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

[therealpugilist]

SMH...So Hopkins is overrated because

1. You don't think the top MW contenders from 1996-2002 were any good

2. He lost fights against top fighters

3. He lost to Prime Roy Jones?


Moving up from 160 to 175 to fight the champion in the division is not a "calculated risk". Who in their right mind would even consider doing that in today's landscape?

People say he beat smaller guys when Felix Trinidad was a world title holder and blasted through William Joppy, a perennial top 2 caliber contender.

Think about how ridiculous this is.

1. You penalize Hopkins for not being the "lineal champion"

2. He would have become lineal champion by beating William Joppy

3. Felix Trinidad destroys William Joppy

4. You give no credit for Hopkins destroying Trinidad.

5. Hopkins beat Joppy, Holmes and Trinidad to become undisputed, lineal champion. He dominated that division.

Come on son.

it was a calculated risk.....at the time who was more dangerous...Joe Calzaghe, an all time great....or tarver a very good fighter but could be erratic?

I give him credit for Holmes, and trinidad but beating a former ww who did little before and after fighting him at 160 isnt some ground breaking victory man

I give him credit as a great fighter, i just dont make excuses for his losses...he was old doe, etc.

he is overrated a tactician in my eyes because in no time in his career did he beat a top fighter with elite speed, movement and adjust to the activity

if he cant control the pace he is done at the top level prime and past prime

[therealpugilist]

If Hopkins were French-Polynesian you'd be calling him the greatest fighter of all time.

wtf is that?

[therealpugilist]

What? You made it out like Joe Lipsey was some bum which was not the case at all. His amateur career is relevant in this discussion since he was a top American standout boxer who never got to prove his worth in the pros because Hopkins literally ended his career. You want to hold that against Hopkins for fighting him, why? If anything it's a plus for Hopkins resume - he took on an undefeated top middleweight contender who was an amateur standout and ended his career.

By the way, that's another thing about Hopkins - look at how many undefeated fighters he fought - 12. Hopkins fought 12 undefeated fighters in his career. Just to compare, as a reference and nothing more, Mayweather fought 3 undefeated fighters in his career - 3.




I guess that's your opinion, most won't agree with that at all. Especially considering he's been past his physical prime for over 10 years and some of his greatest wins came after the age of 40, meaning he's doing it not because of speed or power or athleticism, but BECAUSE he's a technical guru, because he's a tactician in the ring. If he wasn't he wouldn't have made it this far for this long. You don't see guys compete at the highest level until age 50 unless they are very technical fighters! This statement of yours really makes me question what kind of boxing knowledge you have. To even consider Hopkins isn't "that technical" and isn't a "technical guru" is lacking knowledge of boxing IMO.




Hopkins was coming off a LOSS to Calzaghe when he fought Pavlik at age 43 in what many people said was Hopkins worst performance of his career. Pavlik was in his prime and undefeated. The public wanted Pavlik vs Calzaghe, Calzaghe didn't want it and went the safe route fighting shot to **** Jones, so Hopkins got the Pavlik fight. He was 43 years old coming off a loss and schooled the **** out of Pavlik, taking his "0" in the process. That's a big win any way you try to slice it.

Obviously the Jones rematch meant nothing and no one gives him much credit at all, if any, for that fight so not sure why you even mention it. So what? Two old guys fought each other for a quick money grab, happens all the time.

Winky was a decent fight, it is what it is. The reason this fight even happened was because there was talk of a Winky vs Hopkins fight at 160, they were somewhat planning for it to happen after Jermain Taylor. Obviously Taylor ended up getting two decision wins over Hopkins and Hopkins then moved up to 175 and took on Tarver and the Winky fight at 160 never materialized. Winky ended up getting a Taylor fight, got a tough draw and without any big names Winky still wanted that Hopkins fight so they made it happen. Did decent on PPV too (something like 350k buys iirc). It is what it is. Hopkins was at 175 already, Winky 160 so they met in-between.

this is a tactical guru...you figure your opponent out in rematches or mid fight

floyd mayweather had two rematches...he beat both Castillo and Maidana worse in the rematches


Joe Louis would struggle in fights, but destroy guys in rematches and have them figured

their are other guys who adapted on the fly better than Hopkins, who imo did what he did more so than adapt and change mid fight

put it this way, Hopkins(at or near prime vs ward, im picking ward....ward is a better technician and adapts when his plan isnt working

Hopkins lost to taylor the same way he lost the first fight, he doesnt step on the gas he forces his fight

[-PBP-]

it was a calculated risk.....at the time who was more dangerous...Joe Calzaghe, an all time great....or tarver a very good fighter but could be erratic?

I give him credit for Holmes, and trinidad but beating a former ww who did little before and after fighting him at 160 isnt some ground breaking victory man

I give him credit as a great fighter, i just dont make excuses for his losses...he was old doe, etc.

he is overrated a tactician in my eyes because in no time in his career did he beat a top fighter with elite speed, movement and adjust to the activity

if he cant control the pace he is done at the top level prime and past prime

Roy Jones is a special fighter. Not being able to stop Roy Jones does not mean you struggle with speed and movement. He lost to Calzaghe and Taylor but those fights were close. It's not like you can't make an argument either way.

Jean Pascal has speed and uses movement, so how can you discount that? He didn't make any adjustments vs. Pascal after he was dropped twice early on and proceeded to win nearly every remaining round?

[M Bison]

He is. Other greats like Hagler, Jones, Lewis, and Monzon are overrated greats too.

If going by the TBE standard, Floyd is more overrated.

LMFAOOOOOOO!!!!

Ethered him, can I join in too?

Andre Ward isn't that good either all he does for defense is run away from his opponent and clinch up but apparently it's good when Ward does it but not Hopkins.

[therealpugilist]

What? You made it out like Joe Lipsey was some bum which was not the case at all. His amateur career is relevant in this discussion since he was a top American standout boxer who never got to prove his worth in the pros because Hopkins literally ended his career. You want to hold that against Hopkins for fighting him, why? If anything it's a plus for Hopkins resume - he took on an undefeated top middleweight contender who was an amateur standout and ended his career.

By the way, that's another thing about Hopkins - look at how many undefeated fighters he fought - 12. Hopkins fought 12 undefeated fighters in his career. Just to compare, as a reference and nothing more, Mayweather fought 3 undefeated fighters in his career - 3.




I guess that's your opinion, most won't agree with that at all. Especially considering he's been past his physical prime for over 10 years and some of his greatest wins came after the age of 40, meaning he's doing it not because of speed or power or athleticism, but BECAUSE he's a technical guru, because he's a tactician in the ring. If he wasn't he wouldn't have made it this far for this long. You don't see guys compete at the highest level until age 50 unless they are very technical fighters! This statement of yours really makes me question what kind of boxing knowledge you have. To even consider Hopkins isn't "that technical" and isn't a "technical guru" is lacking knowledge of boxing IMO.




Hopkins was coming off a LOSS to Calzaghe when he fought Pavlik at age 43 in what many people said was Hopkins worst performance of his career. Pavlik was in his prime and undefeated. The public wanted Pavlik vs Calzaghe, Calzaghe didn't want it and went the safe route fighting shot to **** Jones, so Hopkins got the Pavlik fight. He was 43 years old coming off a loss and schooled the **** out of Pavlik, taking his "0" in the process. That's a big win any way you try to slice it.

Obviously the Jones rematch meant nothing and no one gives him much credit at all, if any, for that fight so not sure why you even mention it. So what? Two old guys fought each other for a quick money grab, happens all the time.

Winky was a decent fight, it is what it is. The reason this fight even happened was because there was talk of a Winky vs Hopkins fight at 160, they were somewhat planning for it to happen after Jermain Taylor. Obviously Taylor ended up getting two decision wins over Hopkins and Hopkins then moved up to 175 and took on Tarver and the Winky fight at 160 never materialized. Winky ended up getting a Taylor fight, got a tough draw and without any big names Winky still wanted that Hopkins fight so they made it happen. Did decent on PPV too (something like 350k buys iirc). It is what it is. Hopkins was at 175 already, Winky 160 so they met in-between.

pavlik also was unproven over 160

hopkins is a great fighter, his ability to adapt is overrated...nothing more or less

Hopkins had the basics down, knew all the dirty tricks in the book, had a good chin, tucked his chin well and had solid defense....did that mean he could change his style, to adjust to his opponent? NO...he forced his fight on you and if it didnt work he really had no plan B...watch his fights....what did he do to adjust to taylor, jones, calzaghe, dawson, etc.? i'll wait....


we can agree to disagree, he doesnt adapt mid fight as quickly as other all time greats and others fighters like joe louis, mayweather, ward, etc.

[b00g13man]

re-post me defending loses....i'll wait

proof is in the pudding

Maybe that came out wrong. What you're doing is claiming Toney is better than Bernard while Toney has losses and struggles with inferior opposition while in his prime and penalising Hopkins for losses outside his. That's just idiotic. I'm sorry.

That's my beef here. He's bashing Hopkins for beating "bums" and losing past his prime, but completely dismissing that Toney lost to bums in his prime. And now apparently completely denying that he lost at all to those bums. He says "the only fighters during Bernard's overrated run that might trouble Toney..." when Toney lost to fighters worse than those fighters on that "overrated" run.

Exactly. He's all over the place. You can't rate one guy as better when he's lost to or struggled with guys worse than fighters you won't give Hopkins credit for.

[ИATAS]

it was a calculated risk.....at the time who was more dangerous...Joe Calzaghe, an all time great....or tarver a very good fighter but could be erratic?

Give me a ****ing break, man. You're implying Hopkins moving up TWO weight classes to 175 at the age of 41 to fight The Man in the division in Tarver was a calculated move because he didn't fight Joe Calzaghe at 168 who no one had even heard of and certainly wasn't considered an all time great in early 2006 (he hadn't even fought Jeff Lacy yet when Hopkins signed to fight Taver!). What a joke.

[DreamerUSA]

so only wins matter, past 40?

thats ******ed logic....Hopkins remained a top fighter until his 50 and was well preserved and skill

he lost because the other guy was the better man, not because he was old.


So his wins over pascal mean the world, but he lost to Dawson so, oh it dont count cuz he was old?

boxing doesnt work like that

also people dont realize he didnt fight elite fighters on the regular until he was 30 and older...jones was the only guy who mattered he fought in his 20s and he lost clearly

We've had this discussion before. Losses don't undo what you have already accomplished or what you accomplish after. If it did, would most of the top 10 ATG's even be top 10? A large chunk of ATG's have double digit loses. Most of which occured late in their careers.

You keep bringing up his loss to Roy. He actually gave a good account of himself against Roy and won rounds at a time when Roy was whitewashing everyone. That speaks volumes to me about B-Hop's skill level. Considering I can count on one hand the amount of fighters that I think could beat a prime Roy.

[JAB5239]

He feasted on smaller guys just like most MWs do. Could you honestly tell me boxers like Griffith & Napoles were real MWs? If I remember correctly from the fights, Monzon towered over them. You could tell easily that Monzon was just too big for them. Not saying Monzon wasn't great btw, just overrated. At least in my eyes.

I think you could reverse this and ask if most middles of the past 25+ years were real middleweight. Going by the standard Monzon had the be handcuffed to would many of these guys be able to make weight and fight effectively given same day weigh ins?