interesting read on bernard hopkins

**realheavyhands** · 12-24-2006, 04:16 PM

he beat the **** out of trinidad ,delahoya ,glenn johnson,tarver, joppy,... he dominated those fights.. and i thought he beat taylor definatley the first time

**realheavyhands** · 12-24-2006, 04:16 PM

have you seen delahoyas back muscles and lats lately

**PATO 1** · 12-24-2006, 04:22 PM

wasv actually a good read but i thought he went overboard at times

his point on what larry merchant said about the 3 premier US heavies duckin lewis was a good point

**Oasis_Lad** · 12-24-2006, 04:27 PM

bernard is a top 20 middle without a doubt.

he has been hyped up lately though and a few people have even said he is a top 5 middle of all time lol!

**I LOVE YOU** · 12-24-2006, 05:26 PM

the guy stopped delahoya and trinidad and beat tarver bad. nuff said!!

**deuce_drop** · 12-24-2006, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by iron mike tyson

anybody in the uk who has got the latest issue of boxing news read the article on bernard hopkins entitled brainwashers dont believe the hype.
andrew mcghee basicly comments on how much the us press have built up bernard hopkins and the american public have soaked up the hype , bernard is a solid champion at best but a legend he is not. hes two best wins came at a time when america had nobody to carry the sport through the mainstream and because hopkins had just beaten a former 130 fighter who was held in such regard as he was (dlh) hes accomplishments have been blown out of proportion

haters, plain and simple, there are so many holes you can poke in anyones career. american, brit, what have you.

the thing is everyone thinks that DLH and Trinidad were guys that walked around at 130(DLH) and 140(Tito) but those cats were dropping 25-30+ pounds to make weight and fight smaller guys, thus building their great (nuthugged) careers, both knowing that moving up in weight will make them more money, so why not start as low as possible.

the fact of the matter is, Hopkins for a long time even before fighting those guys said that they need to fight at their own and weight and fight him if they want to be considered great, and they finally did, and they lost.

Hopkins stayed at the same weight for about 97% of his career (which is harder to do than move up in weight) and cleaned out the division as well as made 20 successful title defense. i know the division wasn't the toughest but for what was available Hopkins beat them. and i know people try and say he fought one guy three times and another guy twice this and that but what the haters fail to realize is that 20 seperate times, 20 chances, 20 opportunities for Hopkins to lose and he won all of them. regardless of opposition that ****ing consistency. anyone who tries to discredit that is a pure hater through and through.

**micky_knox** · 12-24-2006, 06:05 PM

B-HOP is without doubt a legend

**hugh grant** · 12-24-2006, 07:42 PM

Staying at a weight and champ like Hopkins did is easier. The middleweights were a weak division and once Hopkins beat the challengers, it takes a while for the division to produce the next generation of contenders. So on this basis i never really used to rate Hopkins all that much, especially after losing to RJJ.

Of late though, Hopkins has in actual fact changed my opinion of him, after some good results. How he stopped DLH and was ahead on points against him, and beating Howard Eastman who was a genuine middleweight and someone i thought was quite good. Although the manner in which he beat Eastman wasnt that impressive.

I dont know all the middleweights of all time, but i would imagine Hopkins is top 10 material.

**GEOFFHAYES** · 12-24-2006, 08:26 PM

Eubank was recently asked what he thought of Hopkins and said "Bernard, Bernard who?" and the interviewer said "Hopkins", "Hopkin?" Eubank said, "No, Bernard 'The Executioner' Hopkins" the interviewer said, and Eubank said "Excuse my ignorance. You'll have to inform me who he is. He sounds abit dodgy, though."

Haha.

interesting read on bernard hopkins