confused about mainstream love for hopkins

Glad you asked Sir, here is my full round by round of the fight, from my first time watching it, through replay, feel free to bring up any rounds you think I got wrong. :D http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41765 In the first pages it starts. ................................................

but he lost to Taylor, 9 rounds to 3, dominated.QUOTE] even the idiot judge that scored round 12 for taylor didnt have the fight 9 to 3. what fight were you watching?

No Hagler knockout Hearns on the 3rd round. The thing is while people thought Hopkins won because he's much bigger than Trinidad and Dela Hoya, Duran and Leonard moved up and both of them went to distance with Hagler. While Hopkins actually knockout both Tito and DLH and both of them has never been knockout before and Tito was favored to end Hopkins reign. Though DLH and Tito may or may not be as good as Leonard or Duran.

Hopkins is a very good fighter, but to compare im to a Hagler just isn't right. Yes, Hagler lost to welterweights who moved up to challenge him, but those welterweights were Sugar Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, etc. How can you even say a fighter like Tito compares to those guys. Tito can't even box, hell Winky Wright basically swept him on the scorecards. Tito built his career relying on KO victories and never took the time to learn how to win on the cards against a superior boxer. SRL would have taken Tito to school worse than Hopkins. Tommy Hearns MIGHT have been more competitive vs. Tito, but I highly doubt it. Hearns could box if he wanted and possessed a wicked right hand. If Tito couldn't take a right-hand from Hopkins, there's no way he could have taken one from Hearns, one of the hardest P4P punchers in history. just a little info, Hagler didn't lose to Hearns.... not sure if thats important!!!

Hopkins is a great middleweight, within the top four I guess, he did defend his belt the most, which makes him a great fighter at that weight, but he lost to Taylor, 9 rounds to 3, dominated. There shouldnt even be a rematch, Hopkins should just retire, his regin is over, finished. The only reason Hopkins is popular today, is because of Trinidad and DLH. Although there is absolutely no doubt you are a fucking moron IWATCH, you do have a point about Tito and Oscar which I already brought up a while ago...NArd owes those to boys a lot, without them his reputation and pocket book are not even close to the same, he should kiss both of their asses for deciding to take huge risk and move up when they never ever had to. IWATCH, you make a point that is certainly valid but you are still dumb as shit. Take care buddy, when are you going to PM-we can talk sweet science pal!

So......what has Bernard Hopkins done to deserve his sterling reputation? Online polls suggest that the rematch will be won easily by Hopkins. What has Hopkins done to deserve the outpouring of devotion? It's not that I dismiss him outright or think he is untalented, I just don't understand the rabid love shown to him. Where's the resume'? Look at fighters who don't shy away from challenges, who built their career by fighting the best over and over, and proved themselves as champions. Don't give me that "twenty title defenses" B.S. Here'e a few other fighters who confound me that they had tons of fans: 1. prince naseem 2. mike tyson 3. roy jones jr. what did any of these people really do? there are fighters who have actually done something: 1. joe louis 2. "sugar" ray robinson 3. julio cesar chavez AND, why don't people have any love for Jermain Taylor!? He is the future of the middleweight division, all killer, no filler. you have no idea what you are talking about young man. I suggest you shut up and close down this thread cuz its a bunch of b.s. Hopkins 20th defense is "b.s?" Come on now, who do you think you are saying that is b.s. LOL....idiot.

Hopkins is a very good fighter, but to compare im to a Hagler just isn't right. Yes, Hagler lost to welterweights who moved up to challenge him, but those welterweights were Sugar Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, etc. How can you even say a fighter like Tito compares to those guys. Tito can't even box, hell Winky Wright basically swept him on the scorecards. Tito built his career relying on KO victories and never took the time to learn how to win on the cards against a superior boxer. SRL would have taken Tito to school worse than Hopkins. Tommy Hearns MIGHT have been more competitive vs. Tito, but I highly doubt it. Hearns could box if he wanted and possessed a wicked right hand. If Tito couldn't take a right-hand from Hopkins, there's no way he could have taken one from Hearns, one of the hardest P4P punchers in history.

Hopkins, TKO over JT in round 11. Because that's what the world wants to see!

well I am making my argument before Taylor...that is not really that great of an example of a fight in arguing Hopkins' case...mainly because he lost...and a guy like Hagler would have gotten Taylor out of there in his prime... the best case you can make for Hopkins vs Taylor is that Hops was 40...but he still blew away the fight...which takes some of his legacy luster away...because then you have to think about how he would beat a Hagler if he fought that way... I dont know what the hell you just said kid... but you special. You reached out, and you touched a brotha's heart!

well I am making my argument before Taylor...that is not really that great of an example of a fight in arguing Hopkins' case...mainly because he lost...and a guy like Hagler would have gotten Taylor out of there in his prime... the best case you can make for Hopkins vs Taylor is that Hops was 40...but he still blew away the fight...which takes some of his legacy luster away...because then you have to think about how he would beat a Hagler if he fought that way...

did u see the taylor fight he wore him out and then beat him up..just like roy jones was scared to say on hbo..hbo robbed hopkins cuz taylor with hbo I agree hopkins should have won... but HBO doesn't pick the judges.

let me quote myself! Everyone said trinidad was going to beat hopkins... Hopkins TKO'd him. Everyone said Oscar was going to beat b-hop.... hopkins sent him home with a liver shot. Then everyone thought jermaine was going to wreck him. Too much speed, too much power, bernard has never faught someone like jermaine. Then the world watch jermaine taylor throw everything he could at hopkins and land zero punches to hurt the champ. Everyone also saw hopkins stagger tayler three times. The world is pissed, not only at the decision but pissed at themselves for never giving b-hop the benifit of the doubt. Put a challange to bernard hopkins and he finds a way to win, always. Everyone is voting on hopkins to win by KO in the rematch because that's what they want to happen. Everyone wants the belts to go back where they belong. Hopkins belts were stolen from him by the judges and people don't want that to happen again. Give credit... it is due!

So......what has Bernard Hopkins done to deserve his sterling reputation? Online polls suggest that the rematch will be won easily by Hopkins. What has Hopkins done to deserve the outpouring of devotion? It's not that I dismiss him outright or think he is untalented, I just don't understand the rabid love shown to him. Where's the resume'? Look at fighters who don't shy away from challenges, who built their career by fighting the best over and over, and proved themselves as champions. Don't give me that "twenty title defenses" B.S. Here'e a few other fighters who confound me that they had tons of fans: 1. prince naseem 2. mike tyson 3. roy jones jr. what did any of these people really do? there are fighters who have actually done something: 1. joe louis 2. "sugar" ray robinson 3. julio cesar chavez AND, why don't people have any love for Jermain Taylor!? He is the future of the middleweight division, all killer, no filler. did u see the taylor fight he wore him out and then beat him up..just like roy jones was scared to say on hbo..hbo robbed hopkins cuz taylor with hbo

Hopkins is 40! The way he played jermaine was incredible. No 40 year old in middle weight history could have done what b-hop did. I'm not going to keep arguing the decision, some of us think it was rediculous... others think it was the right call. I don't think there is any dispute, however, as to who was hurt more. Bernard is arguably the smartest fighter in the history of boxing. He analyzes his opponents in every round, discovering their flaws, and executing very effective couters. Bernard may not be one of the most powerfull middleweights in history, or even the top 10 skilled middleweights, but he is deffinately one of the smartest boxers of all times. Taking advantage of his oppositions weaknesses to beat them. I believe hopkins will come back to beat JT in the ramatch, and hopefully fight once more after that (really iffy). I hope bernard does enough to convince his critics that he belongs in the class of boxing's elite's. He has worked for it... he has earned it.

well I only defend Nard because he has been consistent in his victories and for the most part stepped up for the big profile fights...even if it was not against a Hagler... he did benefit from a weak era...but my problem is when other act as if Hopkins just ducked and ducked and ducked good fighters in his class when there weren't many...it is not his fault that other great fighters were not in his weight class the majority of his career... you enter boxing...you begin to win a few fights...you get better and better...and then you hit the big time...make 20 defenses...then all of a sudden realize that everyone is saying you had a weak era... when a fighters enters boxing and grows into the sport...he doesn't KNOW at the beginning of his career that the class will be weak for the next 10+ years...all he knows is that he fought what was available in his era and beat them convincingly in the way he knows how... so a fighter like Hopkins feels he deserves more respect for what he thought he was doing... I give the man respect for his skills, defenses, and consistency...I never called him Hagler or Robinson...all I am saying is that he deserves SOME level of respect as ONE of the great champs in history...

I feel he deserves SOME credit for his wins vs Oscar and Tito... they were HOF fighters tito was undefeated and people felt he had it in the bag hopkins dominated tito and convincingly beat oscar unlike hagler, hopkins didn't lose to a welterweight and I think people forget that Hopkins beat tito and dlh with skill...not overwhelming power and size...he broke them down with speed, accuracy, defense, and skill I definately dont want to discredit his wins over two sure fire hall of famers but let me discredit just a tiny bit... The deal with Nard is that he is the middleweight champion and people get upset and at times rightfully so because he is critisized for always staying in shape and only fighting middleweights...well if he is too be praised for being the long reigning middleweigfht champion you have to at the very least give him some shit for his two biggest victories being against welterweights who dared to be great (best of all Tito and Oscar never had to make this jump to be great-they not only wanted to be great they wanted to be legends). What if Tito and Oscar were content on fighting at 147 and 154, what if they never decided to challnege Hopkins? Who would Bernard be? Sure he would have a ton of defenses but against who? Bernard owes Oscar and Tito a helluva lot, without these two Welterweights taking big risks even his hardest of the hardcore fans may look at him a bit differently. NArd outskilled Tito but I think had Oscar been physically as strong as NArd the skill level would have been a push.

I feel he deserves SOME credit for his wins vs Oscar and Tito... they were HOF fighters tito was undefeated and people felt he had it in the bag hopkins dominated tito and convincingly beat oscar unlike hagler, hopkins didn't lose to a welterweight and I think people forget that Hopkins beat tito and dlh with skill...not overwhelming power and size...he broke them down with speed, accuracy, defense, and skill

Hopkins is a great champion but as in any sport it takes a lot of luck to be positioned to be considered one of the greatest fighters in your divisons history. Which Middleweight win on NArds record satands out the most, who was the best middleweight he beat? (I dont count Tito because he will always be in my mind a welterweight)... How many of Nard's title defenses would have been more impressive than victories over these middleweight who all fought in or around the same era... Julian Jackson Mike McCallum Sambu Kalambay Micheal Nunn James Toney Nigel Benn Michael Watson Frank Tate Roy Jones Chris Eubank Gerald McCellan Herol Grahm Look who Hopkins has gone thru as opposed to this list of fighter from the late 80's and early 90's...Im not even mentioning the best in Hagler... NArd is great but like all sports it takes luck and luck is what he had growing up in a division with very little talent.

No question, I have a tremendous amount of resepct for Hopkins and his accomplishments. He just didn't do they type of things that make fighters "great". He didn't win titles at several different weight classes. He didn't fight the best out there and the fights that the fans wanted to see always (RJJ II etc). Very soild skillful fighter, gentleman outside the ring.....just doesn't have that incredible resume and doesn't suck the novice boxing fan into the sport like some of the great ones have. I think we are all way to critical...thats the truth...we nit pick every little detail about a fighter and try to say they are not great. :D

None of Hagler's opposition is even close to the talent level of Hakkar. That's the end of your argument.