Proof that Hopkins's resume at middleweight is pathetic...

[C'MONMANG']

The main problem I have with Hopkins is that he really did lose to the best two fighters he fought... the argument can be made that Taylor only became one of the best because he beat Hopkins. But he did lose to Jones Jr. and Taylor. You know?

Taylor isnt one of the two best he fought, Taylor was PRIME AND UNDEDEATED and Hopkins was 40 yrs old. Man please shut up.

[Fox McCloud]

Taylor isnt one of the two best he fought, Taylor was PRIME AND UNDEDEATED and Hopkins was 40 yrs old. Man please shut up.

So wait... is his streak at LHW a fluke then? Apparantly you are blaming the Taylor losses on the fact that Hopkins was too old, so how does he win at LHW against Tarver?

And if Taylor wasn't one of the best, then apparantly Hopkins beat the best on his resume, and lost to an average guy twice... is that what you are saying?

[warp1432]

So wait... is his streak at LHW a fluke then? Apparantly you are blaming the Taylor losses on the fact that Hopkins was too old, so how does he win at LHW against Tarver?

And if Taylor wasn't one of the best, then apparantly Hopkins beat the best on his resume, and lost to an average guy twice... is that what you are saying?

But the fight's were close and he was clearly past his prime. Even against Tarver, a masterful performance, he was past it.Prime Bernard threw a lot more punches and would move at a faster pace.

Taylor isn't average, he's really good, but if it was a prime Bernard (Anywhere during about 1997-2003 for tactical Bernard with a good workrate. Or 1995-1996 where he was very agressive) would have smoked Taylor out of the water. His resume isn't terrible. I don't think anyone has really said that he's had an amazing resume, but neither do a lot of the great fighters of today do.

[Ironside]

So wait... is his streak at LHW a fluke then? Apparantly you are blaming the Taylor losses on the fact that Hopkins was too old, so how does he win at LHW against Tarver?

There's no point in arguing, they have excuses for Hopkins for all his losses. Roy- too green. Taylor-too old (haha) and if he loses to Calzaghe-too old. and there's one more fight he lost, i think it was early in his career. That "too old" excuse I think shouldn't really be valid for Hopkins, I mean, I keep pointing out over and over, he's so old right, then how is he P4P #3-4? I think if you can beat a P4P fighter and get little credit doing it, that's a little unfair.

[Fox McCloud]

But the fight's were close and he was clearly past his prime. Even against Tarver, a masterful performance, he was past it.Prime Bernard threw a lot more punches and would move at a faster pace.

Taylor isn't average, he's really good, but if it was a prime Bernard (Anywhere during about 1997-2003 for tactical Bernard with a good workrate. Or 1995-1996 where he was very agressive) would have smoked Taylor out of the water. His resume isn't terrible. I don't think anyone has really said that he's had an amazing resume, but neither do a lot of the great fighters of today do.

I still don't know what I'm supposed to do with this.

The best names on Hopkins's resume (exclusing Tarver) have an L next to their name (for Hopkins) or they came up multiple weight classes to fight him.

All I'm saying is that if a fighter goes from green to shot in a matter of 20 fights, there is something wrong with him.

I'm criticizing Hopkins's when compared to the best MWs of all-time. That's it. Is that really an unfair opinion to have?

[warp1432]

The only possible excuse I could have for him losing to Jones was because it was Roy Jones. They were both a little green, but goddamn Jones in the 90's was almost unbeatable.

There is no shame in losing to Jones.

I'm criticizing Hopkins's when compared to the best MWs of all-time. That's it. Is that really an unfair opinion to have?

No because he's not the best of all time, but he deserves to have his name mentioned.

The best names on Hopkins's resume (exclusing Tarver) have an L next to their name (for Hopkins) or they came up multiple weight classes to fight him.

THEY came up to fight him. De La Hoya wanted to. He came up 6 pounds to do so. Trinidad fit in perfectly at middleweight. He knocked out William Joppy in 5 rounds. Not even Taylor could do that when Joppy was way past it. There could be an arguement for De La Hoya since he looked bad against Strum. Though De La Hoya wanted to go up and fight him. He was also competetive in the fight.

It's no different from Hearns/Lenoard/Duran wanting to come up and fight Hagler. Or even in today's sitituation. No one discredits Winky Wright for beating a "blown up" welterweight/lightweight who had lost 2 (arguably 3) of his last 4. No one discredits him for beating Tito.

Then again I'm sure if Winky was still #2 p4p he would be.

[Fox McCloud]

The only possible excuse I could have for him losing to Jones was because it was Roy Jones. They were both a little green, but goddamn Jones in the 90's was almost unbeatable.

There is no shame in losing to Jones.

And that's the problem. There is no problem with losing to Jones. But the talent gap between his wins and losses is pretty big, so it is hard to place exactly how good he was as a middleweight.

[Fox McCloud]

No because he's not the best of all time, but he deserves to have his name mentioned.



THEY came up to fight him. De La Hoya wanted to. He came up 6 pounds to do so. Trinidad fit in perfectly at middleweight. He knocked out William Joppy in 5 rounds. Not even Taylor could do that when Joppy was way past it. There could be an arguement for De La Hoya since he looked bad against Strum. Though De La Hoya wanted to go up and fight him. He was also competetive in the fight.

It's no different from Hearns/Lenoard/Duran wanting to come up and fight Hagler. Or even in today's sitituation. No one discredits Winky Wright for beating a "blown up" welterweight/lightweight who had lost 2 (arguably 3) of his last 4. No one discredits him for beating Tito.

Then again I'm sure if Winky was still #2 p4p he would be.

He does deserved to be mentioned in the top 10... top 5 maybe.

And it doesn't matter who came up, it matters how much they can accomplish at that weight. Trinidad was pretty good, but he has not had really good results at 160. He beat Joppy (good win), Cherifi (who?) and Mayorga (who skipped 154 and fought at 160 as a WW). De La Hoya was just way too small, and did not look good against Sturm. Neither of the biggest name wins on Hopkins's 160 resume had good success at 160. You know what I mean?

[ferocity]

Its been said a hundred times about Hopkins, his era had weak competition, this has been said by boxing historians, maybe now that he has garnered some more solid wins he is being looked at different. He still proved himself by beating some top fighters.

[warp1432]

De La Hoya didn't that much, but Trinidad did. He massacared both Mayorga and Joppy. That's really good wins to me.

Besides when you have the smaller man infront of you, you're supposed to beat them deseciviely and that's what Bernard did. Well except Winky Wright, but Winky Wright would give a lot of people problems.