The overrated Bernard Hopkins

[#1Assassin]

i have yet to see anybody actually prove your points wrong TS

it wont happen either,because what you posted are facts

hopkins sealed his legacy ten years ago when he knocked out trinidad. trinidad might have been moving up but he was a solid MW and any attempts to dismiss him completely due to size are just pathetic. thats like dismissing hearns on haglers resume, tito proved he could both take and give a punch at 160lbs. on top of that tito along with pavlik got schooled so badly u cant just blame it on weight, anyone who knows jack **** about boxing can see hopkins was just on another level as far as skills and boxing IQ goes and thats why he won, not his size. DLH and wright arent even hopkins' best wins. he has glen johnson, john david jackson, william joppy, keith holmes etc on his record. and ofcourse tarver.

to completely dismiss hopkins' shut out wins over tarver, pavlik and tito, then claim he got exposed in razor thin controversial decision losses to taylor and calzaghe is just ignorant. any sense of logical reasoning has clearly been tossed aside due to your pesonal disliking of the man.

hopkins is one of the very best p4p fighters of his era, if he fights and beats dawson he will be #1 in my opinion. but i doubt that will happen. only thing i know for sure is if it does happen haters like u will come up with some lame excuse and pretend it makes sense.

even u cant seriously think cazlaghes resume beats hopkins'

[The_Demon]

even u cant seriously think cazlaghes resume beats hopkins'

i never said it is necessarily better,but im saying their is little difference

say what you like,hopkins best wins are over smaller guys,you can keep debating it all you like

a glorified sparring session with DLH is ranked as one of his best wins ffs
oscar isnt even the best win on lil pacs resume

winky at 170? the guy was small at MW

i could go on all day,but your nuthugging of hopkins and obsessive hatred of calzaghe means you struggle with the truth and the facts im giving you,so you can **** off now,you ****ing ****** idiot

[boxaholic]

If Tarver was so weight-drained, he wouldn't have bet 500K on himself to win by KO.

Dam I didn't know that. BHop is a ATG And he is a sure HOF. Deciding where he falls in the past 25 years is subject to opinion. I have him #7 in the past 25 years.

[BritishBoxing92]

dude you also forgot that Hopkins Dominated and Schooled Pavlik All night long....No ones even beat Pavlik yet apart from hopkins and he did that at the age of 44......Bernard "the Executioner" Hopkins is definately in the top 10 or 20 Best Middle weights of all time

[Don Johnson]

joppy was tailer made for tito honestly...

even at middleweight hopkins was always a lightheavy...a freak of nature lightheavy who scaled down to middle, and enjoyed unfair height, size, strength, etc. advantages over fighters like simon brown, bo jackson, robert allen, antuan (sp) echols, and the list goes on...best win on hopkins resume is an unfocused tarver who was hanging out with stallone on movie sets...

hopkins may have weighed less than tito on the official scales, but you can tell he was far bigger and stronger come fight time..., even though he followed the boxing blueprint on tito that de la hoya used, hopkins was more than capable to streetfight tito early...he really didn't have to worry about tito hurting him...agreed hopkins is overrated...

Pavlik is bigger than hopkins was at middleweight, how do you explain that?

[jkaisen41]

Question: what do DLH, Trinidad, Wright and Pavlik have in common?

Answer: They were all smaller fighters than Hopkins, but they're his greatest wins.

The best fighter he ever beat besides smaller fighters was Tarver. As some of you may know, Tarver was weight-drained, due to the fact that he just finished filming a Rocky Movie and had to cut weight fast.

He exposed by a man the same size in Jermain Taylor and then once again by a smaller fighter in Calzaghe.

I don't doubt that he was a solid middleweight champion but to consider him one of the greatest fighters of the last decade is absurd.

Now, he's fighting the man that gave him the most decisive beating of his career in Roy Jones. Except now Jones is beyond past his prime and was just knocked out by a contender-like fighter.

Way to seal your legacy, Hopkins!

His legacy is sealed... he can only put on top of that (Roy Jones fight isn't that of course)

No matter how you put it his record setting title defenses are impressive... it takes a lot to stay on top for so long... his opponents in most cases were good contenders (to fight contenders is not a bad thing by no means but I still recognize fights against guys who were or went on to become champion higher as fighters who were once ''only'' ranked but never accomplishment some championship status)... his biggest wins are against DLH and Trinidad probably and there is no reason to not give him credit for... both weren't their personal best at MW but they were good enough to be champion there. Hopkins-Trinidad was a masterpiece... this was a Trinidad who still wanted it and gave it his all but was simply outskilled...

What hurts him that probably the most talented guys he fought at MW who were MW's beat him in Jones and Taylor... no shame in loosing to Jones and I'm not defending his age but at age 40 you can loose to JT... JT ain't become what he could have been but he is not a bum or something... no shame there...

He beat Tarver in his division... he beat Winky and Pavlik at weights were you won't see them again... lost to Calzaghe... it is what it is...

I think that the groundwork is there to be one of the best in this decade (MW resume overall) and he added also name value to it... some of them can be questioned of weight but it is what it is... Hopkins if you look at it should be at least Top5 on everybody's list of our time.

[ИATAS]

Question: what do DLH, Trinidad, Wright and Pavlik have in common?

Answer: They were all smaller fighters than Hopkins, but they're his greatest wins.

The best fighter he ever beat besides smaller fighters was Tarver. As some of you may know, Tarver was weight-drained, due to the fact that he just finished filming a Rocky Movie and had to cut weight fast.

He exposed by a man the same size in Jermain Taylor and then once again by a smaller fighter in Calzaghe.

I don't doubt that he was a solid middleweight champion but to consider him one of the greatest fighters of the last decade is absurd.

Now, he's fighting the man that gave him the most decisive beating of his career in Roy Jones. Except now Jones is beyond past his prime and was just knocked out by a contender-like fighter.

Way to seal your legacy, Hopkins!

Another way of looking at, is the three fights he lost (all over the age of 40 - taylor X2, Calzage) were extremely close, and very debatable on whether or really lost or not. At worst for hopkins, one can say that HE lost the fights by not throwing enough punches to impress the judges. He never got beat. Never got beat up. Never got a single cut. Never got a nose bleed. Never got KO'd. Never took a bad beating in his entire career.

So that means since 1993, he hasn't lost convincingly a single time.

THAT'S 17 YEARS.

Show me a fighter that goes through a 17 year stretch of time that meets that criteria (never beat up, never ko'd, never cut, never got beat convincingly, etc.).

Very few men who have laced them up have done that. Very, very few.

Hopkins is a very special fighter, something you will probably never see again for a long time.

And for you to make a thread downplaying his accomplishments is an absolute joke and straight disrespect to the sport of boxing and shows your serious lack of boxing knowledge.

[mellow_mood]

^^ natas joe cal beat nard pretty clear!!


lets be real there..

[ИATAS]

^^ natas joe cal beat nard pretty clear!!


lets be real there..

Huh, interesting I like most people thought it was a very close fight.

Regardless of how you have it, most everyone will agree that if Hopkins could have thrown more punches in the last several rounds he could have been victorious. Again, that goes to my point, that Hopkins never really lost, even when he did - it was more about HIM LOSING the fight rather than him being beat. Punch out-put is why Calzaghe won and hopking at 43 cannot keep up in a match of who throws the most punches wins, hence his losses to Joe & Taylor (although almost everyone agrees he won at least one of those fights).

[djtmal]

Another way of looking at, is the three fights he lost (all over the age of 40 - taylor X2, Calzage) were extremely close, and very debatable on whether or really lost or not. At worst for hopkins, one can say that HE lost the fights by not throwing enough punches to impress the judges. He never got beat. Never got beat up. Never got a single cut. Never got a nose bleed. Never got KO'd. Never took a bad beating in his entire career.

So that means since 1993, he hasn't lost convincingly a single time.

THAT'S 17 YEARS.

Show me a fighter that goes through a 17 year stretch of time that meets that criteria (never beat up, never ko'd, never cut, never got beat convincingly, etc.).

Very few men who have laced them up have done that. Very, very few.

Hopkins is a very special fighter, something you will probably never see again for a long time.

And for you to make a thread downplaying his accomplishments is an absolute joke and straight disrespect to the sport of boxing and shows your serious lack of boxing knowledge.

lol...any time there is a poll asking if hopkins is overrated,
its always overwhelmingly in favor of him being .....overrated....lol

calzaghe and taylor beat him convincingly...ballicking excuse makers such as yourself will never admit it....lol