Hopkins is damn good but sorry...he is not as great as he has been painted!

hmm 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.

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 shit 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?

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

Hopkins was overrated all along, he never beat no one any good. Triidad was shit, and so Delhoya was a lightweight.

hmm 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 shit 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 shitty 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 fuck 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?

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.

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.

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 shitty 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 fuck up for trying to claim he's not worthy of "all-time great" status. much respect for that post man....

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 shitty 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 fuck 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

hmm 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 shitty 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 fuck up for trying to claim he's not worthy of "all-time great" status.

then there is no way u are a boxing fan.......... That's like paying for Ali-Frazier IV

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!

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.

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

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.