Comments Thread For: Bernard Hopkins: Contender Emeritus?

[ИATAS]

double standard maybe but I don't like the comparison because hatton is pretty small for 140 whereas Calzaghe was a good size and natural for 175. Don't get me wrong, I think the hatton win for Mayweather is a good win, but I just see calzaghe as being so much more talented than Ricky Hatton, whom I've never really been too impressed with to begin. So I think it has to do more with quality than size, for me anyways. Hatton was never ranked #2 pound 4 pound in the world, etc

[Xcusemymood]

double standard maybe but I don't like the comparison because hatton is pretty small for 140 whereas Calzaghe was a good size and natural for 175. Don't get me wrong, I think the hatton win for Mayweather is a good win, but I just see calzaghe as being so much more talented than Ricky Hatton, whom I've never really been too impressed with to begin. So I think it has to do more with quality than size, for me anyways. Hatton was never ranked #2 pound 4 pound in the world, etc

Well I definetly dont agree that Hatton was small for 140. Strongly disagree...and maybe he wasnt #2 but if I recall he was as high as #5, and I think thats high enough.

Yeah its open to interpretation. Its not going to match perfectly, hence the reason I said you can give or take here or there for both guys- Hopkins lost, Mayweather won, maybe because Calz was better than Hatton, maybe cause Hokins was old. Whatever excuse someone can make up, they are all right, and all wrong.

Regardless, I think they run pretty parallel and I think its wrong for giving one guy **** but saying its fine for the other.

[ИATAS]

Well I definetly dont agree that Hatton was small for 140. Strongly disagree...and maybe he wasnt #2 but if I recall he was as high as #5, and I think thats high enough.

I very much meant to say 147, not 140.

I personally never thought he should have been ranked as high as he was (#5 or #6, whatever it was) but I guess that's another thread altogether

Yeah its open to interpretation. Its not going to match perfectly, hence the reason I said you can give or take here or there for both guys- Hopkins lost, Mayweather won, maybe because Calz was better than Hatton, maybe cause Hokins was old. Whatever excuse someone can make up, they are all right, and all wrong.

Regardless, I think they run pretty parallel and I think its wrong for giving one guy **** but syaing its fine for the other.

I understand your point.

My thing with Mayweather is that he's been retired for 2 years and fought marquez, who was coming up from 135, so it's not like a ricky hatton 140 type of guy, it's even smaller. Mayweather wins by domination and he's ranked #2 pound 4 pound and whatever he currently is at 147. I don't think that's very fair.

[Xcusemymood]

I very much meant to say 147, not 140.

I personally never thought he should have been ranked as high as he was (#5 or #6, whatever it was) but I guess that's another thread altogether




I understand your point.

My thing with Mayweather is that he's been retired for 2 years and fought marquez, who was coming up from 135, so it's not like a ricky hatton 140 type of guy, it's even smaller. Mayweather wins by domination and he's ranked #2 pound 4 pound and whatever he currently is at 147. I don't think that's very fair.

Did you read the comparisons in my first post?

Hopkins fought Wright 2 divisions up. You wont give Mayweather credit for beating Marquez after a 2 year layoff, but its ok for Hop to to fight Winky there? I mean wasnt Winky #2p4p moving up 2 divisions the same as Marquez? Only that Maywaether hadnt fought in 2 years? Its cool for Hop to get back in the swing of things by against Ornelus but Mayweather cant take on a p4p #2, albiet smaller guy, who went life and death with Pac twice for a warm up?

Was Hopkins not ranked top 5 p4p? when he fought Wright, Pavlik, Calzaghe? What is up with the double standard my man? Seriously.

[ИATAS]

Did you read the comparisons in my first post?

Do you not realize floyd RETIRED for 2 years and bhop didn't? That's the difference. IMO if you retire, and come back, you got to earn your stripes back.

[Xcusemymood]

Do you not realize floyd RETIRED for 2 years and bhop didn't? That's the difference. IMO if you retire, and come back, you got to earn your stripes back.

Earn what?

The right to fight the number 2 p4p fighter? The one you just said was to small?

Which one is it?

The #1 WW spot which he doenst even have? he is #3, whereas Hopkins is rated #1 at LHW.

DO YOU NOT REALIZE THAT HOPKINS RETIRED AFTER BEATING TARVER? Guess who his opponent was when he came out of his retirement?

Winky Wright, the guy who moved up 2 divisions and was the #2 p4p fighter in the world at the time.

Same thing.

Let me guess his retirement wasnt as long as Floyds?

Again, double standard.

[ИATAS]

nah man, hopkins NEVER retired, he never gave up his belts like Mayweather did, he never formally retired like floyd id. Hopkins SAID he was going to retire but never did. You're twisting it. That's why hopkins maintained his belts and floyd didn't.

I'm not even that interested in continuing this discussion cuz as far as I'm concerned your points are addressed to the floyd haters, which I'm not.

[Iceta Lives]

Hopkins should definitely be dropped from the ratings. As much as I want to see Hopkins fight Chad Dawson though, I can't blame him for not doing it because all HBO put up for that fight was $3 million for each guy to split down the middle and that's pathetic.

I always thought that HBO wanted to see Hopkins get beat everytime he fought. So that's why they built up Jermaine Taylor as his heir apparent and robbed him of those decisions that he should've won. But how are they gonna see Hopkins get beat if they steer him in the direction of a shot ass Roy Jones? The money was still there for Hopkins to take that fight. So he took it. As pissed off as I am about this farce match up, I don't know if I can say I blame Hopkins.

[BritishBoxing92]

By Cliff Rold - Atop most of the notable non-sanctioning body ratings at Light Heavyweight, two men occupy the top slots: Bernard Hopkins and Chad Dawson. *********, SecondsOut, and the U.K.-based Boxing Monthly have Hopkins currently at the number one spot; Ring Magazine and ESPN have Dawson up top.

One of them clearly belongs.

The other one signed for a rematch with Roy Jones Jr. earlier this month and warrants a closer look.

Thankfully for history buffs, and even they were among those who couldn’t get past the absurdity of Zsolt Erdei’s place as lineal champion, Erdei’s decision to return to the Light Heavyweight division after vacating his WBO belt to pursue Cruiserweight honors doesn’t undo the vacancy he left behind at 175 lbs. The sole link he had to the lineage of the crown, traced to Virgil Hill’s 1996 win over Henry Maske, was severed in November 2009.

The popular claim to Light Heavyweight supremacy was laid to rest even earlier last year. When he elected to retire, Joe Calzaghe took the Ring Magazine title with him. That was the claim linked to Roy Jones’s unification of the WBC, WBA and IBF belts from 1997-99. It was also, in terms of talent, always the superior line of champions. Jones, Antonio Tarver, Glen Johnson, and Bernard Hopkins all took their turns. [Click Here To Read More]

so what??? im just lookin forward to the fight on 17th april 2010....

[Xcusemymood]

nah man, hopkins NEVER retired, he never gave up his belts like Mayweather did, he never formally retired like floyd id. Hopkins SAID he was going to retire but never did. You're twisting it. That's why hopkins maintained his belts and floyd didn't.

I'm not even that interested in continuing this discussion cuz as far as I'm concerned your points are addressed to the floyd haters, which I'm not.

Youre twisting it and really grasping at straws.

Just man up and say you dont like Floyd and you love Hopkins if you wont acknowledge the similarities.

Defending one and looking for angles to discredit the other is biased as hell man.