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

[b00g13man]

Overrated by some, but you're bringing up his losses after 40. Do you really think he was in his prime then? His unique selling point is longevity way past his physical prime. Not many have stayed relevant for the better part of a decade past 40.

[therealpugilist]

Its silly to criticize Bernard for losses that came after his prime. The only one to beat Bernard in his prime was the great Roy Jones Jr and even he didn't look spectacular doing it.

you cant get full credit for wins, and no criticism for losses...it doesnt work that way, and every boxing career doesnt play out the same

Hopkins didnt fight anyone who matter, besides Jones, until his 30s. Styles make fights.....Hopkins was near his prime vs taylor and couldnt figure him out with 2 tries.....Taylor and keith holmes were the only legit middleweights he faced...the rest were washed up former champions, welterweights moving up, and no name mandatories

[therealpugilist]

Overrated by some, but you're bringing up his losses after 40. Do you really think he was in his prime then? His unique selling point is longevity way past his physical prime. Not many have stayed relevant for the better part of a decade past 40.

so only wins matter, past 40?

thats ******ed logic....Hopkins remained a top fighter until his 50 and was well preserved and skill

he lost because the other guy was the better man, not because he was old.


So his wins over pascal mean the world, but he lost to Dawson so, oh it dont count cuz he was old?

boxing doesnt work like that

also people dont realize he didnt fight elite fighters on the regular until he was 30 and older...jones was the only guy who mattered he fought in his 20s and he lost clearly

[b00g13man]

so only wins matter, past 40?

thats ******ed logic....Hopkins remained a top fighter until his 50 and was well preserved and skill

he lost because the other guy was the better man, not because he was old.


So his wins over pascal mean the world, but he lost to Dawson so, oh it dont count cuz he was old?

boxing doesnt work like that

also people dont realize he didnt fight elite fighters on the regular until he was 30 and older...jones was the only guy who mattered he fought in his 20s and he lost clearly

Your logic is ******ed. Was he or was he not a too fighter for the better part of a decade after turning 40? Losses happen.

You're in the other thread defending Toney (who I love btw) for losing to and struggling with bums in his actual prime, yet you're going to begrudge a fighter for losses against better opposition way out of his prime?

Yeah, that makes sense.

[therealpugilist]

Calculated risks? What do you even mean by that, your entire post and many after have not explained that idea at all.

calculated risk......wanted 50/50 with prime jones even though jones was a bigger star, held a win over him, and was a champion at a higher weight, he didnt deserve 50/50 and wouldnt fight jones until Jones was washed up....after ko loses


Hopkins and wright were 6 pounds apart for years...Hopkins was the man at 160, winky at 154, they never fought there.....fast forward he fights him at 170 where he did nothing and wouldnt be as effective...same for pavlik who didnt belong at 170.

He stayed at 160 to feast on washed up former ww and sww champions and instead of fight Calzaghe, he skips the weight altogether to fight Tarver.

its not just who you beat, but when you fight them

[therealpugilist]

Your logic is ******ed. Was he or was he not a too fighter for the better part of a decade after turning 40? Losses happen.

You're in the other thread defending Toney (who I love btw) for losing to and struggling with bums in his actual prime, yet you're going to begrudge a fighter for losses against better opposition way out of his prime?

Yeah, that makes sense.

re-post me defending loses....i'll wait

proof is in the pudding

[bojangles1987]

Your logic is ******ed. Was he or was he not a too fighter for the better part of a decade after turning 40? Losses happen.

You're in the other thread defending Toney (who I love btw) for losing to and struggling with bums in his actual prime, yet you're going to begrudge a fighter for losses against better opposition way out of his prime?

Yeah, that makes sense.

That's my beef here. He's bashing Hopkins for beating "bums" and losing past his prime, but completely dismissing that Toney lost to bums in his prime. And now apparently completely denying that he lost at all to those bums. He says "the only fighters during Bernard's overrated run that might trouble Toney..." when Toney lost to fighters worse than those fighters on that "overrated" run.

[-PBP-]

SMH...So Hopkins is overrated because

1. You don't think the top MW contenders from 1996-2002 were any good

2. He lost fights against top fighters

3. He lost to Prime Roy Jones?


Moving up from 160 to 175 to fight the champion in the division is not a "calculated risk". Who in their right mind would even consider doing that in today's landscape?

People say he beat smaller guys when Felix Trinidad was a world title holder and blasted through William Joppy, a perennial top 2 caliber contender.

Think about how ridiculous this is.

1. You penalize Hopkins for not being the "lineal champion"

2. He would have become lineal champion by beating William Joppy

3. Felix Trinidad destroys William Joppy

4. You give no credit for Hopkins destroying Trinidad.

5. Hopkins beat Joppy, Holmes and Trinidad to become undisputed, lineal champion. He dominated that division.

Come on son.

[therealpugilist]

Your logic is ******ed. Was he or was he not a too fighter for the better part of a decade after turning 40? Losses happen.

You're in the other thread defending Toney (who I love btw) for losing to and struggling with bums in his actual prime, yet you're going to begrudge a fighter for losses against better opposition way out of his prime?

Yeah, that makes sense.

of course loses happen but people act like losses to Jones, Taylor 2x, Dawson etc mean nothing and sense he was older it doesnt count. thats ******ed.

styles make fights, both have loses but no one makes excuses for Toney's like they do Hopkins;....maybe, just maybe calzaghe and company was just the better man that day like griffin was vs toney...losses happen like you said

imo Hopkins is overrated because he dominated a thin era at middleweight.....he established himself after one of the best eras....post-Hagler had Kalambay, Toney, Jones, McClellan, Benn, Eubank, etc, he is older than a few of those guys and he only fought one of them.

he hung around at 160 when the era was crap

[ИATAS]

what is it with you guys with the amatuers.....you do realize most of the world champions today and in the past were not even stand out amatuers and many olympic champs and amatuer champions flop as pros.

What? You made it out like Joe Lipsey was some bum which was not the case at all. His amateur career is relevant in this discussion since he was a top American standout boxer who never got to prove his worth in the pros because Hopkins literally ended his career. You want to hold that against Hopkins for fighting him, why? If anything it's a plus for Hopkins resume - he took on an undefeated top middleweight contender who was an amateur standout and ended his career.

By the way, that's another thing about Hopkins - look at how many undefeated fighters he fought - 12. Hopkins fought 12 undefeated fighters in his career. Just to compare, as a reference and nothing more, Mayweather fought 3 undefeated fighters in his career - 3.

Hopkins is definitely a great fighter, but he isnt this tactical and technical guru people make him out to be.....

I guess that's your opinion, most won't agree with that at all. Especially considering he's been past his physical prime for over 10 years and some of his greatest wins came after the age of 40, meaning he's doing it not because of speed or power or athleticism, but BECAUSE he's a technical guru, because he's a tactician in the ring. If he wasn't he wouldn't have made it this far for this long. You don't see guys compete at the highest level until age 50 unless they are very technical fighters! This statement of yours really makes me question what kind of boxing knowledge you have. To even consider Hopkins isn't "that technical" and isn't a "technical guru" is lacking knowledge of boxing IMO.

he flops when fights get tough, he does a lot of dirty cheap shots, and many of his opponents he didnt fight them until the conditions were favorable for him....examples...look at when he fought pavlik, jones and winky wright...all of them were not impressive prior to facing him

Hopkins was coming off a LOSS to Calzaghe when he fought Pavlik at age 43 in what many people said was Hopkins worst performance of his career. Pavlik was in his prime and undefeated. The public wanted Pavlik vs Calzaghe, Calzaghe didn't want it and went the safe route fighting shot to **** Jones, so Hopkins got the Pavlik fight. He was 43 years old coming off a loss and schooled the **** out of Pavlik, taking his "0" in the process. That's a big win any way you try to slice it.

Obviously the Jones rematch meant nothing and no one gives him much credit at all, if any, for that fight so not sure why you even mention it. So what? Two old guys fought each other for a quick money grab, happens all the time.

Winky was a decent fight, it is what it is. The reason this fight even happened was because there was talk of a Winky vs Hopkins fight at 160, they were somewhat planning for it to happen after Jermain Taylor. Obviously Taylor ended up getting two decision wins over Hopkins and Hopkins then moved up to 175 and took on Tarver and the Winky fight at 160 never materialized. Winky ended up getting a Taylor fight, got a tough draw and without any big names Winky still wanted that Hopkins fight so they made it happen. Did decent on PPV too (something like 350k buys iirc). It is what it is. Hopkins was at 175 already, Winky 160 so they met in-between.