Bernard Hopkins is Overrated....

[TheGreatA]

journeymen?? lol so ur taking away credit because
he couldn't beat journeymen, wow this is a new one...
ok....he beat peter mcneely and frank bruno, golota, ruddock, stewart, tillman
all JOURNEYMEN

I was joking. Your reasoning sounds ridiculous to me and I'm sure to almost everyone else.

Just because Hopkins couldn't win against Taylor, Calzaghe and Roy Jones, who really have no similarities between them, doesn't mean he isn't a legend (as long as boxers like Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson are).

[Dirt E Gomez]

The whole argument of losing takes a big hit when you actually watch the fights you're so quick to discredit him over and look at the fact that all of those fights were extremely close (sans Jones, that was fairly clear despite not being a shutout or anything) and more than a few people scored it in favor of B-Hop.

[circleinsidebox]

Okay, based upon your reasons to why Hopkins is not a legend, i will give you the same reasons why Tyson, Lewis, Hollyfield and Pacquiao are not legends. This is based on what you said about Hopkins.

1) Tyson cannot fight guys that are technically superior than him hence why he lost to Lewis and Hollyfield. If he cant win against all different types of fighters he is not a legend.

2) Lewis was getting ****ed by the bigger stronger Vitali before the fight was stopped on cuts. He cant fight well against the bigger fighters. He is not a legend.

3) Hollyfield just lost to the slowest heavyweight ever in boxing history. He is not a legend.

4) Pacquiao fails against clever orthodox boxers. He was outclassed by Morrales and got a boxing lesson from Marquez. He cannot fight well against all fighters. He is not a legend.

You justified Hopkins not being a legend as he cant fight well against fast guys with reflexes. Ive used your own criteria to justify why these guys are not legends.

1. tyson wasn't THAT technically superior but he beat andrew golota and mitch green and larry holmes who were "TECHNICALLY SUPERIOR"
2. lewis beat klitschko....get over it, its been too many years , like my boy always says "look at the state of his face" LMAO
3. holyfield beat legends, great fighters good fighters and loss to many of them as well...LEGENDARY STATUS for mr holyfield
4. pacquiao beat Moralles 2-1 LOL and he beat marquez 2-0 (technically yes because only a judging card error gave him a draw)

please come harder and smarter next time

[circleinsidebox]

I was joking. Your reasoning sounds ridiculous to me and I'm sure to almost everyone else.

Just because Hopkins couldn't win against Taylor, Calzaghe and Roy Jones, who really have no similarities between them, doesn't mean he isn't a legend (as long as boxers like Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson are).

hopkins couldn't adapt as a legend would
against his toughest challenges

[Jim Jeffries]

I was joking. Your reasoning sounds ridiculous to me and I'm sure to almost everyone else.

Just because Hopkins couldn't win against Taylor, Calzaghe and Roy Jones, who really have no similarities between them, doesn't mean he isn't a legend (as long as boxers like Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson are).

Considering that Hopkins wasn't in his prime for any of those fights, and three of them were close enough to be controversial, I wouldn't hold them against him. In the same way that even if Holyfield fights till he's 80 and loses every one, he won't be any less great.

[circleinsidebox]

The whole argument of losing takes a big hit when you actually watch the fights you're so quick to discredit him over and look at the fact that all of those fights were extremely close (sans Jones, that was fairly clear despite not being a shutout or anything) and more than a few people scored it in favor of B-Hop.

im not discrediting him, im just saying he isn't a legend
because of his inability to perform as a legend

[nathan_nall]

That's your opinion, I don't care about your opinion. Hopkins is not overrated and he is a legend, period.

That's your opinion, I don't care about your opinion. Hopkins is overrated and he is not a legend, period.

[circleinsidebox]

Considering that Hopkins wasn't in his prime for any of those fights, and three of them were close enough to be controversial, I wouldn't hold them against him. In the same way that even if Holyfield fights till he's 80 and loses every one, he won't be any less great.

ok here we go with this prime ****...
let's not hold roy jones 4 recent losses against him because
he wasn't in his PRIME
forget all that...a L is an L
and roy is one of my favorites

[Dirt E Gomez]

im not discrediting him, im just saying he isn't a legend
because of his inability to perform as a legend

So, suppose his weakness is as you say... so Barely losing in all of the fights you mentioned to his 1 weakness makes him not a legend?

Do you realize how crazy this is? Who is a legend then? Only people who finished w/ 0's in the L column? Losing close decisions to good fighters doesn't make you not a legend. Legends have lost far worse decisions to far worse opponents then the ones on B-Hop's resume.

[TheGreatA]

hopkins couldn't adapt as a legend would
against his toughest challenges

Hopkins was the underdog against Trinidad, Pavlik and Tarver. Those were among his toughest challenges whether you admit it or not.