Bernard Hopkins took calculated risks, he is 1 of the most overrated modern ATG

[therealpugilist]

See how easy that was. You can get your point across without trying to diminish the man's accomplishments. I actually agree with you here. He's not on the level of Pac, Mayweather and Jones but you don't have to put it in such away to diminish what he did accomplish. Moving up 2 weight classes to defeat the lineal champion in the division was a great accomplishment.

i wasnt diminishing his accomplishments, i was putting them in proper context

you cant say he holds the record for most title defenses at 160 without pointing out it was for the ibf title

whereas Monzon had 14 defenses for the legitimate, lineal title and beat a hall of famer for it to boot

not the same and cant be looked at the same

Monzon holds the record for most title defenses of the world's middleweight title, Hopkins defended a trinket the most times

context man

[therealpugilist]

What year were you talking about these fights? Be honest. Cuz you seem real full of **** right now, just sayin.

now after you do some research and put what i told you in context you'd realize fans were talking about these fights....winky was # 1 at 154, hopkins # 1 at 160 and calzaghe # 1 at 168

Hopkins fought both, but it wasnt around the time fans were talking about it

[boxinghead530]

Roy Jones, whitaker and Mayweather are the only fighters imo that deserve serious consideration for being top 20 all time

all had extensive resumes, fought tougher competition than Hopkins m took more risks and accomplishments....mayweather went undefeated and it took Whitaker and Jones to be clearly past prime to take out right loses in their mid 30s (both had long amatuer and pro careers by the time the losses started to come)


watching those 3 is totally different than watching a Hopkins, level guy.....they were on another level imo at their prime.

I knew Hopkins was great, but watching them was a totally different experience live...when all were at their prime no one favored anyone over them, they barely ever lost rounds, even vs fellow hall of famers near their best....thats legendary status

only a few fighters in history dominated their era like these guys did in their prime.


they'd defeat several guys rated over them all time...those 3 were truly special...taking nothing away from Hopkins

Out of those three only whitaker you can say truly deserve a top 20 rating.

But regardless, there is no way you can say Hopkins is overrated. Is your philosophy to calling him overrated is to only rate him among Floyd or Roy?

Hopkins is easily a top 50 guy of all time and maybe as high as top 30 to some. So to garner such a rating that high and call him overrated is nonsense.

[boxinghead530]

now after you do some research and put what i told you in context you'd realize fans were talking about these fights....winky was # 1 at 154, hopkins # 1 at 160 and calzaghe # 1 at 168

Hopkins fought both, but it wasnt around the time fans were talking about it]

The way you are trying to pick apart Hopkins accomplishments and are implying he didnt fight guys at the proper time. Just think about what you are saying? Your hero Floyd did the same exact thing many times in his career.

[therealpugilist]

The way you are trying to pick apart Hopkins accomplishments and are implying he didnt fight guys at the proper time. Just think about what you are saying? Your hero Floyd did the same exact thing many times in his career.

if floyd gets crucified and accused of this often, why are people upset about the same thing being done by hopkins?

Floyd took more risks and is more accomplished than hopkins...proof is in the pudding....Floyd was fighting world class fighters consistently from age 21 until he retired

Hopkins didnt fight elite fighters regularly until he was well into his 30s

sorry bro

[therealpugilist]

Out of those three only whitaker you can say truly deserve a top 20 rating.

But regardless, there is no way you can say Hopkins is overrated. Is your philosophy to calling him overrated is to only rate him among Floyd or Roy?

Hopkins is easily a top 50 guy of all time and maybe as high as top 30 to some. So to garner such a rating that high and call him overrated is nonsense.

we can agree to disagree on that but comparing whitaker, Jones and Mayweathers skills, accomplishments, etc....they are on the same level. F

[ИATAS]

i wasnt diminishing his accomplishments, i was putting them in proper context

you cant say he holds the record for most title defenses at 160 without pointing out it was for the ibf title

whereas Monzon had 14 defenses for the legitimate, lineal title and beat a hall of famer for it to boot

not the same and cant be looked at the same

Monzon holds the record for most title defenses of the world's middleweight title, Hopkins defended a trinket the most times

context man

Key in bold. Different eras, different amount of belts.

You already know that after Hopkins won the IBF belt, he COULD NOT unify with the other title holders, due to boxing politics, in particular Don King keeping his title holders away from Hopkins. Those title holders were William Joppy (WBA) & Keith Holmes (WBC), and various no names and/or ******ed stuff going on with the WBO at the time. Hopkins eventually got to fight for the WBA after Trinidad beat Joppy and for good measure, Hopkins fought Joppy not long after that. Likewise he fought Holmes just before Trinidad, which was only possible because it was a tournament brought together by Don King himself and Hopkins had to sign a deal with King in order to participate, which was a tournament specifically for Trinidad (hell, the damn trophy had Tito's name on it!).

Monzon didn't have those problems. Monzon fought in an era with two belts, not four. He fought for both of those belts when he fought for Nino Benvenuti, and defended those two belts from there on out. Hopkins didn't have that luxury. Again, Hopkins was kept away from unifying, even though we all know he would have unified in 95/96 if given the chance (since we already know Hopkins would go on to whoop Joppy & Holmes).

Anyways, you're all over the place in this thread. You get defeated in one area and then move on to the next then talk about something else completely. Now you're saying "Hopkins is a great, great fighter, not top 10 or 20 all time great though", as if not being in the top 10-20 All Time means Hopkins is overrated! You said Hopkins can't beat certain types of fighters and he's only good at beating "head center defense" (come forward guys) and can't beat speed, etc., and yet you previously admitted that if Hopkins was in his prime, he would have beat Calzaghe and Taylor! You've been exposed. Take it & move on.

You also were not a "big fan" of Calzaghe in his early years, everyone in this thread is aware so stop lyin. Which is hilarious to me that you even claim that given the **** you give Golovkin for his resume yet Calzaghe was even worse. Golovkin actually consistently fights top ten MW's whereas Calzaghe avoided fighting the top ten for years and not because he couldn't get the fights he wanted as in the case of Golovkin, but because he chose not to fight them. It's like you're owning yourself the further you go.

[AddiX]

Boxing fans on bs are disrespecting Bhops career now?

Smh, not even worth debating this.

Fcking Bhop. You cant disrepsect this mans career and call yourself a boxing fan.

[-PBP-]

i wasnt diminishing his accomplishments, i was putting them in proper context

you cant say he holds the record for most title defenses at 160 without pointing out it was for the ibf title

whereas Monzon had 14 defenses for the legitimate, lineal title and beat a hall of famer for it to boot

not the same and cant be looked at the same

Monzon holds the record for most title defenses of the world's middleweight title, Hopkins defended a trinket the most times

context man

So now we're talking about title defenses? You're killing me bro. It's like trying to hit a moving target.

Hopkins title defenses by themselves aren't enough to warrant ATG status. But that accomplishment, combined with his entire body of work over the course of his career means he qualified.

It's like you are trying to pick his career apart accomplishment by accomplishment, as if that single accomplishment is the only thing that contributes to his greatness.

[boxinghead530]

if floyd gets crucified and accused of this often, why are people upset about the same thing being done by hopkins?

Floyd took more risks and is more accomplished than hopkins...proof is in the pudding....Floyd was fighting world class fighters consistently from age 21 until he retired

Hopkins didnt fight elite fighters regularly until he was well into his 30s

sorry bro

Difference between Floyd getting heat from people is because he claims to be the greatest ever. Which is far from the truth. Hopkins never makes those type of claims. Hopkins never even claims to be the greatest middleweight of all time. He's just humble and let's people place him where they may.

But to compare and say well Floyd was fighing guys at 21. Dude Hopkins was incarcerated as a young man and never really had a amateur career. He learned his craft on the job as he started boxing at an older age. . And for him to accomplish what he did for the way he came up is amazing.

Plus I know Floyds accomplishments. They are amazing too but I don't here anybody saying that Hopkins is greater than Floyd all time.