Better Resume: Bernard Hopkins vs. Floyd Mayweather

Obviously Floyd Mayweather has the far better resume.

BH and Floyd are close, but many of BH wins at an advanced age, older than Floyd is at the moment give it to BH. BH fought a calzaghe not coming off of a ko loss and he fought kovalev and lasted the distance. No of BH fans requested that BH shouldn't fight killer kovsalev, yet Floyd's fans do for Floyd against GGG. Floyd is protected.

Hopkins. His win over Trinidad is better than anything on PBF's resume, and that's just one example. If PBF would have beaten Pacquiao before he got iced by JMM then it'd be a completely different story. Pacquiao is the best name out of either fighter's resume, but it's not who you've beaten but when you've beaten them. Bernard took Trinidad's soul at his peak, PBF clearly waited for Pacquiao to slow down before testing the water.

Even if we don't take loss's into account it's still Mayweather.

Floyd beat more Ring champs, top 1-3 contenders, title holders, P4P fighters and future HOF'ers than Hopkins and he did it in 5 different weight classes. Hopkins has an excellent resume, with great wins. Is just that Mayweather beat more accomplished guys, that's all. But great resume nonetheless - Beat Trinidad to claim Ring title at MW, beat Tarver to take away his 175 Ring title, beat Pascal to take his 175 Ring title, beat current Ring champ at 160 Pavlik at a catchweight which Pavlik wanted to go up anyway to fight Calzaghe but was ducked for Jones. Good win vs Glen Johnson.

Floyd... Do people realize floyd was p4p before hopkins was, and years after hopkins was off the list floyd was still number 1.. I never saw floyd lose his first fight, get dropped and a draw with mercado, look for a way out vs allen, lose twice to jermain taylor..

FMJ in my opinion. He beat Pacquiao, and I'd probably put Pacquiao over BHop.

I'd go B-Hop

Hopkin's resume is legit and nobody can truly question it, unlike Floyd's. This thread was made before he fought Pacquiao. But either way, both BHOP and Mayweather >>> Pacquiao. Neither Pacquiao or Hopkins are cheaters so it's really: BHOP and Pacquiao >>> Mayweather

It has bearing if you were to rank him against the ATGs. You can be "unsatisfied" with it, and objectively compare it to Bernard's. Completely different situation. Well said. You are correct. I tip my hat to you, sir.

Has nothing to do with his resume, but has bearing upon fans' expectations of said resume and why they are unsatisfied with it. It has bearing if you were to rank him against the ATGs. You can be "unsatisfied" with it, and objectively compare it to Bernard's. Completely different situation.

What difference does that make? Does he or does he not have a better resume? His opinion on his "greatness" has no bearing on the question. Has nothing to do with his resume, but has bearing upon fans' expectations of said resume and why they are unsatisfied with it.

This thread was made before he fought Pacquiao. But either way, both BHOP and Mayweather >>> Pacquiao.

This poll was made before 99% of Pacquiao fans decided they didn't like boxing anymore. If someone had put this poll up two days after the Pacquiao win the results would have been VERY different. Mayweather has the better legacy and resume imo. If BHOP had retired at 38 like Mayweather did he would largely be forgotten. He wouldn't have even ranked as high as Oscar in all time lists. BHOP's accomplishments are seen as great due to his age. Which is not a knock on him, but because of his age and losses people hold him to a much lower standard than they hold Floyd.

Fighters rated in the top 10 of the entire sport aren't any good. Got It. Just fight GGG at 160!

Yoiu make Floyd sound quite good, yet the general consensus is that he nebverfought anyone in their primes, or took much risks! Never fought outside his country, never or rarely at peoples best weights ie hatton, jmm. Never wants to be underdog means he not fighting anyone any ggod Whynotfightggg at 160? People wanted too see duranv hagler and Barkley knot because they hated Duran sand wanted him to lose, yet that's what people get accused of if they want Floyd to face ggg lmao trolling on christmas. bless your heart

Only Mayweather has fought fighters rated in the top 10 of the ENTIRE sport and people say he didn't take a risk. He's on a different level to everyone else. Yoiu make Floyd sound quite good, yet the general consensus is that he nebverfought anyone in their primes, or took much risks! Never fought outside his country, never or rarely at peoples best weights ie hatton, jmm. Never wants to be underdog means he not fighting anyone any ggod Whynotfightggg at 160? People wanted too see duranv hagler and Barkley knot because they hated Duran sand wanted him to lose, yet that's what people get accused of if they want Floyd to face ggg

If there is a different standard, it's Floyd that's responsible; You run around claiming to be the best ever laced em' up (implying superiority over such guys as SRR and Ali and Duran and SRL, etc), but then take very few risks, you bring that **** on yourself. And then cry about it. What difference does that make? Does he or does he not have a better resume? His opinion on his "greatness" has no bearing on the question.

This thread sucks. Floyd would've been flat out DESROYED by the public if he fought most of the names on Hopkins resume. You can't compare two fighters when you hold them to two completely different standards. If there is a different standard, it's Floyd that's responsible; You run around claiming to be the best ever laced em' up (implying superiority over such guys as SRR and Ali and Duran and SRL, etc), but then take very few risks, you bring that **** on yourself. And then cry about it.

BH is better. Floyd was the so called best yet was fighting the guerros, Ortiz of this world. Wasting his youth and now they say he's too old to fight GGG? Jmm was older thanfloy when he beat PAC. Floyd always try fdo as little as he can get away with