after 2001 win hopkins beat trinidad



thats what I said fool....stop reaching, enjoy your day dude

[boxinghead530]

bro there was a thread on this forum that asked who had the best resume, Floyd or hopkins and last I checked Hopkins was up on it...thats bs knowing Mayweather has him beat in all stats and accomplishments except, alphabet title defenses, floyd has triple the lineal title defenses Hopkins has

if you dont think you are the best, you shouldnt compete in sports

no one gets into boxing to say someone is better than them. uou dont give your whole life to a sport to say someone else can beat you or was better

did you play sports man?

you have to be a non-athlete to even be moved by boxers making claims....Ali said he was the greatest before he ever won a world title......Floyd didnt say TBE until he put in over 15 years of work

if thats the case, penalize Ali for saying he is the GOAT but you dont

that has to be the dumbest crap I ever head....." he said he was the best doe"....no *****, he competes and fights for a living.

So because some unknown dude starts a thread to ask who had the better resume between Floyd and Hopkins that means Hopkins is overrated because in your eyes Floyd is so much greater? Hey that's your opinion. But they both have very different careers.

IMO its a legit thread to ask. You have to look at how either of there careers began and where they ended up.

Floyd was a young phenom coming out of the olympics and turned that into a glorious career with many great accomplishments.

Hopkins came out of prison, turned his life around and started boxing at a older age and ended up with a glorious career with many great accomplishments too. Plus he has accomplished things at an older age that no other fighter has done yet.

As much as you emphasize what Floyd accomplished at such a young age and in his career. IMO what Hopkins has done at an older age is just as great and even harder because of the age factor.

Now IMO I think Floyd has the all around better career. But dude what Hopkins has accomplished is going to be hard to duplicate again.

To say he is overrated is ridiculous.

What's harder winning a world title at 21 or moving up in weight at 40 something years older and winning the lineal championship.