Why's there always a "catch" to Hopkins' best wins?

[moofo]

But Calzaghe wasn't a big name back then.

The only big names he truely passed up on was Toney in 2003 (but the fight would have been at crusier ) and Jones a lot because they were both too stubborn to come to a contract negotiation.

So because they wouldn't negotiate then it makes Hopkins resume better and acceptable?
If Hopkins wanted a real Legacy he would have gotten the fights at the higher weights.
But it was easy for him to stay in a talent poor division where his defining wins were against men who made their names at Welterweight and below.
The win over Oscar ESPECIALLY MEANS NOTHING.
The other FACT about Hopkins resume is he has lost to the best who were the same size as him.
The sad thing is how the Ring has Hopkins as the LHW Ring Champion after ONE FIGHT.
But I guess they need to keep the new owners happy if they want to get paid.

[OptimusWolf]

I think there's a fair bit of revisionism on this thread, stemming, I believe, from the timeliness of Calzaghe's win over Kessler.

That victory (I was lucky enough to be there) was very special, but no more special than Hopkins win over Trinidad IMO. It's only now that it has become popular to believe that Trinidad was altogether too small. Add that to his wins over Johnson, Echols, Oscar and some other reasonable contenders, plus recent wins over Tarver and Wright, which admittedly count for little given the standard of both bouts, and Hopkins resume is superior to Joe's.

Now asking who the best fighter is, that's a lot more contentious.

[moofo]

I think there's a fair bit of revisionism on this thread, stemming, I believe, from the timeliness of Calzaghe's win over Kessler.

That victory (I was lucky enough to be there) was very special, but no more special than Hopkins win over Trinidad IMO. It's only now that it has become popular to believe that Trinidad was altogether too small. Add that to his wins over Johnson, Echols, Oscar and some other reasonable contenders, plus recent wins over Tarver and Wright, which admittedly count for little given the standard of both bouts, and Hopkins resume is superior to Joe's.

Now asking who the best fighter is, that's a lot more contentious.

Kessler & Calzaghe would have both beaten Tito as well.

[warp1432]

Well apparantly Calzaghe was a big enough name after he beat Lacy. Hopkins reportedly pulled out in the eleventh hour demanding almost double what they'd already agreed in principle.

I consider that the act of a frightened man and I consider his chasing of Calzaghe at the moment the act of a desperate man who needs a big fight.

Come on Calzaghe wasn't a name before lacy and you know it. Because he was great and a southpaw? Probably, but I don't think Bernard ducked Calzaghe. He probably said 3 million at first, then the lawyer said that to Joe, then they faxed Bernard the contract, he read it and found out that he wasn't getting 3 million because of the fees he had to pay for his trainer and promoter.

He then doubled the demand. Something like that, no way he was afraid of Joe.

[warp1432]

So because they wouldn't negotiate then it makes Hopkins resume better and acceptable?
If Hopkins wanted a real Legacy he would have gotten the fights at the higher weights.
But it was easy for him to stay in a talent poor division where his defining wins were against men who made their names at Welterweight and below.
The win over Oscar ESPECIALLY MEANS NOTHING.
The other FACT about Hopkins resume is he has lost to the best who were the same size as him.
The sad thing is how the Ring has Hopkins as the LHW Ring Champion after ONE FIGHT.
But I guess they need to keep the new owners happy if they want to get paid.

James Toney would have been HUGE for him. The fight would have been at crusierweight. That's 30 pounds above middleweight. And 15 pounds if you call him a natural light heavyweight. You give Bernard **** for fighting guys 6 pounds smaller then him, but want him to fight someone 15-30 pounds bigger then him. In 2003 Toney went up to heavyweight to knockout holyfield! Big size advantage for Toney,

Bernard should have had a rematch with Jones. No doubt about that, but his resume is decent. Nothing AMAZING, but he's great because of his skills and his resume helps. It's not ****ty like Tye Fields.

You give crap for Bernard fighting "****ty comp", but the supermiddle division had mostly "****ty comp" (minus Robin Reid, who Calzaghe beat in a close fight, and Sven Ottke, who Calzaghe never fought!) until 2005.

And holy **** you are an idiot. Tarver was the ring champion because he gained it from Jones and then regained it from Johnson. The merge didn't hapen until a couple months ago, while Bernard was already champion for over a year.

[THe TRiNiTY]

Question is resume all you want. People still picked against him with legitimate reasons in all those fights. Tito had a piece of the title. He unified. You're supposed to be praised for that. He did what he had to do to reign in the division and he's blamed for it. A cash cow, in Oscar, STEPS UP, WILLINGLY, because HE wanted to. So, Hopkins takes the money and the challenge and beats him. His fault. He beats the bigger guy in Tarver, still gets "blamed." He beats Winky, a tricky fighter at any weight at the age of 42! and is not given credit. It's a bit absurd.

Greatest middleweight of all time? No. Best of this generation? No. Great fighter nonetheless, yes.