Hopkins Takes The Age Test in Boxing History

[MentalExecution]

This article sucks for a number of reasons, but the funny thing is the author starts out saying Bernard isn't top 10 middleweights of all time, then provides a list for the top 5 "aged" middleweight fighters. lol, wtf? I'd like to see the authors top 10 list, not "aged" (hopkins has had 3 fights over 40).

Exactly..............

[Dmac1012]

Are you kidding!

I know this guy writing this obsured article can't be from the US, have you seen B-Hops resume. What a ****ing joke this guy is. B-hop was the only fighter who touched roy in the decade where he was untouchable and it was still early in his career. He also should have got the decision in the first Taylor fight everyone knows that. He is the only person to knock out Oscar and Tito and defended his middle weight crown 20 + times I don't care who you are thats amazing in itself. He also KO Glen Johnson who knocked out Roy Jones who I bet is a fighter that you are all over his **** when it comes to writing about boxing. Whooped Tarver a bronze medalist who can fight. He also dominated the most underated fighter in the game by taking away his Lennox lewis like jab Winky Wright. Bernard is the smartest most effective fighter I have ever seen and he is definatly a top ten middle weight of all time. He has done all of this despite starting his career so late. I am a proud reader of this web site but if I have to read this kind of bull **** you can scratch me off the ****ing list.

[Guest]

By John Hively - Some people think of Bernard Hopkins as one of the great middleweight champions of history, but he’s probably overrated in this regard. He simply doesn’t have the numbers to rate among the top-ten of all time. As a middleweight, the level of competition he faced was historically pathetic compared to other greats from that division. [details]

Plain and basic common sense. Hopkins is old, washed up, and overrated but he should still have enough in the tank to beat Calzaghe.

[The Critic]

You guys are a bunch of whiners.

Someone finally offers an accurate, balanced view, and you homers can't handle it.

[xfiles]

This article is a big crock of ****. Hopkins is high up on the list of the greatest middleweights of all time. Saying he lost to the 2 best middleweights he ever fought is ******ed. Jermain Taylor hasn't proven himself to be any better then Holmes, Joppy, Johnson or any of those guys in there prime yet. He could get knocked out again in his next couple fights. And even if he does prove to be a great middleweight so what? Hopkins fought him when he was 40 and Taylor was 26. All these other so called middleweight greats where retired or washed up well before that. And MANY people think Hopkins won that fight. All these so called writers and analysts seem to be unbelievably hypocritical of Hopkins record next to Marvin Hagler's or any of the other great fighters. Those guys obviously get away with ALLOT less scrutiny.

[Allucard]

I think the writer is a Calzaghe fan!

I think so too. Not really, not like you can tell. But he has a point. Cept on the regard to Calzaghe being the best he has fought, yet if you look at the age/quality of opponent the writer is definitely right. Fighting Calzaghe when you are in your 28's is easy (and i say that because Calzaghe has only fought in europe vs mediocre competition and now preying on the old) but when you are 43 Calzaghe can be turned into someone very likely to be your best opponent.

It amazes me some people can't see the relativeness of boxing and often ignore facts like age and weight, let alone weighting them in conjuction.

[kbpoetree]

You guys are a bunch of whiners.

Someone finally offers an accurate, balanced view, and you homers can't handle it.

u the only one who seems so....hmmm hope this writer gets banned..i've seen members get banned for less

[warp1432]

You guys are a bunch of whiners.

Someone finally offers an accurate, balanced view, and you homers can't handle it.

No it wasn't. Not at all. He starts off on a completely different topic and is pretty much "Oh by the way here." I've read better arguements in this forum for saying why Bernard is overrated then this.

You know what I find best about this artice?

His big wins over Felix Trinidad, Oscar De La Hoya and Winky Wright were against guys coming up in weight

then goes on to say

Joe is only coming up a few pounds

Teb bucks after Joe loses this guy writes an article about how Joe was too small. This whole article feels like "Hi my name is _________ and I'll be telling you what I have to say today."

[The Critic]

Do any of you seriously deny that if Hopkins were to beat Joe it would be his biggest career win?

Do any of you seriously deny that beating Oscar and Winky were meaningless?

[Ryn0]

Hopkins is certainly in the top 10 middleweights of al time I'd go so far to put him at the bottom of my top 5 BUT he is overrated his resume is pretty much identical to Calzaghe's as they have both cleaned out their divisions and the quality of opposition beaten isn't elite, both ODLH and Tito were blown up welters and Calzaghe has fought top opposition at SMW but Kessler is the closest he has come to elite and Kessler is a very solid fighter who i thnk would beat anyone from 160-168 and some 175 fighters. I don't like Hopkins at all but i give credit where it's due and even though he is overated he is a great fighter but i think Calzaghe at this age will wipe the floor with him. Even in Hopkins prime i think calzaghe would have narrowly beaten him but that my opinion regardless he's a great middleweight.