Bernard got his get back!!!!!!

[Dave Rado]

Hopkins isn't "cherry picking" anything by fighting Adamek. Adamek is a naturally bigger, stronger, younger guy, and the reigning Champion in a division Hopkins has never once set foot in. Sure, Hopkins is clearly more skilled.

But at 44 years of age, I think that's pretty damn impressive.

I'd love for Bernard to whip "Bad" Chad's ass, because I know he would. Dawson may be looked upon as the man at 175, but I don't see how. He got his ass spanked by a guy Bernard TKO'd 10 years ago - while he was in his prime - in Glenn Johnson.

Most people had Dawson losing that fight, and until 'Bad" Chad gives Glenn the rematch he so rightfully deserves, I don't think he's entitled to **** at 175.

And you wanna talk about cherry picking? WTF about Dawson rematching Tarver? Didn't he clearly kick his ass enough the first time out? Why fight B-Hop's leftovers for a second time, instead of rematching the guy most people want to see you fight in Johnson?

And I'm pretty sure winning the Cruiserweight title from the man at Cruiserweight at 44 years of age does indeed add to Hopkins' legacy.

It's certainly as good as Roy cherry picking John Ruiz (the weakest title holder at Heavyweight).....and we all know how much praise Roy got for that.

And I'm not even going to get into your other "arguments" about Calzaghe not being an ATG (he clearly is, though somewhere around 75, based on lack of stiff competition), Wright was blown up, but your excuse making for Tarver is almost as bad as Antonio's himself. Why didn't you just claim he was poisoned while you were at it?

You seem to me to be a little bit biased. I'm just trying to have an intelligent, fact-based discussion about boxing, not to do anyone down or score points off people.

Whether you agree with them or not, the fact is that most people (including most Hopkins fans) believe that Hopkins would have far more trouble with Dawson than he would with Adamek, especially as Dawson beat Adamek very easily, and especially because Hopkins is known to have trouble with very fast fighters nowadays. Just look in any of the Hopkins-Adamek threads on boxingscene if you don't believe me.

Yes, beating Adamek will be impressive at his age, I'm not pretending otherwise; but the fact remains that most people expect him to win against Adamek, whereas he'd be the underdog if he fought Dawson.

Some boxing experts thought Dawson lost narrowly against Johnson, others thought he won narrowly; but no report I read thought "he got his ass spanked", as you put it - they all said it was close; and no close fight can ever be called a robbery.

What happened to Johnson 10 years ago isn't relevant, because he has lost a lot of fights in the past to inferior fighters, such as Omar Sheika (who was KO'd in 5 rounds in his next fight by Calzaghe). Johnson is one of the most inconsistent boxers alive; but he fought one of the best fights of his career against Dawson, despite his age.

The Ring rates Dawson as the #2 contender at Light Heavy, and rates Hopkins as the #1 contender - and so does boxrec; so it would be normal and in the interests of boxing and of the division for the top two contenders to get it on.

I agree that Dawson should rematch Johnson at some point, but as you must be well aware, the Tarver rematch was a mandatory. Having just been stripped of one title because he refused to fight a meaningless mandatory, it's hardly surprising that he doesn't want to immediately be stripped of another title.

I'm a Calazghe fan but I'm surprised you class him as an ATG. He was a great fighter, and will be a shoo in for the Hall of Fame, but if ATG means top 100 or so of all time, which is the usual definition I've seen, then in world terms he's not an ATG. He certainly is an ATG in British terms though, in the top 5 or so of all time. Other than a minority of die hard Calzaghe fans, I've never seen anyone call him an ATG in world terms before. You're entitled to your opinion, but you should at least acknowledge that it's a minority opinion.

Excuse making for Tarver? Are you denying that he ballooned in weight for a film just before the fight? Are you denying that he looked lack lustre? Are you denying that he has looked mediocre in every subsequent fight he's had? Those aren't excuses, they're just facts. the poison thing was just a silly conspiracy theory, there was no factual evidence for it at all, so to compare the two things is silly.

[PACBOY]

You seem to me to be a little bit biased. I'm just trying to have an intelligent, fact-based discussion about boxing, not to do anyone down or score points off people.

Whether you agree with them or not, the fact is that most people (including most Hopkins fans) believe that Hopkins would have far more trouble with Dawson than he would with Adamek, especially as Dawson beat Adamek very easily, and especially because Hopkins is known to have trouble with very fast fighters nowadays. Just look in any of the Hopkins-Adamek threads on boxingscene if you don't believe me.

Yes, beating Adamek will be impressive at his age, I'm not pretending otherwise; but the fact remains that most people expect him to win against Adamek, whereas he'd be the underdog if he fought Dawson.

Some boxing experts thought Dawson lost narrowly against Johnson, others thought he won narrowly; but no report I read thought "he got his ass spanked", as you put it - they all said it was close; and no close fight can ever be called a robbery.

What happened to Johnson 10 years ago isn't relevant, because he has lost a lot of fights in the past to inferior fighters, such as Omar Sheika (who was KO'd in 5 rounds in his next fight by Calzaghe). Johnson is one of the most inconsistent boxers alive; but he fought one of the best fights of his career against Dawson, despite his age.

The Ring rates Dawson as the #2 contender at Light Heavy, and rates Hopkins as the #1 contender - and so does boxrec; so it would be normal and in the interests of boxing and of the division for the top two contenders to get it on.

I agree that Dawson should rematch Johnson at some point, but as you must be well aware, the Tarver rematch was a mandatory. Having just been stripped of one title because he refused to fight a meaningless mandatory, it's hardly surprising that he doesn't want to immediately be stripped of another title.

I'm a Calazghe fan but I'm surprised you class him as an ATG. He was a great fighter, and will be a shoo in for the Hall of Fame, but if ATG means top 100 or so of all time, which is the usual definition I've seen, then in world terms he's not an ATG. He certainly is an ATG in British terms though, in the top 5 or so of all time. Other than a minority of die hard Calzaghe fans, I've never seen anyone call him an ATG in world terms before. You're entitled to your opinion, but you should at least acknowledge that it's a minority opinion.

Excuse making for Tarver? Are you denying that he ballooned in weight for a film just before the fight? Are you denying that he looked lack lustre? Are you denying that he has looked mediocre in every subsequent fight he's had? Those aren't excuses, they're just facts. the poison thing was just a silly conspiracy theory, there was no factual evidence for it at all, so to compare the two things is silly.

You want to see BHOP To fight Dawson??

[Dave Rado]

I'm just curious as to how being a 3 division Champion isn't an enhancement to being a 2 divison Champion?

Unless of course you think beating World Champions, and having multiple titles in multiple divisions doesn't enhance ATG status.

If that's the case, we better take Floyd, Roy, and others like them off the lists.

I don't think it's the number of belts Mayweather has held that has made him a likely ATG. Hagler stayed in one division all his life, so did Ali. ATG status is based on lots of things, not on one single factor; and in this case, where Hopkins can still make the weight at Light Heavy easily, and is choosing to fight someone at a higher weight who most people believe he can beat, in preference to someone at his own weight who most people think he would probably lose to, I don't think it would enhance his ATG status. It wouldn't diminish it either, and it would still be a very laudable achievement; and as I said before, at his age, he has every right to fight whoever he likes, he doesn't owe anyone anything.

[Spiegelo]

You seem to me to be a little bit biased. I'm just trying to have an intelligent, fact-based discussion about boxing, not to do anyone down or score points off people.

Whether you agree with them or not, the fact is that most people (including most Hopkins fans) believe that Hopkins would have far more trouble with Dawson than he would with Adamek, especially as Dawson beat Adamek very easily, and especially because Hopkins is known to have trouble with very fast fighters nowadays. Just look in any of the Hopkins-Adamek threads on boxingscene if you don't believe me.

Yes, beating Adamek will be impressive at his age, I'm not pretending otherwise; but the fact remains that most people expect him to win against Adamek, whereas he'd be the underdog if he fought Dawson.

Some boxing experts thought Dawson lost narrowly against Johnson, others thought he won narrowly; but no report I read thought "he got his ass spanked", as you put it - they all said it was close; and no close fight can ever be called a robbery.

What happened to Johnson 10 years ago isn't relevant, because he has lost a lot of fights in the past to inferior fighters, such as Omar Sheika (who was KO'd in 5 rounds in his next fight by Calzaghe). Johnson is one of the most inconsistent boxers alive; but he fought one of the best fights of his career against Dawson, despite his age.

The Ring rates Dawson as the #2 contender at Light Heavy, and rates Hopkins as the #1 contender - and so does boxrec; so it would be normal and in the interests of boxing and of the division for the top two contenders to get it on.

I agree that Dawson should rematch Johnson at some point, but as you must be well aware, the Tarver rematch was a mandatory. Having just been stripped of one title because he refused to fight a meaningless mandatory, it's hardly surprising that he doesn't want to immediately be stripped of another title.

I'm a Calazghe fan but I'm surprised you class him as an ATG. He was a great fighter, and will be a shoo in for the Hall of Fame, but if ATG means top 100 or so of all time, which is the usual definition I've seen, then in world terms he's not an ATG. He certainly is an ATG in British terms though, in the top 5 or so of all time. Other than a minority of die hard Calzaghe fans, I've never seen anyone call him an ATG in world terms before. You're entitled to your opinion, but you should at least acknowledge that it's a minority opinion.

Excuse making for Tarver? Are you denying that he ballooned in weight for a film just before the fight? Are you denying that he looked lack lustre? Are you denying that he has looked mediocre in every subsequent fight he's had? Those aren't excuses, they're just facts. the poison thing was just a silly conspiracy theory, there was no factual evidence for it at all, so to compare the two things is silly.

Rewatch his last 2 fights against Jones. There is no difference in that Tarver as oppose to the Tarver that fought BHop. It seems like nobody else noticed how far he fell off after the first Jones fight. He lost his speed. Probably lost his motivation, not surprising for a guy that is 40 yrs old and has just over 30 fights. Weight loss isn't something that always kills a fighter. It killed Roy because he lost pure muscle in a time where he was slowing down already. Tarver looked flabby in Rocky, and hired a very good strength and conditioning coach to lose 30 lbs of fat. BHop would have killed Tarver at any point in his career, just like he can kill Glen Johnson at any point in his career. Also, it is my opinion that although the Dawson-Johnson fight was close, Dawson got the deserved decision and if he fought Johnson again it would be a boring tactical fight that Dawson would dominate.

[Dave Rado]

You want to see BHOP To fight Dawson??

I'd love to - wouldn't you? I don't think he owes me anything though, and I don't begrudge him fighting Adamek instead if that's what he wants to do.

[Spiegelo]

I don't think it's the number of belts Mayweather has held that has made him a likely ATG. Hagler stayed in one division all his life, so did Ali. ATG status is based on lots of things, not on one single factor; and in this case, where Hopkins can still make the weight at Light Heavy easily, and is choosing to fight someone at a higher weight who most people believe he can beat, in preference to someone at his own weight who most people think he would probably lose to, I don't think it would enhance his ATG status. It wouldn't diminish it either, and it would still be a very laudable achievement; and as I said before, at his age, he has every right to fight whoever he likes, he doesn't owe anyone anything.

While I agree that the Dawson fight would be more significant, Hopkins would probably receive more praise in fighting Adamek. And I still can't justify calling it cherry picking. Adamek was weight drained against Dawson and was very inactive, and he also nearly finished him with a single punch, and didn't have the energy to follow up with anything. He's a whole different animal at cruiserweight, and to move up to his 3rd division at 44 to take on the #1 cruiserweight in the world for the strap, would most definitely enhance his ATG status even further. If Hopkins can beat Dawson, there will be a lot of holding and pot-shotting involved. Believe me, as a fan you will prefer watching him fight Adamek.

[ßringer]

You seem to me to be a little bit biased. I'm just trying to have an intelligent, fact-based discussion about boxing, not to do anyone down or score points off people.

Whether you agree with them or not, the fact is that most people (including most Hopkins fans) believe that Hopkins would have far more trouble with Dawson than he would with Adamek, especially as Dawson beat Adamek very easily, and especially because Hopkins is known to have trouble with very fast fighters nowadays. Just look in any of the Hopkins-Adamek threads on boxingscene if you don't believe me.

I never said Adamek was the tougher fight for Hopkins. Obviously, Dawson would be. But I still don't see Chad pulling out the W against a veteran as slick and crafty as Bernard. I think a fight between them would actually leave more questions, than answers. Even if Chad got the victory, it would likely be by a narrow lead (there's no way Hopkins is getting shutout on the cards against anybody), which would lead people to question him even more than they already do.

Yes, beating Adamek will be impressive at his age, I'm not pretending otherwise; but the fact remains that most people expect him to win against Adamek, whereas he'd be the underdog if he fought Dawson.

Some boxing experts thought Dawson lost narrowly against Johnson, others thought he won narrowly; but no report I read thought "he got his ass spanked", as you put it - they all said it was close; and no close fight can ever be called a robbery.

It was a close fight, I won't deny that. But there were moments in that fight where Chad Dawson looked like a scared little boy in there when he came out of his corner to answer the bell for the next round. The mental impression Chad left with boxing fans that night certainly wasn't a positive one. Especially after he flat out refused to rematch Johnson.

What happened to Johnson 10 years ago isn't relevant, because he has lost a lot of fight in the past to inferior fighters, such as Omar Sheika (who was KO's in 5 in his next fight by Calzaghe). Johnson is one of the most inconsistent boxers alive; but he fought one of the best fights of his career against Dawson, despite his age.

I can't comment on the Sheika fight, because I haven't seen it. But you do realize that a good amount of Johnson's losses came from flat out robberies and hometown decisions, right?

Johnson is the second most ripped off fighter in the sport today. (With Augustus being the obvious #1 pick.)

I'm a Calazghe fan but I'm surprised you class him as an ATG. He was a great fighter, and will be a shoo in for the Hall of Fame, but if ATG means top 100 or so of all time, which is the usual definition I've seen, then in world terms he's not an ATG. He certainly is an ATG in British terms though, in the top 5 or so of all time. Other than a minority of die hard Calzaghe fans, I've never seen anyone call him an ATG in world terms before. You're entitled to your opinion, but you should at least acknowledge that it's a minority opinion.

Calzaghe's record isn't the greatest, I'm not even a fan of his. But I can call a spade a spade. And any "top 100" list is completely subjective anyway. There's no objective way to establish the 100 greatest boxers of all time. What you get is generally 40-50 guys everybody can agree on (Robinson, Pep, Ali, Holmes, Hagler, Leonard, Whittaker, Chavez, Lopez, Jones, Hopkins, and so on and so forth), but after you make it to about 50, after that, it's all a clusterfuck of personal opinion.

It is of my opinion, that Joe ranks on that list, somewhere between 75-100. I haven't the patience to actually compile the list, and nobody would agree with my picks or their respective numbers if I did anyway.

Excuse making for Tarver? Are you denying that he ballooned in weight for a film just before the fight? Are you denying that he looked lack lustre? Are you denying that he has looked mediocre in every subsequent fight he's had? Those aren't excuses, they're just facts. the poison thing was just a silly conspiracy theory, there was no factual evidence for it at all, so to compare the two things is silly.

I'm not denying Tarver put on weight to play Mason Dixon, what I'm denying is that it severely effected him. Tarver has always been a one trick pony, he made his bones off the back of a fading Roy Jones Jr.

But he's a professional fighter, and he has a crew of people on his team (including nutritionists and dieticians), who advisd him on how to properly take the weight off. Before the Hopkins fight went down, he said he was in the best shape of his life, never felt better, and that he was going to end yet another legend.

It wasn't until afterwards that the excuses came pouring out. Which is always the case whenever Hopkins beats someone's ass in the ring. (Tito was blown up all of a sudden, Tarver was weight drained, Kelly had an infected elbow, etc...)

Tarver wasn't on Hopkins level, period. Even if he hadn't buddied up with Stallone, the result would've been the same. Because Hopkins is just a superior fighter. He's multi-dimensional, he's a technician, he's a mastermind, he's dedicated, he's the exact opposite of what Tarver is.

[ßringer]

I don't think it's the number of belts Mayweather has held that has made him a likely ATG. Hagler stayed in one division all his life, so did Ali. ATG status is based on lots of things, not on one single factor; and in this case, where Hopkins can still make the weight at Light Heavy easily, and is choosing to fight someone at a higher weight who most people believe he can beat, in preference to someone at his own weight who most people think he would probably lose to, I don't think it would enhance his ATG status. It wouldn't diminish it either, and it would still be a very laudable achievement; and as I said before, at his age, he has every right to fight whoever he likes, he doesn't owe anyone anything.

There's something we can agree on.

Hopkins owes us nothing.

If he'd rather retire a 3 division Champion instead of a 2 division Champion, I'll be happy just to be able to watch it happen.

[street bully]

55498If you ask me BHOP got his get back with Roy Jones. Without even fighting Roy again. Simply by out lasting him and fighting all the tops and winning....at a older age while looking good doing it. I like RJJr a lot as a boxer. He was one of the greats and in no way is this ANY hate on Roy. But many say they would like to see A Hopkins Jones Rematch! Forget about it...Hopkins has proved himself way over Roy and it would not be good for Roy to make that fight at this point in his career. What do you think?

You more or less hit it on the head. Good post.

[PACBOY]

Sure i would...But it wont happen. We know that Dawson is a well put together fighter. Hopkins wont go back down if he were to fight Dawson. At Hopkins age dropping pounds is harder to do than putting them on...I seen Hopkins a few back and hes a little bigger than usual. Im 6'1 210 and Hopkins stood next to me and he really looked big. I remember BHOP saying he needs to move up due to weight and having to do so much to get it down...it is easier to work with it at his age and healthier...Performance wise. I m dont want to fully call it a weight issue..just keep it in mind as a factor. Also Chad beat Tomaz A giving him his only defeat so far....May be if Hopkins has any doubt due to age,hes gonna see it in the TA fight. If chad gets past Tarver...Bhop past TA...Maybe a possible fight between the two if BHOP looks and feels good....But I can Guarantee that it wont be at lightHW.