Tweet
This statement is true and makes Hopkins look bad if you don't look at the circumstances surrounding it. Sure Bernard Hopkins lost two fights to Jermain Taylor and lost one to Roy Jones. But lets be honest, Bernard Hopkins was not the best Bernard Hopkins when he faught Jermain Taylor. Bernard was 14 years older than Jermain Taylor, and both fights were competitive. What does that say about Bernard Hopkins as a fighter? If Michael Jordan at 40 played Kobe Bryant at 26 in two one on one basketball games and was competitive in both it would be considered an impressive accomplishment. And in one of the games Jordan makes a late charge and almost comesback to tie the game. People would not believe their eyes that Jordan could hang with Kobe, he suppose to be too old. 40 is old for an athlete in any sport. My point is the mere fact that Bernard Hopkins at 40 was able to fight two close fights against a 26 year old man who is younger, bigger and stronger speaks volume to the kind of fighter Bernard Hopkins is. "Say what you will about Bernard Hopkins, he's a special fighter. Most of the guys who fought into their 40s that we remember, like Archie Moore and George Foreman, were special. I'd put Hopkins in that group."-Teddy Atlas. Taylor did beat Hopkins but he was the much older fighter, if that fight would have taken place when Hopkins was young who knows what might have take place. So I don't think it truley fair to **** on Hopkins for those loses.
As far as losing to Roy Jones Jr., what is so bad about that? Great fighters lose to great fighters. Thomas Hearns is a great fighter even though Hagler beat him. Joe Frazier is a great fighter even though George Foreman beat him.
Thats just how I choose to see it. I am biased toward Bernard being that I am a big fan, but I think my opinion is valid. I'm not denying that he lost to the two best middleweights he faught, but I'm saying that you have look at when he faught those fights. They were not in his prime in my opinion. I'm not saying this is how everyone should view it. But I want to hear what other people think of my opinion.
As far as losing to Roy Jones Jr., what is so bad about that? Great fighters lose to great fighters. Thomas Hearns is a great fighter even though Hagler beat him. Joe Frazier is a great fighter even though George Foreman beat him.
Thats just how I choose to see it. I am biased toward Bernard being that I am a big fan, but I think my opinion is valid. I'm not denying that he lost to the two best middleweights he faught, but I'm saying that you have look at when he faught those fights. They were not in his prime in my opinion. I'm not saying this is how everyone should view it. But I want to hear what other people think of my opinion.
Comment