Why does everyone try to rewrite history when it comes to Hopkins?

[DiegoFuego]

Seriously, the way HBO and some fans talk about him make it sound like people loved this guy for most of his career. That couldn't be further from the truth. HBO flat out despised him for most of the 2000s. He turned down big fight after big fight (Roy, Toney, EVERYONE) and continued to fight guys like Howard Eastman, the Frenchie who refused to throw punches, William Joppy and Robert Allen. When he *****ed after the loss to Taylor (claiming boxing was judged based on how much damage you do and NOT based on rounds won), people pretty much threw him under the bus and never wanted to see him fight again.

Yet when he beats Tarver, it's like a whole new story. Suddenly, everybody is celebrating him for winning fights at his age, despite the fact that he is still not entertaining and still portraying himself as the villain. Did it take some losses for people to come around to B-Hop? I mean, it's like he went from being the most hated fighter in all of boxing from 2000-2005 to a sentimental favorite by the time he was fighting Calzaghe and Pavlik.

I guess most of the fans on here probably are fairly new to boxing and that's why they like Hopkins. But for those of us who remember the failed negotiations with Roy, Toney and every other decent fighter in his weight range, he remains a guy that never gave fans what they wanted and always put himself first.

If that's the case, I can't imagine how many people will jump on Floyd's bandwagon if he ever sniffs defeat.

[Emon723]

Hopkins has taken in big names in his 40s, Tarver, Wright, Calzaghe and Pavlik, that is impressive through, he deserves all the praises.

Roy I recall wants 60-40 in his favor, Hopkins I believe should have agreed to it, beating Jones in 2010 no longer means anything.

[Brother Jay]

Hopkins has taken in big names in his 40s, Tarver, Wright, Calzaghe and Pavlik, that is impressive through, he deserves all the praises.

Roy I recall wants 60-40 in his favor, Hopkins I believe should have agreed to it, beating Jones in 2010 no longer means anything.

Hopkins took on big names when he stood to lose nothing. Beating a 40 year old man held no real glory for Taylor, Tarver, Wright, Calzaghe, Pavlik, Jones , Pascal and Dawson. Its really just that simple.

The TS is absolutely correct. Hopkins had been labeled a dirty, boring fighter for the bulk of his career. In fact, from 1988-2001 Hopkins was not a star. He defended one belt from 1995-2001 against an assortment of nobodies. That's it.

He had already been beaten by Roy Jones Jr once in 1993. Then when RJJ vacated that title to go up and face the then P4P#1 James Toney, Hopkins competed for that belt and could only get a draw. In the rematch he finally won that vacant belt.

Hopkins career aside from defending that one vacant belt was very, very shallow. The quality of his opposition aside from Jones back in 1993 was dismal. It wasn't until 2005 that BHOP's legacy really had a HOF quality.

Beating Trinidad and DLH wasn't any grand feat. They were WWs who came up to seek glory. In fact, I think that they only had one fight each at MW before facing BHOP.

I think what he's done since 2005 has been impressive, but let's not lie: Waiting until you're so old that any losses you receive don't really affect your public perception is really a cheap way to go. Its the same **** George Foreman did. No one remembers or even cares about Foreman's losses at that stage. They only care about his wins.

That strategy is like an old man's cane. Its a clever way to have something to lean on while still maintaining some dignity and class. No one judges an old man for using a cane. No one judges Foreman or BHOP for waiting until they are so old that no one cares about their losses.

I mean .. look at it:

BHOP loses to Taylor twice, then immediately gets a shot at Tarver.

BHOP loses to Calzaghe, then immediately gets a shot at Calzaghe.

No one cares if BHOP loses. Most are too busy heaping credit on his geriatric sideshow to factor in that no matter what BHOP does since he's turned 40 he gets a pass.

[Dubblechin]

Hopkins career aside from defending that one vacant belt was very, very shallow. The quality of his opposition aside from Jones back in 1993 was dismal. It wasn't until 2005 that BHOP's legacy really had a HOF quality.

Waiting until you're so old that any losses you receive don't really affect your public perception is really a cheap way to go. Its the same **** George Foreman did.

I agree about what you said regarding Hopkins. But George Foreman? Are you kidding me? You think his early career record was "dismal" like Hopkins?

By his 28th birthday, George Foreman had already won and lost the World Heavyweight Championship and had faced Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier (twice), Ken Norton, Ron Lyle, George Chuvalo and Jimmy Young. Foreman faced the top heavyweights of the early and mid 70s. Then he quit the ring for 10 years. If he'd never come back, he'd still be in the Hall of Fame.

Don't compare him to Hopkins. It took Hopkins three tries just to win the Vacant IBF Middleweight belt.

[S.J. II]

Hopkins has taken in big names in his 40s, Tarver, Wright, Calzaghe and Pavlik, that is impressive through, he deserves all the praises.

Roy I recall wants 60-40 in his favor, Hopkins I believe should have agreed to it, beating Jones in 2010 no longer means anything.

Beating Roy Jones in 2005 wouldn't have meant anything, let alone in 2010.

Their first fight, they were both green, their last fight, they were both old and Roy was shot. Hopkins robbed us of the glory of Jones-Hopkins because of his greed. It's his greed that keeps him in boxing.

[ИATAS]

Beating Roy Jones in 2005 wouldn't have meant anything, let alone in 2010.

Their first fight, they were both green, their last fight, they were both old and Roy was shot. Hopkins robbed us of the glory of Jones-Hopkins because of his greed. It's his greed that keeps him in boxing.

neither hopkins nor jones bent over backwards to make that fight happen (when it mattered). It's like floyd vs pac on a smaller scale - neither guy is doing everything it takes to make it happen. So the blame goes on both, imo.

hopkins legacy is cemented. Regardless if he lost to roy or whatever else happened, he's a first ballot hall of famer, etc.

[Smokin'J]

I didn't like him at first and disliked both his boxing dirty antics and outside of the ring.
Though one thing, the man deserves his respect, what he did at an old age, cannot be forgotten.

[IMDAZED]

neither hopkins nor jones bent over backwards to make that fight happen (when it mattered). It's like floyd vs pac on a smaller scale - neither guy is doing everything it takes to make it happen. So the blame goes on both, imo.

hopkins legacy is cemented. Regardless if he lost to roy or whatever else happened, he's a first ballot hall of famer, etc.

In 2002, Hopkins had barely any justification for asking for a 50-50 split. Strange. Really wish the fight came off then. Watched Hopkins-Tito (for the 4000th time) the other night. Sigh...

[Dirk Diggler UK]

neither hopkins nor jones bent over backwards to make that fight happen (when it mattered). It's like floyd vs pac on a smaller scale - neither guy is doing everything it takes to make it happen. So the blame goes on both, imo.

hopkins legacy is cemented. Regardless if he lost to roy or whatever else happened, he's a first ballot hall of famer, etc.

Not really. Because Roy was P4P no1. Roy was the draw. And Roy had already beat Bernard with 1 hand. So in what universe was Roy supposed to bend to fight Hopkins?

[Abstraction]

Is Thread starter an idiot or just trolling?

Hopkins and RJJ were both nororious in not letting the bout happen. Moreso RJJ because he wanted a 60-40 Split.

As for Toney ? Toney was at CW then HW..

What's the matter with this forum. Bunch of idiots.