A couple of points I need to get off my chest...

It took Trinidad less than 6 rounds to demolish William Joppy (a career middleweight, former 2-time title holder) in his previous fight before facing Hopkins. Hop was 36 years old at the time and was the underdog against the heavy betting favourite Trinidad. Who was expected to blow him away and then go on to fight Roy Jones for P4P supremacy... Trinidad was very much a middleweight by the time he fought Hopkins. He lost two close decisions to Taylor and a split decision to Cal, during this time he also managed to jump 2 weight-classes to win the 175 linear title, all at the age of 40+. Middle aged men shouldn't fighting let alone competing at this level. Oscar showed nothing at 160 against Sturm, so yeah that win does get inflated a fair bit on these boards. To me he beat a very good 154 guy who was out of his depth at 160. Yeah the De La Hoya fight is distorted a bit... Hopkins is 4th on The Ring P4P rankings at the moment, I just get the impression he's there for sentimental reasons!

First of all, why is Bernard Hopkin's legacy so secure? People act as if it's written in stone that Bernard Hopkin's is a legend, an all time great. Never doubted by any one. He is a great fighter which has achieved great things but I feel some of his greatest fights are questionable, such as Trinidad and Oscar De La Hoya (neither are middleweights)... I could also point out that he has lost to Jermaine Taylor twice, Roy Jones Jr, Mitchell and Joe Calzaghe... Also Joe Calzaghe didn't get any respect for beating Bernard Hopkins (on boxingscene anyway), people excused the fight saying that Hopkins is 43... How is Kelly Pavlik going to gain anything from beating Hopkins? Surely anything less then a KO is going to be disappointing? Thanks for reading, and for the record I am a fan of all fighters mentioned, this isn't intended to insult Hopkins, Pavlik etc... It took Trinidad less than 6 rounds to demolish William Joppy (a career middleweight, former 2-time title holder) in his previous fight before facing Hopkins. Hop was 36 years old at the time and was the underdog against the heavy betting favourite Trinidad. Who was expected to blow him away and then go on to fight Roy Jones for P4P supremacy... Trinidad was very much a middleweight by the time he fought Hopkins. He lost two close decisions to Taylor and a split decision to Cal, during this time he also managed to jump 2 weight-classes to win the 175 linear title, all at the age of 40+. Middle aged men shouldn't fighting let alone competing at this level. Oscar showed nothing at 160 against Sturm, so yeah that win does get inflated a fair bit on these boards. To me he beat a very good 154 guy who was out of his depth at 160.

Good post... Am I right in saying that Pavlik has to win in great fashion such as a KO to gain anything from Pavlik-Hopkins fight? I would say so. Or if he wins a decisive decision i would say it was good. Calzaghe didn't win no fight clearly, i had it 114-113, and I am a fan of both guys. At the time i was rooting for Joe as well..

1. He won all 4 belts and the Ring belt, which I don't think anyone else has done. 2. He was champ at middleweight for a long time and beat the best that the division had to offer for several years. 3. He has an excellent defence, chin and ring intelligence. 4. Winning against the best in the division (Tarver) and then being very competitive with p4p#2 guy are very good achievements for someone of his age. P4p he is the best 40+ boxer of all time. I know that might not sound great to most people, but it shows how good he is. To be honest I don't like to use terms like "all time great". You hear people say that a certain fighter is "great but not ATG". What's the difference? How many ATG's are there? I think that Hopkins is easily one of the top 100 fighters of all time. I wouldn't like to say where exactly I'd have him because there have been so many excellent fighters of the past that I haven't seen much of, but many would say that he is the best MW of the past 20 years, and with good reason. Good post... Am I right in saying that Pavlik has to win in great fashion such as a KO to gain anything from Pavlik-Hopkins fight?

1. He won all 4 belts and the Ring belt, which I don't think anyone else has done. 2. He was champ at middleweight for a long time and beat the best that the division had to offer for several years. 3. He has an excellent defence, chin and ring intelligence. 4. Winning against the best in the division (Tarver) and then being very competitive with p4p#2 guy are very good achievements for someone of his age. P4p he is the best 40+ boxer of all time. I know that might not sound great to most people, but it shows how good he is. To be honest I don't like to use terms like "all time great". You hear people say that a certain fighter is "great but not ATG". What's the difference? How many ATG's are there? I think that Hopkins is easily one of the top 100 fighters of all time. I wouldn't like to say where exactly I'd have him because there have been so many excellent fighters of the past that I haven't seen much of, but many would say that he is the best MW of the past 20 years, and with good reason. I heart reading your posts my friend. Hope that didn't sound too gay...

one statement and thats about all im gonna say.....21 straight title defenses, and his defenses make Calz 18 i believe...Correct me if im wrong......Look as though Calz was fighting bums from the movie Fight Club.....The guy beat everyone there was and he needed to beat with the exception of RJJR.....

Hopkins don't got shit left to prove, other than he's not shot, he's just past prime.