better resume..hopkins,pacman

[badass316]

Where did you get these numbers? lol

My bad, 20 for Bhop. The extra 4 isn't enough to sway my opinion though. I'll still take multiple weight division titles over a long reign at one weight class.

[jrosales13]

With Hopkins,he is always an underdog in his major fights-perhaps this is part of the reason I say a challenge or risk-when he is the underdog.Make sense?

I smh @ anybody calling Pac-JMM a robbery. Pac has a case of winning 6 rounds of the rematch. That fight could have gone either way. And, there are also a few who scored that fight for Pac mind you. This was no Shumenov-Campillo II, Casamayor-Santa Cruz, Martinez-Cintron, Whitaker-Chavez, Whitaker-Ramirez. Those are robberies, this was nothing like that.

His recent string is not his whole career...Sigh...

Cotto probably wasn't the same fighter pre-Marg. But, that doesn't mean he wasn't a challenge.

And, just because B-Hop was underdogs doesn't mean it was challenge either. Because, then you would have to consider Oscar a challenge for Pac. Because, Pac was the underdog in that fight. Matter of fact was a bigger underdog in that fight than any fight Hopkins was since the first Roy fight. So that's a silly logic to use.

Pac>Roy>B-Hop>Floyd. In the last 15 years IMO

I just can't rank B-Hop over Pac in an ATG ranking list.

[damned1974]

What you call prime rising are usually the easy ones to beat. They are prematurely built up before being exposed. Pavlik and Tarver werent that good, the evidence in that they achieved nothing after fighting BH and let alone achieved anything of late. It dont matter that Cotto, Hatton, Margarito werent undefeated they were still better than BHs opponents and Pac beat them more dominantly than BH did.
Most people hate how BH fights anyway.



BHs opponents arent better. BH just gets more credit than he usually would because of his age. But he started boxing later than most.

Pavlik and Tarver werent bad at all.Pavlik was on the rise and was a severe favourite to beat Hopkins-and by KO.In hindsight we can say so and so wasn't that good,but at the time,Pavlik was ko'ing everyone in his way.He beat the man that "beat" the man.

Tarver as we all know was the first to truly beat Roy-by KO.He had beaten solid opposition and was Hopkins first move up to LHW.

As for implying that Margarito and Cotto and Hatton's losses didn't matter-I am not saying that all losses make the difference.Obviously Margarito had decision losses before fighting Shane...that KO and inactivity didn't help him in any way! Nor did it seem to improve Hatton or Cotto.Cotto in my eyes has seemed to take his time more and looks less dynamic than he used to before getting brained from Tony.

Hatton looked good against Paulie after Floyd,that's it.Weird what a KO does to some people,eh???

B-Hop gets more credit because he is the underdog still fighting at 46 against decent opposition that he is supposed to lose to but overcomes the hurdle.

[damned1974]

I smh @ anybody calling Pac-JMM a robbery. Pac has a case of winning 6 rounds of the rematch. That fight could have gone either way. And, there are also a few who scored that fight for Pac mind you. This was no Shumenov-Campillo II, Casamayor-Santa Cruz, Martinez-Cintron, Whitaker-Chavez, Whitaker-Ramirez. Those are robberies, this was nothing like that.

His recent string is not his whole career...Sigh...

Cotto probably wasn't the same fighter pre-Marg. But, that doesn't mean he wasn't a challenge.

And, just because B-Hop was underdogs doesn't mean it was challenge either. Because, then you would have to consider Oscar a challenge for Pac. Because, Pac was the underdog in that fight. Matter of fact was a bigger underdog in that fight than any fight Hopkins was since the first Roy fight. So that's a silly logic to use.

Pac>Roy>B-Hop>Floyd. In the last 15 years IMO

I just can't rank B-Hop over Pac in an ATG ranking list.

First off-I never said it was a blatant robbery.Hey,I have seen worst.It was competitive,but imo Marquez won this.It didn't seem close enough to me to go Manny's way.

Likewise,I never said Manny's recent career was his WHOLE career.Don't put words in my mouth dude.

It is not silly to assume being an underdog is taking a risk or challenge.In fact,usually when the fighter is an underdog,there is a major risk assumed, because of certain factors (with Hopkins it is usually because his age,his opponent is faster/more athletic,or stronger,etc).The connection between being an underdog and the fight being a potential risk is not outlandish by any logic.

[Steven Adams]

I just can't rank B-Hop over Pac in an ATG ranking list.

you mad about bhop whipping tito?

actually this topic is really intriguing for an NSB thread

[damned1974]

you mad about bhop whipping tito?

actually this topic is really intriguing for an NSB thread

It actually is the first topic in a while that is interesting.Ultimately you can make a case for both guys based on certain aspects,but when you put it down to strictly NAMES (forget the controversial losses or wins-just include names,especially if the fight could have went either way,because BOTH fighters have had losses that some believe had won),to me,Hopkins has got this one.

People don't want to give Bernard any credit,and only when pressed hard enough,they give him a marginal amount when this old bastard is still willing to put his head on the chopping block for legacy...with Pac as of recent (yes, Jros, I know this isnt his whole career!) I just don't see this happening.If Manny just started fighting better opposition,I would have a new found respect for the guy,but his last several fights have really annoyed me.

This happens,I see fighters who are willing to fight the best put in front of them and they get my respect,but when they fight consecutive trash and cherry-pick or duck-I lose respect for them.I am not an exclusive fan of any 1 fighter,so my opinion can change from year to year depending on where the fighter is going or what they are doing.

[Toney616]

Joppy was a fringe contender at best?

Lol. Ok.

Joppy best wins:
Howard Eastman- journeyman
Roberto Duran- shot/journeyman

Is this the resume of a top contender to you?

[Steven Adams]

[/SIZE]

It actually is the first topic in a while that is interesting.Ultimately you can make a case for both guys based on certain aspects,but when you put it down to strictly NAMES,to me,Hopkins has got this one.

People don't want to give Bernard any credit,and only when pressed hard enough,they give him a marginal amount when this old bastard is still willing to put his head on the chopping block for legacy...with Pac as of recent (yes, Jros, I know this isnt his whole career!) I just don't see this happening.If Manny just started fighting better opposition,I would have a new found respect for the guy,but his last several fights have really annoyed me.This happens,I see fighters who are willing to fight the best put in front of them and they get my respect,but when they fight consecutive trash-I lose respect for them.I am not an exclusive fan of any 1 fighter,so my opinion can change from year to year depending on where the fighter is going.

thats what give Hopkins the edge for me... and I havent enjoyed scrolling through a thread in here for ages. but Pacs last 5 fights have been 'rinse and repeat' stylistically... wheres the challenge in that?

resumes can be dissected in hindsight and well deserved credit gets lost amongst it.. Tito and DLH were WW coming up.. Barrera was shot and Morales was weight drained etc are prime examples... Dominating a division vs collecting titles?

[Toney616]

1) every odd line in any sport can be wrong. to think they are not an indicator of how the participants are perceived in competition is completely naive. sure, they aren't going to be right every time......but is it not fair to say that taking a fight against a guy who is a pretty heavy favorite by the odds to beat you is riskier than a fight against someone whom you would be the wide favorite to beat?

When Douglas stepped into the ring against Tyson he was the 42-1 underdog, most bookies refused to even take bets on Douglas. The fact that the odds can be that off should tell you that betting odds are not a accurate indicator for any fight

2) I would say that Pascal, Tarver, Pavlik, and JoCal are all riskier fights than any manny has had at the very least since he left 130.

Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't really change the fact that pacman's overall body of work is better than Hopkins

And thhe Roy JOnes fight is debatable as to whom turned that fight down, same with JoCal (who he did fight incidentally)

No its not
HBO executives are on record saying that it was Hopkins who priced himself out and that Jones did his best to make that fight happen. Thomas Hauser also wrote an article about it saying that Hopkins walked away from a $5M payday

Now, with respect to Hopkins, Roy did make a good faith effort in trying to make that fight happen. It didn't happen I guess because Bernard's number was too high. But I didn't think that the Jirov fight was going to happen and again, where it comes to Roy Jones, I want to see the deal signed before I go out and start promoting a fight."

http://a.espncdn.com/boxing/a/2002/0904/1427223.html

Meanwhile, Hopkins has turned down an offer of $6,000,000 plus a percentage of profits to fight Roy Jones on HBO Pay-Per-View and a three fight multimillion-dollar package from Showtime for bouts against Hakkar, Joe Calzaghe, and Harry Simon. That led King to declare recently, "Bernard Hopkins is like a man who won the lottery and then waited to cash his ticket until after it expired."

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/dibella-v-hopkins1

Hopkins killed the Calzaghe fight. Warren asked him how much he would accept and Hopkins replied 3m, after Warren had called Calzaghe to confirm the fight Hopkins then asked for 6m

3) I am very much hoping that Manny will get back to his old ways as far as comp goes. But UI'm not sure if I believe you. Not all that impressed with the last 3 considering his other options that were available.

I hope he fights Bradley. Outside of that I cant think of any other matchups I would be interested in at ww-jmw

4) Pac's resume cannot be considered WAY above his. A good argument can be made for both, they both have very good resumes. Clearly the two best active resumes.

Comparing wins:
Barrera> Tarver
Jmm>Tito
Hatton=Pavlik
Clottey=Johnson
Cotto>Holmes
Margarito>Winky
Morales=Oscar
Diaz>Jackson
Barrera II>Joppy
Best wins:Pacquaio
Accomplishments: 8 div world champion > 2 div world champion

5) The Roy Jones fight does not tarnish his image as it was a clear money grab and a ****** fight to ever turn down. Just like any fight against oscar for any fighter can never be held against them.

That fight was basically a flop and completely pointless. Jones was coming off a 50 second ko loss. He turned down Danny Green to fight shot Jones

Aren't you the guy that called glen johnson a journeyman?

After his loss to Hopkins he would have around 11 fights at smw. His record in those fights are:
5-6
Glens my boy, but at smw he was basically a journeyman. It wouldnt really come together for Johnson until he hit lhw

[Steven Adams]

Comparing wins:
Barrera> Tarver
Jmm>Tito
Hatton=Pavlik
Clottey=Johnson
Cotto>Holmes
Margarito>Winky
Morales=Oscar
Diaz>Jackson
Barrera II>Joppy

here

Morales II > Eastman

LOL