Bernard Hopkins is Overrated....

Moore and Hopkins are the greatest "old" fighters ever. Just that is more than enough for a legacy - the success they had, especially after age 40, is almost unheard of for a reason.

do yourself a favor,and slap yourself....................hard.

hopkins unified the official middleweight belts had ring magazine belt and faced great opposition this thread is retarded!!!! BHOP IS THA MAN!!!!

I appreciate your posts in the video lounge, but you clearly are delusional when it comes to boxing. Not only that, you troll the thread with a billion posts while saying the same bullshit over and over. You play one side against the other, while flip flopping yourself. It almost seems like you are just looking for a reaction. I love when people make hate threads with the usual disclaimer "by the way, he's one of my favorites". Please. Nobody is buying that shit. The bottom line is every boxer, every journalist, every trainer, anybody in boxing with clout, even promoters he has screwed, will say he IS a legend. His resume is amazing, his only clear loss vs RJJ 16 years ago, and past his prime he handled Pavlik and Tarver, while losing razor-thin split decisions vs Calzaghe and Taylor (fights that could be argued for both sides). If he was not past his prime, and had more activity and offensive output like he used to, he would have won all three of those narrow losses. He stopped Glen Johnson, Tito, DLH, beat Winky, Tarver, Pavlik, and defended his title 20times or whatever it was. If that is such an easy feat, many boxers would do it. It's not. Jermain Taylor could not even defend it 4 times. So that puts it into perspective. Also, he took Joe Lipsey, a highly regarded up and comer, and ended his career with one of the most savage knockouts in history. He ended Tito's career basically as well. Tarver has never been the same. Glen Johnson said "it was the only time where a guy completely took away anything I could do and made me feel helpless." No disrespect, but fellow fighters, trainers, promoters and people in the boxing industry know a lot more then you do, CLEARLY, and they disagree. If Hopkins is not a legend then I guess there are only a handful of legends to ever grace boxing. Garbage thread, garbage points, and garbage trolling.

i think being hella old kinda has something to do with that.. Bhop has made many adjustments thru his career in many different fights.. for the record, i think bhop beat jermain the 1st fight and had a draw in the 2nd fight, and i think he beat calzaghe.. there has been no fighter besides Roy Jones and Clinton Mitchell that beat Hopkins decisively.. and those were not dominant peformances.. Bhop is a legend yea but at age 44 he could beat pavlik easily.... age is such a bitch.... quite frankly what you think does not matter he lost to JERMAIN twice....and CALZAGHE 0-3 bhop is GREAT not a legend

See I disagree. I believe Jones pretty much shut Hopkins out. He didn't beat him up, Hopkins is a tough cat, but he pretty much shut him out on the scorecards and outlanded on him without getting hit much. I thought Griffin in the first fight gave Jones far more problems then Hopkins did. He had the option of fighting Winky Wright or Taylor, and chose to fight Taylor, who was way greener than Wright. Quite sure probably felt Taylor was an easier win than Wright at 160, but he wound up losing back to back fights. For the record I thought he lost both fights. Lost to Calzaghe too. Only reason they were tough, close fights for Joe and Jermain is because hopkins still has good defense and is especially good at making fights ugly and hard to score without landing combinations. I don't mind when people say hopkins is a legend, just keep it in perspective. Lol GREAT post... but let's be serious... perspective is calling hopkins what he is....GREAT not LEGEND

Bernard has got (a every fighter, including SRR) his strenghts and weakness. Of course he loves fighters as Tito or Pavlik, he can handle them without big problems. But just look at his loses: he lost to a young one-handed Jones: i truly believe this is Jones greatest win... but remember that bernard gave Jones much more problems then McCallum or Toney did to Roy. He lost to Taylor, but Taylor was a younger skill, big and talented middleweight.. he lost himself after those 2 fights. He will be a big thing in SW: it's not a shame losing 2 fights against someone talented like him (at 40 years old). He lost to Calzaghe at 43... but he gave Joe lot of problems. A lot. It has been the most difficult fight (included the Reid fight) for Joe. Period. Summin' up: he lost to 3 tough guys. He's a legend. See I disagree. I believe Jones pretty much shut Hopkins out. He didn't beat him up, Hopkins is a tough cat, but he pretty much shut him out on the scorecards and outlanded on him without getting hit much. I thought Griffin in the first fight gave Jones far more problems then Hopkins did. He had the option of fighting Winky Wright or Taylor, and chose to fight Taylor, who was way greener than Wright. Quite sure probably felt Taylor was an easier win than Wright at 160, but he wound up losing back to back fights. For the record I thought he lost both fights. Lost to Calzaghe too. Only reason they were tough, close fights for Joe and Jermain is because hopkins still has good defense and is especially good at making fights ugly and hard to score without landing combinations. I don't mind when people say hopkins is a legend, just keep it in perspective. Lol

thank you, and as i've mentioned above he loses always to same types of fighters he isn't that great if he can't even adapt to fighters that give him too much speed or reflex i think being hella old kinda has something to do with that.. Bhop has made many adjustments thru his career in many different fights.. for the record, i think bhop beat jermain the 1st fight and had a draw in the 2nd fight, and i think he beat calzaghe.. there has been no fighter besides Roy Jones and Clinton Mitchell that beat Hopkins decisively.. and those were not dominant peformances.. Bhop is a legend

Bernard has got (a every fighter, including SRR) his strenghts and weakness. Of course he loves fighters as Tito or Pavlik, he can handle them without big problems. But just look at his loses: he lost to a young one-handed Jones: i truly believe this is Jones greatest win... but remember that bernard gave Jones much more problems then McCallum or Toney did to Roy. He lost to Taylor, but Taylor was a younger skill, big and talented middleweight.. he lost himself after those 2 fights. He will be a big thing in SW: it's not a shame losing 2 fights against someone talented like him (at 40 years old). He lost to Calzaghe at 43... but he gave Joe lot of problems. A lot. It has been the most difficult fight (included the Reid fight) for Joe. Period. Summin' up: he lost to 3 tough guys. He's a legend.

good points, not included in my original argument but good case nonetheless thanks. just never saw how hopkins lovers dismiss those obvious points when comparing him to truly great non heavyweights like srl, srr, duran, hearns, hagler, etc

Hopkins is GROSSLY overrated. How can a fighter who started his career at 175 scale down to 160 over a 1 1/2 year period, feast on a weak middleweight division, beat up on two blown up welterweights for big $, lose to everybody he fought that was his size with equal talent (except part-time movie actor tarver) and still get so much recognition like he is a top 10 atg is beyond me. good points, not included in my original argument but good case nonetheless

Hopkins is GROSSLY overrated. How can a fighter who started his career at 175 scale down to 160 over a 1 1/2 year period, feast on a weak middleweight division, beat up on two blown up welterweights for big $, lose to everybody he fought that was his size with equal talent (except part-time movie actor tarver), move back up to his original division and still make catchweight fights with middleweights still get so much recognition like he is a top 10 atg is beyond me. When is the last time this guy even fought a natural lightheavy? Get him out of here.

Hopkins was past his prime. its pretty plain to see, just look at him during his prime. he was what he is today, with a little bit better workrate, stamina, and speed. hes still a fantastic fighter though, which is why I DO give Calzaghe credit for his win over Hopkins...even if I only had him winning by 1 point. its the best win of his career. good post here too...

its also irritating how people make excuses for hopkins sayin he was past his prime when he lost to taylor yet he looks great against tarver and pavlik i guess we should look down on those victories because those fighters can't be world class if an old out of his prime b hop could easily beat them the madness must end Hopkins was past his prime. its pretty plain to see, just look at him during his prime. he was what he is today, with a little bit better workrate, stamina, and speed. hes still a fantastic fighter though, which is why I DO give Calzaghe credit for his win over Hopkins...even if I only had him winning by 1 point. its the best win of his career.

the "experts" the "professionals" thought otherwise.... but i get what your saying as far as opinions goes...i agree with you completely thats why i hate when people use arguments such as experts agree hopkins is a legend and an ATG they are human just as u and i great point u made.... So called "experts" scored Lewis v Holy 1 apparently, they also scored Chavez v Whitaker too.

There are plenty of judges out there that are terrible at scoring fights just, because they get the privilege dont mean their opinion is any better than yours or mine. Joe did not win shit. the "experts" the "professionals" thought otherwise.... but i get what your saying as far as opinions goes...i agree with you completely thats why i hate when people use arguments such as experts agree hopkins is a legend and an ATG they are human just as u and i great point u made....

yall always scream experts and all that shit well 3 QUALIFIED BOXING EXPERTS/JUDGES were responsible for giving JOE CALZAGHE a "W" over Benard Hopkins so please stop with the whole Joe didn't beat bernard shit if you were good at judging fights i'm sure you would be someplace putting it to practical use There are plenty of judges out there that are terrible at scoring fights just, because they get the privilege dont mean their opinion is any better than yours or mine. Joe did not win shit.

its a little irritating when people say that Calzaghe is past his prime. Ill agree hes past his prime, but only slightly. the best hes ever looked is against Lacy or against Kessler...and the Hopkins fight was only about 6 months after the Kessler fight, right? Hes starting to go downhill from what Ive seen of him lately, but to say hes past prime is a little bit of a stretch. its also irritating how people make excuses for hopkins sayin he was past his prime when he lost to taylor yet he looks great against tarver and pavlik i guess we should look down on those victories because those fighters can't be world class if an old out of his prime b hop could easily beat them the madness must end

its a little irritating when people say that Calzaghe is past his prime. Ill agree hes past his prime, but only slightly. the best hes ever looked is against Lacy or against Kessler...and the Hopkins fight was only about 6 months after the Kessler fight, right? Hes starting to go downhill from what Ive seen of him lately, but to say hes past prime is a little bit of a stretch.

boxasmash is an alt of Ricky the most biased Calzaghe fan on the site, stande to reason he thinks Hopkins is overrated, because he knows Joe didn't beat Bernard. Neither man deserved to win that fight. Hopkins held too much and tried to steal it whilst Calzaghe never landed shit yall always scream experts and all that shit well 3 QUALIFIED BOXING EXPERTS/JUDGES were responsible for giving JOE CALZAGHE a "W" over Benard Hopkins so please stop with the whole Joe didn't beat bernard shit if you were good at judging fights i'm sure you would be someplace putting it to practical use