Bernard Hopkins Media Interview Transcript

[FRKO]

He's half way off Zab Judah.

Check the sig.

[edgarg]

You're a hater, ever heard what Johnson said about the fight?? That's the only time in his career somebody completely shut him down, he felt helpless. Loser. By the way, what about Joe Lipsey, and the fact he was an undefeated fighter with a lot of hype and in one of the most brutal ko's ever Hopkins retired him. Calzaghe is not even close to being in the same league as Hopkins, I see Joe getting destroyed a la Trinidad.

MY DEAR SIR (or Madam) You deeply wrong me- I'm not a hater, not even of my former wife, just critical of all the boxing PR bumph which "cons" folks out of their hard earned cash just so that multi-millionaires can buy 30 room houses to match the 20 roomers they already have. If I want to watch or listen to clowns, I go to a circus.

By the way, nice mug shot there.

[edgarg]

That was the transcriber's error. He also spelled Joe Louis "Joe Lewis"

Thank you Warp. Actually, i thought of that...but AFTER I'd written the post, and it looked to good to spoil it with a little fact like that. I know what it's like to try to get out a report based on hazy language. There were other transcription bloopers too, but I was afraid to touch them. here are guys on this page who'd KILL me. One of them calls himself Dillinger.

I can excuse myself by saying that I was still dazed at the meaningless verbosity of the Superguy.

[warp1432]

Well even then, Glen Johnson is still a helluva win. I mean you could argue he faced sub par competition, but everyone does when they are coming up and some of them had winning records.

He fought above 160, but he also fought a 20-0 person weighing 155. So it's obvious he fit in. That's a huge stretch to critize that. Especially what Johnson has accomplished and Bhop is his only dominating loss.

It's either too small, too big, or overrated huh? I mean I've gone over countless times that Trinidad wasn't too small, Tarver wasn't overrated or was weight drained, or all the other **** you guys say.

Though it's your opinion and I know you guys aren't gonna change, but to say Hopkins resume sucks is so so wrong. Or that guy that said Brewer would beat Hopkins. I mean seriously? Brewer lost to Holmes and Echols, two guys Hopkins both destroyed. I'm not saying it's a bad win (it's a good win), but let's be real here.

Both Calzaghe and Hopkins have underrated resumes because they both beat a lot of top contenders that were good, but didn't seem like it after because Calzaghe and Hopkins dominated them. Truth is people like Holmes, Echols, Eastman, Joppy, etc and Brewer, Veit, Shieka, Mitchell, etc. seem sub par, but they were both very good.

[denboy]

That's interesting he read Calzaghe's autobiography.

[edgarg]

Well even then, Glen Johnson is still a helluva win. I mean you could argue he faced sub par competition, but everyone does when they are coming up and some of them had winning records.

He fought above 160, but he also fought a 20-0 person weighing 155. So it's obvious he fit in. That's a huge stretch to critize that. Especially what Johnson has accomplished and Bhop is his only dominating loss.

It's either too small, too big, or overrated huh? I mean I've gone over countless times that Trinidad wasn't too small, Tarver wasn't overrated or was weight drained, or all the other **** you guys say.

Though it's your opinion and I know you guys aren't gonna change, but to say Hopkins resume sucks is so so wrong. Or that guy that said Brewer would beat Hopkins. I mean seriously? Brewer lost to Holmes and Echols, two guys Hopkins both destroyed. I'm not saying it's a bad win (it's a good win), but let's be real here.

Both Calzaghe and Hopkins have underrated resumes because they both beat a lot of top contenders that were good, but didn't seem like it after because Calzaghe and Hopkins dominated them. Truth is people like Holmes, Echols, Eastman, Joppy, etc and Brewer, Veit, Shieka, Mitchell, etc. seem sub par, but they were both very good.

I think some of your comments are meant for me. If I'm wrong, I apologise. I think the 20-0 fighter you mention is Sam Garr. I've heard he was a full time postman, or store assistant, and part time welterweight. I've seen him. His record was far worse than Johnson's. His 20 opponents totalled 51 wins and 160 losses. 13 of them had no wins, mostly no fights, and 2 had 1 win. Glen was by far his best opponent until retirement. The New York Times report said that Johnson was a last minute replacement, regarded as no good, who would build up Garr's record. Well, they got a surprise.

Holmes was a good fighter. Charlie Brewer had a lovely style and heavy punch, but lost to every top fighter he faced, often by KO. The only top fighter he actually beat, was Herol Graham, when Graham was well on the downslide, at age 40, his last fight.

So to my mind, none of the above changes my original opinion. You of course are entitled to yours.

When Johnson beat Jones and Tarver, he was at his best, far better than against Hopkins. Results often tell only a small part of the whole story.

I like to look a little further.

[warp1432]

As do I, but for someone to completely ridicule the Johnson win is absurd. He was green with 32 fights? The last minute replacement thing was never confirmed and if it was Johnson should have asked for a rematch.

Honestly, you aren't going to have on your resume 15-0 guys each time, but to be undefeated when coming up you would have to be a bum, so no way could those guys be any good.

He might have been better then Tarver and Jones, but he was still damn good when losing to Hopkins. Tarver and past it Jones weren't in a prime Bernard's league anyhow.

You said Results often only tell a small part of the whole story. That's true, but the major factor is how Fighter A fights Fighter B and wins. Bernard Hopkins beat the living **** out of Glen Johnson and the Johnson that lost was still very good.

Off topic: Do you consider Mario Veit a good win for Calzaghe?

[RichCCFC]

Check the sig.

[edgarg]

As do I, but for someone to completely ridicule the Johnson win is absurd. He was green with 32 fights? The last minute replacement thing was never confirmed and if it was Johnson should have asked for a rematch.

Honestly, you aren't going to have on your resume 15-0 guys each time, but to be undefeated when coming up you would have to be a bum, so no way could those guys be any good.

He might have been better then Tarver and Jones, but he was still damn good when losing to Hopkins. Tarver and past it Jones weren't in a prime Bernard's league anyhow.

You said Results often only tell a small part of the whole story. That's true, but the major factor is how Fighter A fights Fighter B and wins. Bernard Hopkins beat the living **** out of Glen Johnson and the Johnson that lost was still very good.

Off topic: Do you consider Mario Veit a good win for Calzaghe?

I agree with much of what you say, and your assessments are usually fair. But in this case there's more to it. For confirmation; The New York Times confirmed that, according to State Officials, GLEN was a "last minute replacement", and was thought to be a poor opponent. That Garr was a local part time welterweight looking to boost up his record.

In this aspect, it's interesting to note that Garr's next 8 opponents, lading up to a welterweight title shot against James Page, totalled 75 wins against 171 losses, and his fight just BEFORE Page, was against a guy with a 52 record. So it's obvious ALL THE WAY, that Garr was a record boosting "stiff' fighting other worse stiffs, and it meant nothing for Glen to beat him, even weight drained as he must have been.

It's also interesting, but probably not relevant, that Glen fought Hopkins 5 weeks after another fight. That he lost every round, whilst showing Hopkins superiority and exposure to far better opposition, it also shows Johnson's
exposure to mediocre opponents. Glen only got into good shape and best form very late in life, as we all know.

I think that the classic record "builder-upper" of ALL TIME was a guy called LaMar Clark, a small heavyweight, maybe 5'9" or 5'10". When the boxing magazines discovered him they thought he was going to be the next Rocky Marciano (not that HE was much good in my opinion). He had a long string of first rd KO's, about 44-5. I read everything I could find on him. All of those
"fights" were with guys he must have met in a bar, or on the streetcorner. Only 2-3 of them had any wins. The rest, more than 40 of them, had NO wins and mostly no fights at ALL. I could look it up, but my memory is pretty clear with this one. I still have the magazine articles about him somewhere too.

Anyway, he eventually met his doom, and after suffering 2 or 3 KOs was deemed ready to face the young Cassius Clay. I remember the fight well. Clark was swinging wildly, and Clay was pop-popping him. He KO'd him in a couple of rounds. I don't know what it took him so long. But no doubt- LaMar Clark was the KING of record boosters.

[edgarg]

I agree with much of what you say, and your assessments are usually fair. But in this case there's more to it. For confirmation; The New York Times confirmed that, according to State Officials, GLEN was a "last minute replacement", and was thought to be a poor opponent. That Garr was a local part time welterweight looking to boost up his record.

In this aspect, it's interesting to note that Garr's next 8 opponents, lading up to a welterweight title shot against James Page, totalled 75 wins against 171 losses, and his fight just BEFORE Page, was against a guy with a 52 record. So it's obvious ALL THE WAY, that Garr was a record boosting "stiff' fighting other worse stiffs, and it meant nothing for Glen to beat him, even weight drained as he must have been.

It's also interesting, but probably not relevant, that Glen fought Hopkins 5 weeks after another fight. That he lost every round, whilst showing Hopkins superiority and exposure to far better opposition, it also shows Johnson's
exposure to mediocre opponents. Glen only got into good shape and best form very late in life, as we all know.

I think that the classic record "builder-upper" of ALL TIME was a guy called LaMar Clark, a small heavyweight, maybe 5'9" or 5'10". When the boxing magazines discovered him they thought he was going to be the next Rocky Marciano (not that HE was much good in my opinion). He had a long string of first rd KO's, about 44-5. I read everything I could find on him. All of those
"fights" were with guys he must have met in a bar, or on the streetcorner. Only 2-3 of them had any wins. The rest, more than 40 of them, had NO wins and mostly no fights at ALL. I could look it up, but my memory is pretty clear with this one. I still have the magazine articles about him somewhere too.

Anyway, he eventually met his doom, and after suffering 2 or 3 KOs was deemed ready to face the young Cassius Clay. I remember the fight well. Clark was swinging wildly, and Clay was pop-popping him. He KO'd him in a couple of rounds. I don't know what it took him so long. But no doubt- LaMar Clark was the KING of record boosters.

Sorry for the typo. The fight that Garr had just BEFORE the title fight against James Page was against a guy with a 6-52 record.