Bernard Hopkins is Overrated....

[Dynamite Kid]

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)

Solid post, but how good do you expect a 40+ year olds reflexes to be ? it goes without saying he might struggle with fighters younger than him who still have their reflexes, but that does not mean he could not beat those fighters when his reflexes were sharp, because for my money he would beat Taylor,Calzaghe.

[TheGreatA]

lol i kno, many of them have left
and won't return
only because i began to hurt their
brains when they actually
started to think outside the box

I'm afraid people lost interest when you listed Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis as "legends" yet do not consider Hopkins as such.

[circleinsidebox]

Solid post, but how good do you expect a 40+ year olds reflexes to be ? it goes without saying he might struggle with fighters younger than him who still have their reflexes, but that does not mean he could not beat those fighters when his reflexes were sharp, because for my money he would beat Taylor,Calzaghe.

bernard at his best physically
couldnt handle roy jones at his best physically

[circleinsidebox]

I'm afraid people lost interest when you listed Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis as "legends" yet do not consider Hopkins as such.

tyson and lewis were able to adapt
to fighters that were stylistic matchups and win AT TIMES

hopkins couldn't....simple as that....he ALWAYS lost
to his kryptonite

lewis and tyson had wins and losses against their
stylistic nightmares

[circleinsidebox]

I'm afraid people lost interest when you listed Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis as "legends" yet do not consider Hopkins as such.

also, are you a "PRIME" "GREEN" guy...
you know someone that uses those terms
to make cases about fighters
in relation to their wins/losses/career status
please let me know
so i can adequately and effectively respond you and your posts
thanks

[winac]

In response to thread starter

You said you only deal in Ws and Ls, not taking in to account whether a fighter was in their prime or any other circumstances.

So going on your logic:

you said Roy adjusted to southpaws and that makes him a legend but bernard didn't adjust to speed/reflex fighters so therefore he is only great.

Well if I remember correctly Roy got knocked and beaten by Tarver ( A southpaw) and as you only count wins and losses, how is it that you claim roy adapted to Southpaws.

Also a you say a loss is a loss in repsonse to the Calzaghe and Taylor fights, then do yu count Roy Jones losing to Montell Griffin

Thanks

[juancho]

There's no possibly about it.

lol idk why thats hilarious to me, Hopkins is bad ass

[Steak]

hes slightly overrated as of right now, but can you blame people? look at what hes accomplished at his age.

the thing is that while Hopkins was obviously better in his prime, he wasnt drastically better. I see him beating Calzaghe and Taylor in his prime, but he still would have trouble with them at times, and probebly wouldnt have knocked either of them out. eh well maybe Taylor, but only if they had a rematch, because Hopkins was always very good at rematches.

Ill agree that Hopkins is at his best against slower fighters and less technical fighters and has a little trouble with quick/skilled ones, but every fighter has their strengths and weaknesses. there are very few fighters that Bernard would lose to in his prime that fought around his weight.

at the end of the day, Hopkins is still easily a top 5 middleweight of all time(I probebly have him #3), and probebly the best or 2nd best 'old' fighter ever. those are some standout credentials right there, if you ask me.

[KingTito]

Bernard deserves all the respect in the world. He's an all time great.

[TheGreatA]

tyson and lewis were able to adapt
to fighters that were stylistic matchups and win AT TIMES

hopkins couldn't....simple as that....he ALWAYS lost
to his kryptonite

lewis and tyson had wins and losses against their
stylistic nightmares

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Lewis didn't really have problems against anybody stylistically. He still managed to lose to two average fighters (by decisive KO) because he didn't have the dedication of Bernard Hopkins.

Many whom knew Mike personally said that if he hit an opponent with his best shots and couldn't drop him, Tyson would fold. That's what happened to him a lot of the times he lost.

He was never able to get up from the canvas and come back to win, which in Tyson's OWN opinion shows true greatness. Tall fighters with jabs weren't Tyson's problem, not being able to overcome adversity was Tyson's problem.


0:40

also, are you a "PRIME" "GREEN" guy...
you know someone that uses those terms
to make cases about fighters
in relation to their wins/losses/career status
please let me know
so i can adequately and effectively respond you and your posts
thanks

I don't like using these terms, but sometimes it is just so obvious that a boxer is not nearly as good as he was at his best, that there should be no question about it.

No one will bring up Ali's loss to Trevor Berbick or Leonard's loss to Hector Camacho.

Anyone who watches Hopkins' fights from 1997-2004 and compares it to the Philadelphia style pressure fighter that Hopkins was in 1993 will see a clear difference.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXAUA3eYyPw