Bernard Hopkins is Overrated....

[Jim Jeffries]

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

Anyone that holds the Calzaghe loss against Roy should probably quit watching boxing, or at least talking about it.

[Roger Mellie]

bernard is a great fighter but he is no legend....

bernard style is made to capatilize on 1 dimensional opponents
that come forward and lack speed and/or great reflexes
ie:felix trinidad, kelly pavlik,oscar (speed but no reflexes) ,tarver, glen johnson

those are the big names he beat of kourse....and they all have that or those factores in common....

the fighters he will always lose to are fighters
with the complete opposite, speed and great reflexes
ie: roy jones jr, joe calzaghe, jermain taylor, chad dawson (thats why he won't fight him) etc

legends, can adapt to all styles and dismantle them one day or another...
im not asking him to beat everybody, but at least beat 1 GUY that is a
stylistical nightmare for you.... if bernard could have shown me
he was capable of beating a speedy, reflex savy guy, i would give him
tremendous respect.....

and for people rating bernard over roy as far as all time status goes, it kan go both ways
but i think we kan all agree
bernard is a great fundamentally skilled smart fighter (relying totally on thinking because his athletiscm was easily matched or exceeded)

roy is or was the athletically skilled smart fighter (relied ENTIRELY on athetiscm even tho he had the BRAINS to box, he couldn't change
what he did all his life)

id give roy a slight edge in all time great status
for the simple fact that he was great at beating those
he was supposed to and those who gave him trouble
(SOUTHPAWS)

I dont agree with you when you say he isnt a great fighter,however,respect for the reasons and I do agree about the type of fighter he will always come up short against.Its no secret that I dont have that much time for the guy,but as with all things boxing everybodys got their fighters who they champion,and In my opinion,much as I dont think much of him as a person,as a fighter I think he deserves the utmost respect,IS a great fighter and has never had a genuine whooping in his entire career

[nathan_nall]

I dont agree with you when you say he isnt a great fighter,however,respect for the reasons and I do agree about the type of fighter he will always come up short against.Its no secret that I dont have that much time for the guy,but as with all things boxing everybodys got their fighters who they champion,and In my opinion,much as I dont think much of him as a person,as a fighter I think he deserves the utmost respect,IS a great fighter and has never had a genuine whooping in his entire career

Great post... Hopkins is a master at what he does. However, being a master of your craft doesn't make you God's gift to the sport. Watching Hopkins fight is like watching Piccaso paint, Michelangelo sculpt, or Beethoven compose... You realize you are watching greatness in the making, but the process is JUST BORING!!!!!!!

[Ishy Aytan]

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 my 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

You see, i used your criteria to judge the above fighters... I can make the same list as you've just done about the fighters you consider legends. But i've realised that this thread is such a joke, and you are one of the most dumbest guys on the forum.

You justify these guys being legends, but dont justify Hopkins? Because Hopkins lost to Calzaghe and Roy... LMFAO

Now i can sit here for hours writing up a list of greats that Hopkins has fought, but i'd rather save my energy.

You are incredibly ****** and have just become even ******er for the above justifications to why your favourite fighters are legends and Hopkins is not.

[TheGreatA]

Legends:











Not a legend:

Ted Gimza 115-112 Calzaghe
Adalaide Byrd 114-113 Hopkins
Chuck Giampa 116-111 Calzaghe
Calzaghe down in the 1st.

Duane Ford 115-113 Taylor
Jerry Roth 116-112 Hopkins
Paul Smith 115-113 Taylor

[circleinsidebox]

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.

im not talkin about NUMBER of LOSSES
im talkin about his inability to overcome his greatest
challenge...ALWAYS, always losing to faster fighters with great reflexes
i could kare less about his number of losses
please comprehend what i am writing and think before you type

[circleinsidebox]

You see, i used your criteria to judge the above fighters... I can make the same list as you've just done about the fighters you consider legends. But i've realised that this thread is such a joke, and you are one of the most dumbest guys on the forum.

You justify these guys being legends, but dont justify Hopkins? Because Hopkins lost to Calzaghe and Roy... LMFAO

Now i can sit here for hours writing up a list of greats that Hopkins has fought, but i'd rather save my energy.

You are incredibly ****** and have just become even ******er for the above justifications to why your favourite fighters are legends and Hopkins is not.

hopkins would lose to any good or average fighter with exceptional speed
and reflexes

[Dirt E Gomez]

im not talkin about NUMBER of LOSSES
im talkin about his inability to overcome his greatest
challenge...ALWAYS, always losing to faster fighters with great reflexes
i could kare less about his number of losses
please comprehend what i am writing and think before you type

And your argument is flawed. I understand it completely, but it's foolish.

You're arguing that he can't overcome the people who are fast with great reflexes. So despite having close losses to these fighters, some of which people claim he won, he can't overcome it? Do you see what I'm typing here?

If they're his weakness, how does he still do fairly well against them. If those are his only losses, and he still almost wins, and that's his only weakness.... how is he not a legend? Every fighter has weaknesses and the overwhelming majority of fighters, with or without weaknesses end up w/ an L on their resume. It doesn't make some of them not legends.

You made an absurd and outlandish statement and you think you're right. You're simply wrong. Give it up.

[circleinsidebox]

You see, i used your criteria to judge the above fighters... I can make the same list as you've just done about the fighters you consider legends. But i've realised that this thread is such a joke, and you are one of the most dumbest guys on the forum.

You justify these guys being legends, but dont justify Hopkins? Because Hopkins lost to Calzaghe and Roy... LMFAO

Now i can sit here for hours writing up a list of greats that Hopkins has fought, but i'd rather save my energy.

You are incredibly ****** and have just become even ******er for the above justifications to why your favourite fighters are legends and Hopkins is not.

no joke, hopkins is great
just not a legend

[Ishy Aytan]

hopkins would lose to any good or average fighter with exceptional speed
and reflexes

I'm sure he would...

Go back to school.