Explain to me what's so great about Hopkins's middleweight resume...

[TommyGunn.]

true, but if Calzaghe retires after he fights Jones(which I doubt), I would still consider Hopkins' wins at L Heavy as better than Calzaghes. Mostly because he jumped up two weight classes to beat a real L Heavyweight, while Calzaghe beat a 2 years older version of a semi-blown up Middleweight. also you have to take into consideration that Hopkins beat up Tarver pretty one sidedly while Calzaghe...well, he had a tougher fight with Hopkins.

I know its kind of loopy, but oh well.

It all matters on who Calzaghe decides to fight.
Yes, he would. duh. but fighters at higher weight classes are meant to beat fighters at lower weight classes. thats why theyre there.
Calzaghe and Hopkins did not fight at the same weight, so that has to be taken into consideration

Hopkins wins at 175 have came against B level Tarver and yet another guy 3 weights above his natural of 154.

Beating Roy and Hopkins would mean more than beating Tarver and Winky.

[Steak]

Hopkins wins at 175 have came against B level Tarver and yet another guy 3 weights above his natural of 154.

Beating Roy and Hopkins would mean more than beating Tarver and Winky.

I dont even count Hopkins' win over Winky, cause I dont even think he won that fight.

Hopkins' win over Tarver is better than a 2 years older Hopkins and Jones imo. consdiering how one sided it was. Calzaghe fans can swear that his fight with Hopkins was one sided, but the fact of the matter is that it was a close fight that could have gone either way. Enzo Calzaghe said so himself. plus that was Hopkins moving up two weight classes to fight a natural L Heavy, while Calzaghe went up one class to fight a former Middleweight. that has to slightly be taken into consideration

Roy has been done. so that win would mean little to nothing unless Calzaghe took care of business almost unnaturally well.

overall Calzaghe's wins at Super Middle are slightly better than Hopkins' wins at Middleweight. but neither are amazing.

I had Hop winning on first view... close fight IMO.

[Sir_Joe]

I think Hopkins beat Winky and Jermain Taylor once.

[VIVA MEXICO!!]

ya i dont get why these cowards try to say hopkins is a great fighter with all these crappy wins and then hate on someone like margarito. americans are very biased and they talk **** about what they fear. but i have to say calzage probably fought the same type of fighters as hopkins.

[oldgringo]

A previous post I made regarding Hops record:

No.

Bernard should not be embarrassed that some of his best wins are over smaller fighters. There are several reasons for this. The first reason being the smaller fighters he beat are deserving of a spot in the Hall of Fame.

Felix Trinidad was a dangerous opponent and a legitimate threat to all at Middleweight. He proved this by absolutely destroying William Joppy and winning the WBA strap. Trying to devalue that win by saying Trinidad was smaller shows a lack of understanding of the time and circumstances surrounding the fight. Trinidad was a big Welterweight who actually looked more imposing as a Jr. Middleweight. Middleweight wasn't far off his best weight at all.

Oscar De La Hoya looked significantly worse as a middleweight than did Trinidad, but he still managed to get the nod against the current WBA champion in Sturm. Regardless of what you think about the decision, Oscar showed he could compete on that level and was very successful as a Jr. Middleweight before that.

Winky Wright fought as a Jr. Middleweight most of his career, but he showed that he was clearly capable of handling himself at higher weights. He had moderate success as a Middleweight before jumping up to a higher catch weight to fight Hopkins. We know Wright is one of the best Jr. Middleweight champions who has ever competed. Many picked him to beat Hopkins based on his work rate and defense, thus he was a legitimate threat to Hopkins. Bernard proved that wrong.

Again the point is that all of these smaller men were GREAT smaller fighters. If Hopkins best wins were against Simon Brown, John David Jackson and Carl Daniels, you'd have a point. This is not the case though.

The second thing I wanted to point out is history. Look at the history of great Middleweight champions and their best wins. Lets say Marvin Hagler, Carlos Monzon and, oh, Nino Benvenuti.

Hagler's best wins (by your standards):

* Thomas Hearns (smaller)
* Roberto Duran (smaller)


Monzon's best wins:

* Emile Griffith (smaller)
* Jose Napoles (smaller)


Benvenuti's best wins:

* Emile Griffith (smaller)
* Luis Rodriguez (smaller)


Get the point? Should all of these proud, well regarded Hall of Fame enshrined champions be embarrassed?

Why don't we focus on some of Bernard's wins that came against good opponents his size? Certainly he beat some good fighters who were his size OR bigger right? How about two staples of the Light Heavyweight division in Glen Johnson and Antonio Tarver. He didn't just beat them, he dominated them. What's the point of trying to slight his biggest wins, only focusing on half of the story? Why don't we just pay no mind to Hagler's wins over Obelmeijas, Antuofermo and Alan Minter. Monzon's wins over Briscoe and Rodrigo Valdez. etc etc

Hopkins was a great champion with a great career and he deserves respect. The man is 4000 years old and still manages to make great fighters like Joe Calzaghe and young talents like Jermain Taylor look entirely pedestrian. He has had some great wins and some low moments, like any other champion throughout history. He has absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about, unless you consider the faux-sodomy Joe C delivered when Nard was bent over.

I don't believe that Bernard has the greatest record, but it's certainly good enough to warrant the praise he typically gets as being one of the very best fighters of the last 20 years.

Looking at his record at face value, the guy fought Jones, Wright, Trinidad, De La Hoya, Johnson, Calzaghe, Taylor and Tarver. Most of this coming at an advanced age. Good list of opponents there win/lose/draw. He ruled a weaker division by no fault of his own. He couldn't control how good the fighters were, the only thing he could have done was move up in weight.

He beat some faded fighters who were good competitors at 147/154 in Daniels, Brown and Jackson. Holmes, Joppy, Eastman and Echols were fair wins over natural Middleweights. Those guys were competent fighters...in and out of the top 5-10 for a period of time. The impressive part isn't that he beat these guys, it's how he beat them. None of the fights during his middleweights reign were close. He handled business and either shut his opponents out, or knocked them out. The way he destroyed former top amateur and undefeated pro Joe Lipsey was fairly impressive to me. Same with the way he fought with an injured shoulder against Echols, ultimately knocking him out in a bizarre fight.

I can't think of a way to wrap up what I'm saying and I have to go, so make whatever you'd like of this rant.

I can never get why people flip in his losses... though admittedly he did have close bouts in all of them.

[boxasmash]

bump.......