Bernard Hopkins is Overrated....

[circleinsidebox]

Hopkins lost to Jones when he was young and clearly not the boxer he later became, the losses to Taylor and Calzaghe were past 40+ years old and those decisions could've gone either way really.

and yet he was 44 and he a beat a "PRIME" kelly pavlik according
to a poster in this thread
i could argue pavlik was GREEN but i dont get into that
foolish terminology, when you look at the history
books, you will see just the name...not the word
PRIME OR GREEN next to a fighter...relative terms
that should be banned in boxing....i wonder if any fighter
has ever admitted he is in his PRIME

[hammerhiem]

ok so, roy beat him
so i guess roy is ranked higher to you?
correct?

BHop has a better resume, never got beaten badly, is a genuine 2 weight world champion and undisputed at MW.

RJJ has better accomplishments, but has been shot for 5 years and as hurt his legacy by fighting for too long in some peoples eyes.

I would put them both 40-50 All time P4P, time will tell who is seen as greater.

At this moment i would say BHop is the better All time.

[ИATAS]

lmao @ this thread.


DEFINE LEGEND. What does legend mean to you?

And if your theory is correct, hopkins has problems with fast fighters and wasn't able to overcome that, that means it revokes his legendary status? So you're telling me that out of all the legends history has produced, there isn't a single one that struggled against certain types of fighters? haha

And I like how you avoided my comments about Hopkins losing to Joe at the age of 43 and fatigue have a strong role in his split decision loss. Answer me: would a prime hopkins have won, or even a couple year younger version of hopkins?

[IMDAZED]

that's all i needed to see

i think most of the people who rate Hops higher started watching boxng in the 21st century. STILL, Hops is by no means overrated...or else Jones is as well.

[circleinsidebox]

hopkins is undefeated in his prime

prime is a relative term..it holds ZERO weight
im sure if u ask any fighter they won't be
able to tell you when their PRIME was
if so, they would lie, like b hop
would most likely lie and blame a loss to
to roy as him not being in his PRIME

[circleinsidebox]

hopkins resume>jones resume..sorry but its true

roy beat bernard
so i guess
roy>bernard
sorry but its true

this isnt the point of my thread
but im just exposing your nu****** logic

[ИATAS]

[B]and yet he was 44 and he a beat a "PRIME" kelly pavlik according
to a poster in this thread
i could argue pavlik was GREEN but i dont get into that

If you want to mention pavlik being GREEN then you need to recheck hopkins/jones fight and label hopkins GREEN since it was before he reached his prime.

[hammerhiem]

roy beat bernard
so i guess
roy>bernard
sorry but its true

this isnt the point of my thread
but im just exposing your nu****** logic

Lets just be clear Calzaghe's resume isn't better than Hopkins or RJJ just because he beat them

OK?

[circleinsidebox]

BHop has a better resume, never got beaten badly, is a genuine 2 weight world champion and undisputed at MW.

RJJ has better accomplishments, but has been shot for 5 years and as hurt his legacy by fighting for too long in some peoples eyes.

I would put them both 40-50 All time P4P, time will tell who is seen as greater.

At this moment i would say BHop is the better All time.

ok let me be ignorant like some other people in this thread
all of roy's losses came AFTER HIS PRIME LMAO

[TheGreatA]

and yet he was 44 and he a beat a "PRIME" kelly pavlik according
to a poster in this thread
i could argue pavlik was GREEN but i dont get into that
foolish terminology, when you look at the history
books, you will see just the name...not the word
PRIME OR GREEN next to a fighter...relative terms
that should be banned in boxing....i wonder if any fighter
has ever admitted he is in his PRIME

I guess Glen Johnson, Antonio Tarver and Joe Calzaghe all should get full credit for defeating the great Roy Jones then. Not only did they beat him but they dominated him.