Bernard Hopkins has a stronger resume than any other fighter.

a close fight can be a clear victory. 115-113 is a close fight but if 7 of those rounds were indisputably for one fighter it's a very clear victory. Even the most biased fans can't in their right mind say it was a robbery at least. True, which is why I chose to be specific, and refer only to Calzaghe vs Hopkins fight.

Say what u will about the Calzaghe fight... Whether u thought Calzaghe squeaked by, or Hopkins got robbed. It was a close fight, not a clear win for Calzaghe by any means. There's no way u can look at the fight, look at some of the rounds u gave to Calzaghe, and not be able to see how that round can be switched to Hopkins favor. Sure that can go both ways, but all that does is emphasis my point... It was a close. a close fight can be a clear victory. 115-113 is a close fight but if 7 of those rounds were indisputably for one fighter it's a very clear victory. Even the most biased fans can't in their right mind say it was a robbery at least.

Yeah i would agree we should count Evander. I asked that question previously in this thread and natas made an argument against it, thats why i mentioned it.

Say what u will about the Calzaghe fight... Whether u thought Calzaghe squeaked by, or Hopkins got robbed. It was a close fight, not a clear win for Calzaghe by any means. There's no way u can look at the fight, look at some of the rounds u gave to Calzaghe, and not be able to see how that round can be switched to Hopkins favor. Sure that can go both ways, but all that does is emphasis my point... It was a close. Personally I didn't think it was shyt, but to each their own... But so far from what I've seen, the only ones that didn't want a return bout r the ones that thought Calzaghe won. Kind of like "Let Joe get his win and run away with it". Truthfully, a return bout would be nothing short of good for boxing, and no true boxing fan should ever let a closely contested fight not be met with a rematch. There r exceptions to the rule, but this isn't one of them.

Who do you feel has the best out of the currently active fighters? Obviously if we count Evander, hes got it. How about Pacquiao and Roy? I think Pac beats Hopkins resume, but does roy? We have to count Evander Holyfield. He's active, just like Hopkins. This obviously isn't Holyfields era nor is it Hopkins so I can't understand why he wouldn't be included. So yeah; Holyfield Roy Jones Pacquaio And even Mayweather IMO have better resumes than Bernard Hopkins currently although that's obviously open for debate.

Nah, he hasn't. Who do you feel has the best out of the currently active fighters? Obviously if we count Evander, hes got it. How about Pacquiao and Roy? I think Pac beats Hopkins resume, but does roy?

Nah, he hasn't.

yes, he has the best resume but Pacman resume is in the same level Hopkins: L: RJJ, Jermain Taylor, Joe Calzaghe W: Glen Johnson, De La Hoya, Trinidad, Antonio Tarver, Kelly Pavlik, Jean Pascal, Winky Wrights Manny Pacquiao: L: Erik Morales W: Marco Antonio Barrera (2), Erik Morales(2), Juan Manuel Marquez, Oscar Larios, Jorge Solis, David Diaz, Oscar De La Hoya, Ricky Hatton, Miguel Angel Cotto, Joshua Clottey, Antonio Margarito, Shane Mosley. Hopkins: I dont give credit for Wright, and in my opinion Jean Pascal is not the best LHW Pacquiao: In my opinion the second fight against Marquez he loss, in my opinion Oscar, Hatton, Cotto, Margarito and Mosley are past his prime but I give credit to Pacman for the physical difference If you are counting them as just names on a resume, of course Mannys looks just as good. If you consider that out of that entire list, only Diaz and Solis are the only ones Pac fought that were not on the backside of their careers, it suddenly doesn't look so good.

Perhaps your memory is shot but that's what we were talking about. You said, "Hopkins was fighting bums as well or little guys at 160" and I responded. And if I want to cover his career past 160, after the age of 40, it is nothing short of remarkable. You can look through the history books and you wont find many guys who have fought and beat the level of opponents Hopkins has post 40. He literally is one of the greatest 40+ year old fighters of all time. Archie Moore. Sugar Ray Robinson Jack Johnson Sam Langford Winky Pavlik middles dragged up to 170lbs. Tarver, Good win Calzaghe, lost. RJJ, shot fighter horrible fight Pascal, decent win against a good young fighter but lacking in technical ability.

He could have gotten his promoter to stop paying of the judges and ref to fix his fights. That would have been nice. they weren't paid off....it was just a coincidence every one of his fights had 114-114 114-113 114-113 scorecards.

roy jones jr fought at 154 (twice) he would destroy hopkins and mayweather a pacquiao jones jr fight goes to jones- but just slightly You have to be a big ass Stan to bring up Pac, in a B-Hop thread, talking about how he would just barely lose to RJJ @ 154. To the Ignore list with you

If you compare Holyfields resume to hopkins, whats is your opinion? Evander clearly has a lot better wins, but hes also got some unnecessary losses due to fighting pretty much 10 years too long.

31-0(undefeated), 21 title defenses, unified belts, fought everyone in his division except the coward from wales. he even had knockout power(unlike slappy early stoppage joe). what more could he do? He could have gotten his promoter to stop paying of the judges and ref to fix his fights. That would have been nice.

31-0(undefeated), 21 title defenses, unified belts, fought everyone in his division except the coward from wales. he even had knockout power(unlike slappy early stoppage joe). what more could he do? He could have actually won all the fight he got credited for. He could have also left his native germany, but thats not a big thing for me. Yeah a total troll, don't bother. I suspected that. Thank you.

noone can doubt bhop's resume

ottke doesn't get respect because he is the definition of "gift decisions". Now there we can talk about getting gifts. Ottke was a very strong amateur though, but i don't think his style translated as well to the pros. 31-0(undefeated), 21 title defenses, unified belts, fought everyone in his division except the coward from wales. he even had knockout power(unlike slappy early stoppage joe). what more could he do?

Calzaghe beat Hopkins. Hopkins had to fake low blow and crawl around on the canvas like a dog because the pace was too much for him. He was lucky Drakulich was not reffing or he would have been counted out. Hopkins never fought Toney. Didn't rematch Jones till he was past it. Fought a lot of welters and dragged middles up to 170lbs to fight them. Mills Lane even knocked the guy out.

ottke doesn't get respect because he is the definition of "gift decisions". Now there we can talk about getting gifts. Ottke was a very strong amateur though, but i don't think his style translated as well to the pros.

Sadly Hopkins resume after his losses to Taylor is a lot better than his career before. Together it makes a hell of a resume though...

i skipped over your post. i had the fight for hopkins by 3 points......."which rounds did you give hopkins" is a RET@RD question. as if i will remember the SPICIFIC rounds i gave hopkins from a almost 5 year old fight. most people didn't think calzaghie won. most think it was ether CLOSE or a toss up for ether guy. I challenge you to look at the fight again and tell me exactly which rounds you gave hopkins. 5 years? It's closer to 3. Everyone thought it was close. Most thought it was clear. as did i. calzaghie even admitted that he looked like sh*t. Are we debating how calzaghe fought or are we debating who won? you know NOTHING ABOUT BOXING. it's not about fighters not being able to age well. it's about LEARNING THE FUNDIMENTALS. mastering the basics of bxoing. hopkins have mastered the fundamentals of boxing & that gives him his longevity in the sport.......this is a gift in it's self. So you don't think a fighter that relies on timing, fast hands and explosiveness are prone to age worse than a fighter relying on strong fundamentals and strategy? Age has nothing to do with it. Hopkins was not a shot fighter, not even close. Roy was. we don't know HOW calzaghie would have done because he retired. he refused a hopkins rematch claiming that "hopkins will always be hard to look good against" translation & BARELY got a gift from the judges no way will i rematch him HAHAHA It was a **** fight, and there was no need for a rematch. Why would there be a rematch? At that stage of Calzaghes career? No one wanted to see it. Except for b-hop and a scarce circle of nuthuggers. It was a horrible horrible fight. B-hop has had a much better career than Joe. That is enough for him, just like Vitali can't run around crying over spilled milk because Lewis retired instead of re- him. The difference there is that fight at least people really wanted to see.