Am I overrating Hopkins?

I put Hopkins on the highly suspect roider list. How he reacted to Pascal calling for better testing was beyond suspect. Hopkins is an overrated fighter anyway imo. His best wins were smaller men moving up to his class helping him unify. Getting knocked out by Joe Smith Jr. was pure karma for the racist scumbag. His wins agaisnt Tarver, Pavlick, and Pascal are some of his biggest wins, and other than Pavlick, those guys were naturally bigger than him.

Early Hopkins was really good. I don't put a ton of stock into his later stuff because he was gaming the system and would just "smash and grab". Still, props for being able to go into deep waters at such an age. That takes dedication. Right. I’m sure sum people have never seen early Nard. I think a lot of people would be surprised to see how he knocked opponents out back then. His adapted second career style is very iconic though so most forget. like you said with the clinch and punches to the thigh, back of the head, crab walking, lead right hands. It was impressive how difficult the style was to overcome, but it’s not like anyone would hope that anybody but Nard would adopt that style. He’s like a well built car that u could put a ton of mileage on, but it’s not like he ever got close to hitting the rev limiter.

This is the correct answer That’s probably the way most fans view it, a great champ.. RJJ and FM were a different level

Hopkins was very good, never great, imo. He gets a lot of extra credit for staying very good for a long long time. This is the correct answer

Hopkins is amazing. Folks getting worked up over comparing careers that can't really be compared isn't. However we break down our own individual lists (based on opinions, preferences, biases, and how we define concepts such as "great"), it makes sense to me that Hopkins is going to be high up there.

Yes, he's a tad overrated because he didn't beat any prime, elite middleweights. FM is better than both RJ and Hopkins.

Early Hopkins was really good. I don't put a ton of stock into his later stuff because he was gaming the system and would just "smash and grab". Still, props for being able to go into deep waters at such an age. That takes dedication.

Those two fights were highly controversial which alot of people thought Hopkins won

Your definitely right bhop is not overated he one of the greatest fighters of all time my all time favorite

Hopkins had a great career but he's not better than Mayweather or Roy Jones. Anyone losing to Jermaine Taylor twice can't be considered as great as those two.

There are no right answers in the infinite possibilities of personal boxing lists

Hopkins was very good, never great, imo. He gets a lot of extra credit for staying very good for a long long time.

I consider Bernard Hopkins an elite ATG, and better than Mayweather and RJJ. I have been told that this is ridiculous. What do you think? I feel that the way he bounced back from his losses and maintained his career over several decades counts for a lot more than what RJJ, good as he was, ever did. And I believe that he didn’t, how shall I say, utilize favorable matchmaking to maintain his perfect record. He fought everyone. I disagree with your opinion but I understand your rationale. B-Hop has the best longevity of any fighter in the last 50 years. He wasn’t as talented as Floyd and Roy and never reached the heights that Floyd or Roy did in their primes but his accomplishments are in many ways more unique and will likely be harder to surpass.

Not greater than FMJ But he's on his own level!

I put Hopkins in his own class. His age at which he accomplished so much is remarkable