Top three statistical misrepresentations about Hopkins that irk me...

[El Jesus]

Oh, it's YOU again.

Nah, there's no "agenda", people just look for patterns in stuff that's not there.

This is a largely US-based website. So naturally there'll be out-of-proportion bashing of non-US fighters and overhyping of US ones. OCCASIONALLY I make reference to this. It's really all there is to it. There's NO attempt to place UK fighters over US fighters, NONE WHATSOEVER.

Like I say, most of my favourite fighters (in HISTORY, at least, if not at present) are from America... the only "agenda" is in the eyes of people with agendas of their own.

I just try and start some threads as discussion points, food for thought, etc. But it seems a lot of people don't like hearing an opinion that's not theirs, which is rather strange considering this is a DISCUSSION FORUM. Maybe we should all just agree on everything and never say **** all?



PS. **** off you prick.

I think your reaction says it all. Often times, you prefer to skew reality with bias, and when someone vehemetly disagrees with me (I.E me) youll say something, then try to insult me on top of it, just based on one thing i said.

Im not bozo, im not runs with knives, im not one of your little rivals who will go insult for insult. Your supposed to be over 30, dont talk about how this is a discussion forum, then turn around and flame someone. as if thats how discussions are actually formulated. please.


The realities of hopkins legacy have been stated, the fact that your tyring to sell the tito fight as someone who wasnt a natural 160er is even more rediculous, every fight seems to have an excuse rather than giving a man his due.

[Guest]

I think your reaction says it all. Often times, you prefer to skew reality with bias, and when someone vehemetly disagrees with me (I.E me) youll say something, then try to insult me on top of it, just based on one thing i said.

Im not bozo, im not runs with knives, im not one of your little rivals who will go insult for insult. Your supposed to be over 30, dont talk about how this is a discussion forum, then turn around and flame someone. as if thats how discussions are actually formulated. please.

WOAH, WOAH, WOAH, King Bull****.

You referred to me IN THIRD PERSON as "annoying". If that's NOT a flame, then WHAT IS? THAT'S why you got flamed back.


As for "skewing reality", there's no "skewing", I'm discussing. Is not all "reality" a subjective concept? (For example - oh, here I go again insulting a US fighter, I'd better say how much I love Ali before I hear THAT old chestnut again - is it not possible to argue that Marciano's 49-0 record is not necessarily an achievement in and of itself?) It's not about "facts" and "figures" here. There's no universal "truth" in boxing appreciation.

The realities of hopkins legacy have been stated, the fact that your tyring to sell the tito fight as someone who wasnt a natural 160er is even more rediculous, every fight seems to have an excuse rather than giving a man his due

LOL, here we go again.

For a start you clearly DON'T understand what the thread is about. This is NOTHING to do with "not giving Hopkins his due" and just saying that it's possible to argue the point that his achievements are over grandised to the detriment of his historical peers. (Like Ray Robinson, one of those American chappies that I'm trying to do down by saying he's an all time great).

Secondly, and this is the SECOND TIME I've had to say this, AT NO POINT ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD HAVE I MADE ANY REFERENCE TO TITO.

So why the **** are you mentioning him for, or arguing with me about SOMETHING I HAVEN'T EVEN SAID?

[Guest]

They ought to close this place down as a discussion forum and reopen it as a "everyone agrees and says the same thing" forum.

People obviously have an issue with different views.


There was me only the other month saying James Toney was robbed... but as soon as I say I'm not keen on a US boxer I'm "Anti-American". If I was an American saying this, there'd be NO issue with it. But it's ME that's got a "nationalistic agenda".

[El Jesus]

WOAH, WOAH, WOAH, King Bull****.

You referred to me IN THIRD PERSON as "annoying". If that's NOT a flame, then WHAT IS? THAT'S why you got flamed back.


As for "skewing reality", there's no "skewing", I'm discussing. Is not all "reality" a subjective concept? (For example - oh, here I go again insulting a US fighter, I'd better say how much I love Ali before I hear THAT old chestnut again - is it not possible to argue that Marciano's 49-0 record is not necessarily an achievement in and of itself?) It's not about "facts" and "figures" here. There's no universal "truth" in boxing appreciation.




LOL, here we go again.

For a start you clearly DON'T understand what the thread is about. This is NOTHING to do with "not giving Hopkins his due" and just saying that it's possible to argue the point that his achievements are over grandised to the detriment of his historical peers. (Like Ray Robinson, one of those American chappies that I'm trying to do down by saying he's an all time great).

Secondly, and this is the SECOND TIME I've had to say this, AT NO POINT ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD HAVE I MADE ANY REFERENCE TO TITO.

So why the **** are you mentioning him for?

My mistake if you didint mention anything about tito. But im wondering what the point of this thread is, i understand your trying to spark discussion, but in reality, your just stating the obvious or stating whats been stated over and over again. Nobody is going to say hopkins is greater than the people he idolized, im just wondering what the point of the thread is, its obvious you cant compare the era between hopkins/robinson or alot of his historical peers, nobody is going to say that the defenses/people he fought are going to compare to the era of the people he idolizes. For most part, especially coming from you, its only going to spark up xenophobic feelings from both sides that you often perpetuate yourself.

[Guest]

My mistake if you didint mention anything about tito. But im wondering what the point of this thread is, i understand your trying to spark discussion, but in reality, your just stating the obvious or stating whats been stated over and over again. Nobody is going to say hopkins is greater than the people he idolized, im just wondering what the point of the thread is, its obvious you cant compare the era between hopkins/robinson or alot of his historical peers, nobody is going to say that the defenses/people he fought are going to compare to the era of the people he idolizes. For most part, especially coming from you, its only going to spark up xenophobic feelings from both sides that you often perpetuate yourself.

Believe me, I see a lot of silly stuff on here, like "Floyd is better than Sugar Ray cos Robinson never UD'd Carlos Baldomir." (c. Diego****o).


I need to log off and tape something...

[GEOFFHAYES]

Hopkins used to spar with Dave Tiberi in New York. Hopkins was Tiberi's main sparring partner for the Toney fight.


True.

[El Jesus]

WOAH, WOAH, WOAH, King Bull****.

You referred to me IN THIRD PERSON as "annoying". If that's NOT a flame, then WHAT IS? THAT'S why you got flamed back.

I said that some of your topics are annoying I didint say YOU are annoying.

its an obvious agenda, and an annoying one.

i think threads like this tend to be apart of your agenda, while you go out of your way to legitimize things about the UK and their part in the boxing world, you also go out ofyour way to take down a specific group of fighters on a constant basis, i think its annoying sometimes, but thats how i feel, however i never said anything insulting about you as a person, therefore your flame back at me was never warranted, you didint insult what i said, you insulted me to try to one up me.

[quote] They ought to close this place down as a discussion forum and reopen it as a "everyone agrees and says the same thing" forum.[/quiote]

please, its just a matter of you disagreeing with me, youd have no problem if i was doing the very thing your claiming to loath.

[El Jesus]

Believe me, I see a lot of silly stuff on here, like "Floyd is better than Sugar Ray cos Robinson never UD'd Carlos Baldomir." (c. Diego****o).


I need to log off and tape something...

its because of how you say certain things, even when your right. where your from and what you tend to post can make you look a certain way that would automatically render certain feelings when you post. a topic like this coming from you can further that feeling is my point. Im not saying your ******, or you say things that are ******, but if you make a topic like this, you have to be ready for certain premeditated feelings that are going to be thought about when opening a topic like this.


i mean, just look at the bad karma you gave me with this statement

Christ, you're a ****ing dumb mouthy ****. Learn to READ *******

rather than better clarifying your points, you force me to have the feeling that any disagreement leads to something like this. you clarify and then you insult, your no different from the very people you dislike.

[K-DOGG]

... I quite like the guy. He impressed me last time out, he'll naturally go in the HOF and he's a very good middleweight in a very average era. Get that? Very good. Not All Time Great, possibly not even Great, but very good.

Yet since the decline of Roy Jones and the need to sell copy, the guy seems to have been reconfigured as an ATG by The Ring, and made into something he's probably not.

This thread is not to detract from Bernard, but to separate what I see as major spin on his accomplishments.

Here's the top three examples of spin bull**** that get woven about Hop, and why they irk:



1. The Twenty Successful Defences. Let's not even go into the fact that it was actually 19 (unless we're counting NCs now?) people talk about this like it's an achievement in and of itself that overrides talent, opposition and historical perspective. I mean, defending a belt 20 times IS a good thing, (only seven of them as unified champ, note) but are we SERIOUSLY suggesting that if the likes of Robinson, Greb, Monson and Hagler had to face the likes of Glen Johnson, Morrade Hakkar, Carl Daniels and Robert Allen they'd have been ****ed over? No, of course not (right?) so the point IS...?


2. The "career defining" KO of The Acting Amigo. The guy was WAY outside his weight class, so much so that virtually NO ONE gave him a chance of winning. The size difference between the two was a joke, with Oscar having no power to speak of at the weight and having already been largely exposed as a middleweight in his previous bout. Yet he takes a dive/suffers a paralysing liver shot (delete as applicable) and it's "a leap to immortality" as the Ring memorably had it? Oscar as a middleweight was good marquee value, but brought little to the table. Yeah, he's HOF and all the rest of it, has a great resume, but... HE'S NOT A MIDDLEWEIGHT. So what's the point?



3. "Bernard beat a light heavyweight, even Sugar Ray Robinson didn't do that." SRR fought a light heavy over the fifteen round distance (not twelve) in heat estimated at 104 degrees. He had to retire from exhaustation, despite being ahead on points. In contrast, while I DID admire the performance, Bernard beat a weight-drained, overrated light heavy who forgot to pack his balls. In a decent temperature. So what's the point of mentioning the stat when it's comparatively meaningless? It's like talking about how boxers today are better than the boxers of old because there are more "multi weight champs". Except in the old days there weren't anywhere near as many divisions, or as many belts.



I like Bernard, but I only see him as a very good champ. His assension to legendary status seems to be based largely on manipulating facts and figures and the need for a "great" in this largely talent-challenged boxing era.

Annie, you do make some valid points regarding some of the spin around Hopkins; but ultimately, you are wrong IMO. He is an ATG. Maybe not on the level of a Robinson, a Greb, a Walker, a Ketchel, or a Hagler or Zale; but he belongs in the Top 10 IMO.

The twenty defenses DO mean something; it represents consistancey, regardless of whether or not he fought a whole slew of HOF'ers or not. Joe Louis, who is regarded by many as The Best Heavyweight who ever lived, fought his share of "less than great" opposistion, yet because of the fact that he defended that belt of his 25 times, combined with his skill which was apparent to all who saw him, meshed in with a few high-profile fights....he's "the best".

Morrade Hakkar was Hopkins' Johnny Paycheck....every champion has a few.


Regarding De La Hoya, I don't think that fight really means anything substantial and I don't think anyone who knows boxing thinks it does either; but it does mean...something. De La Hoya's place in the pantheon is debateable for a variety of reasons; but he was this generations' Roberto Duran, a former lightweight champion challenging for Middleweight honors. Now, obviously, I'm not comparing De La Hoya to Duran; but no one's comparing Hopkins to Hagler either. Now, I will say the Trinidad bout was extremely significant. Tito had proven himself, with a little help from Oscar's legs, the best Welterweight of his generation and he also wiped out the best at 154, and then kayoed long-time Middleweight pretender/WBA champ Joppy in 4, something not even Hopkins and Taylor could do after the Jop had aged some more. Everyone, wrongfully albeit, thought Trinidad, who was 40-0, was going to bring Bernard's reign to an end....and we all so Hopkins dish out one of the finest boxing exhibitions we've seen in a long time....and it was old-school. That means something because he displayed his skills....as he did for 20 defenses and past his 40th birthday.

In regards to B-Hops schooling of Tarver, that too is impressive. Was it for 15 rounds under oppressive heat? No; but he was ten years older than Robinson and beat Tarver just as handily as Robinson was beating Maxim before the heat got to him. Was his accomplishment more significant that Robinson's? No; but no one'e really saying it is. Robinson was a former welterweight champion challenging a light-heavyweight champ, so natrually it would be harder for him, with the exception of Bernard's age, which cannot be ignored. And, fair or not, Hopkins did what Robinson could not...he beat a lineal Light-Heavyweight Champ.....Jones Jr. didn't do that either.

Is he the best? No; but no one credible is saying he is, however, because of his obvious skill, consistance, and accomplishments, he MUST be recognized as ONE of the best. Top 10 definetly. To not recognize him as such is a travesty to him and history IMO.

[oldgringo]

Annie, you do make some valid points regarding some of the spin around Hopkins; but ultimately, you are wrong IMO. He is an ATG. Maybe not on the level of a Robinson, a Greb, a Walker, a Ketchel, or a Hagler or Zale; but he belongs in the Top 10 IMO.

The twenty defenses DO mean something; it represents consistancey, regardless of whether or not he fought a whole slew of HOF'ers or not. Joe Louis, who is regarded by many as The Best Heavyweight who ever lived, fought his share of "less than great" opposistion, yet because of the fact that he defended that belt of his 25 times, combined with his skill which was apparent to all who saw him, meshed in with a few high-profile fights....he's "the best".

Morrade Hakkar was Hopkins' Johnny Paycheck....every champion has a few.


Regarding De La Hoya, I don't think that fight really means anything substantial and I don't think anyone who knows boxing thinks it does either; but it does mean...something. De La Hoya's place in the pantheon is debateable for a variety of reasons; but he was this generations' Roberto Duran, a former lightweight champion challenging for Middleweight honors. Now, obviously, I'm not comparing De La Hoya to Duran; but no one's comparing Hopkins to Hagler either. Now, I will say the Trinidad bout was extremely significant. Tito had proven himself, with a little help from Oscar's legs, the best Welterweight of his generation and he also wiped out the best at 154, and then kayoed long-time Middleweight pretender/WBA champ Joppy in 4, something not even Hopkins and Taylor could do after the Jop had aged some more. Everyone, wrongfully albeit, thought Trinidad, who was 40-0, was going to bring Bernard's reign to an end....and we all so Hopkins dish out one of the finest boxing exhibitions we've seen in a long time....and it was old-school. That means something because he displayed his skills....as he did for 20 defenses and past his 40th birthday.

In regards to B-Hops schooling of Tarver, that too is impressive. Was it for 15 rounds under oppressive heat? No; but he was ten years older than Robinson and beat Tarver just as handily as Robinson was beating Maxim before the heat got to him. Was his accomplishment more significant that Robinson's? No; but no one'e really saying it is. Robinson was a former welterweight champion challenging a light-heavyweight champ, so natrually it would be harder for him, with the exception of Bernard's age, which cannot be ignored. And, fair or not, Hopkins did what Robinson could not...he beat a lineal Light-Heavyweight Champ.....Jones Jr. didn't do that either.

Is he the best? No; but no one credible is saying he is, however, because of his obvious skill, consistance, and accomplishments, he MUST be recognized as ONE of the best. Top 10 definetly. To not recognize him as such is a travesty to him and history IMO.

Great post K-Dogg, but could you elaborate a bit on why you think Hopkins wasn't in the class of Toney Zale or Mickey Walker as far as middleweights go? I know that the Toy Bulldog was a hell of a fighter and is one of the best p4p fighters ever, but what among his middleweight accomplishments makes him better than Hopkins? Thanks in advance for your take on this.