Hopkins title defenses at MW,, Which were the best ones

[bose]

Hey look I'm NOT a fan period! If I'm going to invest in a fight to watch I want to see a fight!
Bernard was beaten by Jones when they we're both undefeated with the same amount of fights! After that he fought bloated welters and when he took on a middleweight he got beat twice by Taylor!
He couldn't beat Calzaghe who couldn't break an egg but Bernard wasn't willing to put his ballzz down and try to win!!!
Don't glorify Bernard as a great fighter in the middleweight division theres plenty of guys that I pick over him and as a lightheavy he's no where near the best top tier!
I don't dislike the man in fact I get a kick out of him but I'm not putting him in the same catagory as the ATG's if you want to thats fine by me but in my opinion he's good and that not bad!! Ray

I aggree with some of what you say. People give Hopkins way too much credit for some of his wins without reallying looking at his career.

I belive Hopkins was a great fighter for his era. He was a bigger man than most of his opponets. And he should not have lost to Taylor. Not because Taylor was a bad fighter, but because if Hopkins was as great as his title defences indicate than Hopkins had no buisness losing to a green Jermaine Taylor.

Hopkins always called the shots in his career and that hurt him and in helped him in the long run. The Trinidad win didn't do much for his career because he didn't have anybody with a big name or any really good fighters to fight (Taylor later came along). Than you take off some points for some very poor perfomances by Hopkins vs. ordinary fighters. Than you have him refusing to give Trinidad the rematch, so Trinidad retires. Theres more but than i'll just be ranting on.

Best move for Hopkins career was joining GBP (without a doubt in my mind).

[Anthony342]

So now we're saying Hopkins wasn't a great middleweight? Not saying the greatest, but he dominated for 10 years and 20 defenses. That's pretty good in any era.

[SCtrojansbaby]

I'm not overly impressed with wins like Winky Wright, Pavlik, Pascal and most definitely Cloud.

They're all decent wins and for some reason the public seemed to think he'd lose these fights but I don't consider them overly good wins. IMO.

Winky was a top 3 P4P fighter(most had him #2) in the world when Hopkins beat him. Pavlik was a top 10 P4P fighter when B-Hop destroyed him. Those aren't impressive wins? What is your reasoning.

[IronDanHamza]

Winky was a top 3 P4P fighter(most had him #2) in the world when Hopkins beat him. Pavlik was a top 10 P4P fighter when B-Hop destroyed him. Those aren't impressive wins? What is your reasoning.

I think I explained both quite thoroughly in my posts.

I'm not sure Pavlik was top 10 P4P either

[Scott9945]

Winky was a top 3 P4P fighter(most had him #2) in the world when Hopkins beat him. Pavlik was a top 10 P4P fighter when B-Hop destroyed him. Those aren't impressive wins? What is your reasoning.

You can use supposed P4P ratings as your criteria for this evaluation, but I use my own eyes. The Pavlik win was impressive. The snoozer against Winky, not so much.

[CHEECH]

Corso, u been around and in the game for a while and I got nothing but respect for your opinion on boxing, u r right about Hopkins some where shortly after the tito fight but from lipsey to tito, bernards the dominant 160 guy. I don't think slegehamer lipse ever fought again after bernarbeat him down and up til then I thik lipsy was undefeated. I don't think anyone everstoped rockjawed bo james but Hopkins did. john david Jackson tho past his prime was easily picked apart by Hopkins. Robert allen who showed he could fight in their first match was completely shut down in the rematch. antwun echols had to be methodically diffused by Hopkins in the first fight cuz antwun was a hard hitting big strong middleweight but by fight 2 well u all seen Hopkins frustrate n break echols down. hell if dibella's kid wasn't dibellas kid, Hopkins might still have the 160 belt. so hopkin been on a cherry pickin cash run since shortly after the tito fight but before that, he was the legit true champ of 160. the record speaks for itself. corso, r u a friend of dibella? its ok if u r but it would xplain some

[CHEECH]

almost forgot, who he didn't fight? brian Barbosa and maselino masoe who both woulda been easy record padding. shoulda got Oxnard kid vargas to come up for a good payday. imo Bernard beats vargas easy too. and that question of the simon brown fight, an easy stay busy kinda defense. brown was past used up already and never an effective middleweight

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I aggree with some of what you say. People give Hopkins way too much credit for some of his wins without reallying looking at his career.

I belive Hopkins was a great fighter for his era. He was a bigger man than most of his opponets. And he should not have lost to Taylor. Not because Taylor was a bad fighter, but because if Hopkins was as great as his title defences indicate than Hopkins had no buisness losing to a green Jermaine Taylor.

Hopkins always called the shots in his career and that hurt him and in helped him in the long run. The Trinidad win didn't do much for his career because he didn't have anybody with a big name or any really good fighters to fight (Taylor later came along). Than you take off some points for some very poor perfomances by Hopkins vs. ordinary fighters. Than you have him refusing to give Trinidad the rematch, so Trinidad retires. Theres more but than i'll just be ranting on.


Best move for Hopkins career was joining GBP (without a doubt in my mind).

I gotta disagree with your thoughts on hopkins losing to taylor,, i thought the fight was a draw, and hopkins was 40 years old fighting a young olympic caliber undefeated fighter who was bigger, stronger, and faster,,,
To say hopkins wasnt that great because he lost to taylor, i just cant agree with that,,, taylor just caught him at the right time,,, hopkins 90's kills taylor,,,
Hopkins can still win fights in his 40s but its against power punchers,, anybody with a jab and movement hopkins cant beat ala taylor, dawson, calzaghe,,,,

Hopkins didnt have a HOF career till the age of 36,, most guys are done by then and hopkins was just getting warmed up...

[IronDanHamza]

I gotta disagree with your thoughts on hopkins losing to taylor,, i thought the fight was a draw, and hopkins was 40 years old fighting a young olympic caliber undefeated fighter who was bigger, stronger, and faster,,,
To say hopkins wasnt that great because he lost to taylor, i just cant agree with that,,, taylor just caught him at the right time,,, hopkins 90's kills taylor,,,
Hopkins can still win fights in his 40s but its against power punchers,, anybody with a jab and movement hopkins cant beat ala taylor, dawson, calzaghe,,,,

Hopkins didnt have a HOF career till the age of 36,, most guys are done by then and hopkins was just getting warmed up...

Well, Hopkins was and still is considered to be "green" at the age of 28.

He didn't win a world title until he was appoaching 30.

Most great fighters aren't considered "green" at the age of 28 like Hopkins is. Which is why most great fighters tend to be on the slide at 36 whereas Hopkins was just reaching his peak at 36.