Hopkins wouldn't be as great if he fought dudes his size...

i didn't see the fight yet, but judging by what i read, it was another too little, too late performance by hopkins with no ko to seal the deal...i see there were two knockdowns, so apparently his chin isn't the granite that it is against two divisions smaller fighters... LOL!!!!!!!!!!! get the fuk outta here! that's truly getting exposed. what exactly did you hear about those shots on the chin bhop went down with?

Tarver was coming down in weight to the tune of 30 plus pounds and he was almost 40. Agree with the thread, Hopkins is a fraudulent bum who made his bones calling out ww's and Jmw's when he was a big mw. And even with the size advantage he had, he always put on some of the worst, most boring fights of AT. he already beat everyone at mw. he was a big mw, so fukn what. it probably takes a decent sized mw to beat monzon's record........ bhop was looking for money after his title reign in which hew was shut out of big money fights

Pavlik weighed like 190 pounds against Sergio Martinez but hey, Hopkins is taking advantage of smaller guys!!! Sergio Martinez walks around at 200 pounds but hey, hopkins is taking advantage of smaller guys! Paul Williams is like 7 feet tall but hey, hopkins is fighting smaller guys! Caballero is like 6 feet tall fighting 122 pounders, but hey, hopkins is fighting smaller guys! that's when you know djfagball is just a hopkins hater. well put.........

pavlik to the rescue...lol... pavlik yeah was a monster puncher...at 160 he was untested against a natural lightheavy... :Thinkingohes got a frame of a lightheavy tho.

the fact that each of Bhops recentish losses (Taylor, Calzaghe) are debatable .. TS can jump in a lake.

This is BS. Hopkins schooled LHW champ Pascal in his own backyard at 45 years old, quit with these silly assumptions. Hopkins lost a very close fight to Calzaghe, even some dispute Hopkins should have won a decision. Hopkins gives any LHW hell.

pavlik to the rescue...lol... pavlik yeah was a monster puncher...at 160 he was untested against a natural lightheavy... Natural LHW? He was a MW for 15 years!? Also, they fought at 170... not his 'natural' 175 LHW limit. So according to you he was weight drained for this fight? Which is even more testament to his chin.

So its now hopkins fault what shape the boxers body has? pavlik was never had an impressive physique, and if you're gonna go homosexual in this thread, compare williams joppys upper body to hopkins, isn't he the bigger man?

I agree with everything you said except for pavlik who is clearly a much larger man than B-Hop. pavlik was TALLER than b-hop...at 170, pavlik looked like a stringbean against nard...his chest was as scrawny as that dudes in the back of the comic books who used to get sand kicked on him....

When he fought monster puncher Kelly Pavlik (won 36 - KO 32) his chin looked just fine.. just sayin' pavlik to the rescue...lol... pavlik yeah was a monster puncher...at 160 he was untested against a natural lightheavy...

i didn't see the fight yet, but judging by what i read, it was another too little, too late performance by hopkins with no ko to seal the deal...i see there were two knockdowns, so apparently his chin isn't the granite that it is against two divisions smaller fighters... When he fought monster puncher Kelly Pavlik (won 36 - KO 32) his chin looked just fine.. just sayin'

and i suppose physically Hopkins is much stronger than Pascal?! Your implication is that when on a level playing field then Hopkins can't achieve what he has. Regardless of the loses to Taylor (a split and mixed decision btw) he still didn't lose because of a size issue. He fights a prime Roy an inch and a half smaller than him who has fought his last three fights at super-middleweight and gets out-speed... not out-punched and prime Roy hit hard. Trinidad knocks out middleweight William Joppy in the fourth? So he's physically strong... I think the only fighters you can't argue were made for the weight were Pavlik, De La Hoya and Winky That's out of Roy, Taylor, Pascal, Tarver, Calzaghe Thinking about it, i agree and i disagree at the same time. Just that his losses weren't too do with size issues... nor were his wins, it's his movement and his technique that wins him fights; not necessarily reach and all the stuff that come with being a bigger fighter. the guy has fought 10 fighters with perfect records... it's not like he really cherrypicks his opponents, most of these people were still favoured to win. I agree with everything you said except for pavlik who is clearly a much larger man than B-Hop.

So what was your take on his performance Saturday? i didn't see the fight yet, but judging by what i read, it was another too little, too late performance by hopkins with no ko to seal the deal...i see there were two knockdowns, so apparently his chin isn't the granite that it is against two divisions smaller fighters...

at the end of the day hopkins wins fights by using his size and strength advantages to mug, maul, lowblow, rabbit punch, and physically lean on his weaker opponents and force 'em to submit like its a wrestling match So what was your take on his performance Saturday?

and i suppose physically Hopkins is much stronger than Pascal?! Your implication is that when on a level playing field then Hopkins can't achieve what he has. Regardless of the loses to Taylor (a split and mixed decision btw) he still didn't lose because of a size issue. He fights a prime Roy an inch and a half smaller than him who has fought his last three fights at super-middleweight and gets out-speed... not out-punched and prime Roy hit hard. Trinidad knocks out middleweight William Joppy in the fourth? So he's physically strong... I think the only fighters you can't argue were made for the weight were Pavlik, De La Hoya and Winky That's out of Roy, Taylor, Pascal, Tarver, Calzaghe Thinking about it, i agree and i disagree at the same time. Just that his losses weren't too do with size issues... nor were his wins, it's his movement and his technique that wins him fights; not necessarily reach and all the stuff that come with being a bigger fighter. the guy has fought 10 fighters with perfect records... it's not like he really cherrypicks his opponents, most of these people were still favoured to win. at the end of the day hopkins wins fights by using his size and strength advantages to mug, maul, lowblow, rabbit punch, and physically lean on his weaker opponents and force 'em to submit like its a wrestling match...in the winky wright fight, he was getting outboxed by winky without landing much, so he resorted to leaning on winky's back to wear him down...

Hopkins has had the physical advantage in just about all of his fights except a select few. With the exception of Tarver he hasn't looked that great with dudes that could be as physical as he can, see Calzaghe. I thought Hopkins won the Pascal fight but we saw him get dropped twice in the first few rounds. Which makes me believe that if he would've stuck to fighting dudes his size, he wouldn't be what he is and probably would've been KO'd by now. Pascal is decent and all, he beat Dawson and lost to Froch.. but there's no reason why 'Nard should've been dropped by him. Since he isn't known for his punching power. another boxing 'fan' trying to discredit a fighters career. Is being faster than another fighter an unfair advantage? To even suggest a fighter that made 20 MW title defences isn't 'great' is plain stupid. FYI - He was knocked down probably due to his age i.e. slower reflexes... plus they where flash knock downs and as for Calzaghe... he was out worked... that fight was nothing to do with physical size or strength. BTW - when B-Hop first lost to RJJ - guess what... RJJ was smaller than him... just thought I'd point that out to you and destroy your thread.

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification for what hopkins does in the ring. First off, every fighter has flaws & weaknesses. It's the other fighters job to exploit those weaknesses and that's what hopkins tries to do in every fight. There is no such thing as a perfect fighter. Hopkins didn't look good against Jones, but I don't see how he looked like garbage against Ornelas. A little rusty in the beggining but other than that good tune up. Against Winky he took away Winky's best weapon the jab and against Calzaghe he attempted to take his best weapon away high volume of punching, both result in smothering the opponent so it looks nasty to viewers but it's by design. I thought Hopkins looked like crap against Ornelas and Jones. especialy considering the quality of the opponent. and to be fair to Hopkins, hes not only a master of the basics but also a master of strategy. he really can analyze his opponent and choose the most effective course of action against them. But I will maintain that he does best against guys that having gaping holes in their style. Jermain for example was decent in all respects, but was outdid by someone like Pavlik who was better than him in one catagory, although Pavlik was always quite one dimensional. Thats why Hopkins lost to Taylor(arguably) but easily handled Pavlik.

as stated before.. Antonio Tarver is probably his lone exception. who else can you name besides that? & Taylor beat Hopkins twice.. and i suppose physically Hopkins is much stronger than Pascal?! Your implication is that when on a level playing field then Hopkins can't achieve what he has. Regardless of the loses to Taylor (a split and mixed decision btw) he still didn't lose because of a size issue. He fights a prime Roy an inch and a half smaller than him who has fought his last three fights at super-middleweight and gets out-speed... not out-punched and prime Roy hit hard. Trinidad knocks out middleweight William Joppy in the fourth? So he's physically strong... I think the only fighters you can't argue were made for the weight were Pavlik, De La Hoya and Winky That's out of Roy, Taylor, Pascal, Tarver, Calzaghe Thinking about it, i agree and i disagree at the same time. Just that his losses weren't too do with size issues... nor were his wins, it's his movement and his technique that wins him fights; not necessarily reach and all the stuff that come with being a bigger fighter. the guy has fought 10 fighters with perfect records... it's not like he really cherrypicks his opponents, most of these people were still favoured to win.

2 flash knockdowns by a very strong Lt. Heavyweight at age 46 and now he would've gotten beaten and stopped by those his size:dance:. Typical NSB sh!t. Pascal moved Dawson whenever he landed clean or on the gloves and led me to believe either Pascal is that strong or Dawson is that weak. Now, he confirmed that it's because he's that strong. What's even more hilarious is the fact that Calzaghe didn't have any physical advantages, except fast hands. The same advantage RJ and Pascal have. Taylor, Echols, and Hoya had the same too. Neither could decisively win against him after age 35, forget about all that though, your point is logical:dance:.

if hopkins would have stayed at 175 after his first pro fight loss, i strongly doubt he dominates the division like he did with all those weak middleweights in the 90's and 00's...i mean you had hearns still there, virgil hill, prime jones, toney, griffin, michael nunn, tarver before he was hanging out with stallone...etc...