B- Hop is top 5 at middleweight

[brownpimp88]

You do realize that the history of the middleweight division is full of blown up welterweights and one hit wonder champs. Believe it or not, b-hop is one of the more successfull champs in the history of the division. 85% of the champs made like 1 or 2 title defences and then thier career was biasically over.

[GEOFFHAYES]

And the fact you mention Chris Eubank in that list is just ridiculous.

[oldgringo]

So Bernard's prime was between 1999 and 2003...I would say his physical prime was 96-99...he fought every oppoenent after Felix Trinidad as if they were Felix Trinidad...it made for some very gross Saturday nights.

The Post-Tito version of Hopkins (2001) wasnt going to **** anyone-he was interested in getting a "W" plain and simple and if he had to lull the crowd to sleap or stair at his oppenent bell after bell then thats what he would do.

Ask me to rate Nard against many of the fighters I named...Im talking about the Nard that beat Tito and I will tell you as a cult fan and with a straight face that he has a tougher time with just about everyone on that list then he did with Felix Trinidad, some may call me a ****ing idiot or even a ****....some may say Im Anorak but Im tellin you Nard against good strong middleweights is not in the top 5 of all time.

Would Bernard have beaten a guy like PArks...I dont know...would he have beaten McClellan-it would have been a life and death kinda a fight!

Imagine if Oscar decided to take the Joe Calzaghe/Bernard Hopkins path at Welterweight and fight meaningless mandatory after meaningless mandatory...Oscar would have had 50 title defenses.

To be top 5 you gotta dare to be great, am I missing something or did Nard push the nevelope and dare to be great...hmmm maybe I just missed it.

Since when does fighting aesthetically pleasing fights have anything to do with how great you are? Frankly, I liked watching Nard slap around Howard Eastman and William Joppy.

Also, did occur to you that maybe Hopkins couldn't do the same things in the ring --brawl it out for 10 rounds like he did with Echols-- at age 40?

How he would have done against the likes of Toney, McClellan, etc is all speculation. It's funny that half of those guys you listed were already past their best or were campaigning at higher weights when Hopkins was early into his championship reign. I think Hopkins would have made short work of guys like Julian JAckson and Herol Graham in '95/'96. How he does he live with Roy Jones in a rematch? who knows...some believe better...some believe the same.

Hopkins gets the most **** for:

A - fighting in a relatively weak era...

B - losing to Jones and Taylor...

C - (what used to be) never moving up...

I see a lot of negative finger pointing for stuff that is accepted today in regards to other conventionally great middleweights. Hagler lost early on to lesser fighters than a guy like Roy Jones and lost later on to a blown up welterweight. That is lightly treaded upon when assessing his greatness though because everyone knew he was a damned fine fighter. Carlos Monzon never ventured north of his best weight. I'm sure that the fistic fans of the time weren't extremely upset about Monzon beating up on Emile Griffith or Jose Napoles either. Those guys were a couple of hall of famers...much like Tito and De La Hoya.

[phallus]

Since when does fighting aesthetically pleasing fights have anything to do with how great you are? Frankly, I liked watching Nard slap around Howard Eastman and William Joppy.

Also, did occur to you that maybe Hopkins couldn't do the same things in the ring --brawl it out for 10 rounds like he did with Echols-- at age 40?

How he would have done against the likes of Toney, McClellan, etc is all speculation. It's funny that half of those guys you listed were already past their best or were campaigning at higher weights when Hopkins was early into his championship reign. I think Hopkins would have made short work of guys like Julian JAckson and Herol Graham in '95/'96. How he does he live with Roy Jones in a rematch? who knows...some believe better...some believe the same.

Hopkins gets the most **** for:

A - fighting in a relatively weak era...

B - losing to Jones and Taylor...

C - (what used to be) never moving up...

I see a lot of negative finger pointing for stuff that is accepted today in regards to other conventionally great middleweights. Hagler lost early on to lesser fighters than a guy like Roy Jones and lost later on to a blown up welterweight. That is lightly treaded upon when assessing his greatness though because everyone knew he was a damned fine fighter. Carlos Monzon never ventured north of his best weight. I'm sure that the fistic fans of the time weren't extremely upset about Monzon beating up on Emile Griffith or Jose Napoles either. Those guys were a couple of hall of famers...much like Tito and De La Hoya.

the first "loss" to taylor is bull****, taylor never beat Hops in the first fight, the judges did

[oldgringo]

the first "loss" to taylor is bull****, taylor never beat Hops in the first fight, the judges did

I had it a draw...I don't understand how one can win a fight (over the champ no less) when they land 0 significant punches...

Even so, it's a L on his record.

[phallus]

I had it a draw...I don't understand how one can win a fight (over the champ no less) when they land 0 significant punches...

Even so, it's a L on his record.

it was a draw on my scorecard too... taylor gets a lot of gift decisions from the judges though

[scap]

Since when does fighting aesthetically pleasing fights have anything to do with how great you are? Frankly, I liked watching Nard slap around Howard Eastman and William Joppy.

Also, did occur to you that maybe Hopkins couldn't do the same things in the ring --brawl it out for 10 rounds like he did with Echols-- at age 40?

How he would have done against the likes of Toney, McClellan, etc is all speculation. It's funny that half of those guys you listed were already past their best or were campaigning at higher weights when Hopkins was early into his championship reign. I think Hopkins would have made short work of guys like Julian JAckson and Herol Graham in '95/'96. How he does he live with Roy Jones in a rematch? who knows...some believe better...some believe the same.

Hopkins gets the most **** for:

A - fighting in a relatively weak era...

B - losing to Jones and Taylor...

C - (what used to be) never moving up...

I see a lot of negative finger pointing for stuff that is accepted today in regards to other conventionally great middleweights. Hagler lost early on to lesser fighters than a guy like Roy Jones and lost later on to a blown up welterweight. That is lightly treaded upon when assessing his greatness though because everyone knew he was a damned fine fighter. Carlos Monzon never ventured north of his best weight. I'm sure that the fistic fans of the time weren't extremely upset about Monzon beating up on Emile Griffith or Jose Napoles either. Those guys were a couple of hall of famers...much like Tito and De La Hoya.

1) he did not slap Eastman around, he didnt throw enough punches in that fight to slap around my wife.

2) As you pointed out he lost to Taylor (twice) and Jones...the two best middleweights he fought he was beaten by...disregard these losses for whatever reason.

Prime Michael Nunn vs. Prime Bernard Hopkins-I got Nunn
Prime Jones vs. Prime Nard...Jones right!
Gerald McClellan vs. Hopkins...Upickem
Lamar Parks vs. Hopkins slight lean toward Nard, very slight
Toney vs. Hopkins...Toney is a close one.

These are just fighters of the last 15 years....maybe I should rethink the question...on paper are Bernard's accomplishments worhty of top 5...maybe they are...was he one of the top 5 best fighters ever to fight in the middleweigfht division...**** no, not even close.

[GEOFFHAYES]

I think Hopkins would have made short work of guys like Herol Graham in '95/'96

You lose any credibility with that statement.

[Addison]

He is top 5 of all times at middleweight, seriosuly who are u gonna rank above him? graziano, zale, valdez, and a bunch of blown up welterweights like griffith, walker, basilio, lmfao. I love when there are so many hates of b-hop on this site. Dont blame him if the guy from the 30's, 40's and 60's couldnt even make 5 successful title defences. The 1950's consisted of an old out of his prime, blown up welterweight beating the top middleweight challengers, thst funny.

B hop beat:
trinidad
tarver
de la hoya
john david jackson
william joppy
simon brown
glen johnson
keith holmes
fitz vanderpool
carl daniels
robert allen twice

dont hate on him cuz he was a consistent fighter.

Bernard can hang.

Nobody can make Bernard look ****** in the ring.

He could hang with all of them.

[oldgringo]

You lose any credibility with that statement.

Oh so Herol Graham after a four year layoff would have beaten Bernard Hopkins in 1996? Shut up *****.