Bernard Hopkins is the most Underrated fighter of our Era

[Prince Madison]

You spelt 'overrated' wrong

[bojangles1987]

that's why I feel he is overrated....when he wins....its a record or the best thing since sliced bread....he loses then its his age


they've been doing this since his loses to Taylor which had more to do with what taylor was doing, Hopkins wasn't doing than Age or being shot


he remained at a championship level another decade after this fight


If Hopkins could adjust as well as you say, he should have wins over a few of those guys...I can understand losing to someone like Jones(atg) but taylor 2 times? he is overrated tactically

Well, the reason people have said that since the Taylor fight is because by then it was highly evident the affect his age had on his abilities. It's not like people pulled age out of nowhere, Hopkins was old for years before Taylor beat him.

I'm not discounting Taylor at all, he was a very good fighter and it was a very big surprise that he didn't go on to be the next great middleweight. But Hopkins certainly didn't have problems adjusting in the middle of fights against him, and using Taylor or Pascal as proof of that doesn't make sense when those are three fights where he did make mid-fight adjustments that led to him winning the second-half of fights. He lost to Taylor because he no longer had the physical ability to compete like he used to. He drew with Pascal for the same reason. Hopkins in his late-30s and 40s had to become a very different fighter to make up for his physical decline. Some guys he simply couldn't overcome his physical disadvantages against.

Obviously this thread shows how he can be overrated, but the man's ability to adjust during a fight shouldn't be questioned. He has numerous fights against good competition where he showed his ability to do so.

[therealpugilist]

Well, the reason people have said that since the Taylor fight is because by then it was highly evident the affect his age had on his abilities. It's not like people pulled age out of nowhere, Hopkins was old for years before Taylor beat him.

I'm not discounting Taylor at all, he was a very good fighter and it was a very big surprise that he didn't go on to be the next great middleweight. But Hopkins certainly didn't have problems adjusting in the middle of fights against him, and using Taylor or Pascal as proof of that doesn't make sense when those are three fights where he did make mid-fight adjustments that led to him winning the second-half of fights. He lost to Taylor because he no longer had the physical ability to compete like he used to. He drew with Pascal for the same reason. Hopkins in his late-30s and 40s had to become a very different fighter to make up for his physical decline. Some guys he simply couldn't overcome his physical disadvantages against.

Obviously this thread shows how he can be overrated, but the man's ability to adjust during a fight shouldn't be questioned. He has numerous fights against good competition where he showed his ability to do so.

Hopkins excelled neutralizing aggressive opponents. When he faced fighters with a combination of skill athleticism, he usually had trouble at the highest level

in his prime, even Robert allen gave him problems because of his speed, movement etc

Hopkins is definitely an all time great, one of the best fighters of the last 25 years and the best middleweight since the post Nunn-Toney-McCallum-McClellan era in the early to mid 90s.

[robertzimmerman]

RenegÄde,

I mean his entire career this guy has been nonstop fighting the best and toughest challenges available to him and he near beat every damn one of them.

Forget Floyd and Forget Pacquiao, B-Hop has undoubtedly THE best resume of any ****ing fighter in this century.

Bernard is a legend and his longevity is outstanding. However, his career is not as great as what you think.

He shrunk himself down to fight at MW for 14 years, when he could have tried to have fought better fighters at SMW and LHW.

He only moved up to LHW in 2006, after he'd lost to Taylor twice and he'd got nowhere else to go. At that point, he was in a position where he had everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Whilst it's great that he was fighting the likes of Dawson and Kovalev in his 40's and 50's, he had no intentions of fighting guys like that when he was in his 30's.

He had no intentions of fighting Roy Jones in a huge rematch in 2002, turning down $6m for a 168 CW.

In 2008, he said:

"I could have moved up to LHW 6 years earlier had I have wanted to, but I didn't want to give up my advantages"

The advantages he was referring to was obviously his size. He started out at CW, and he had numerous fights above MW before committing to the MW division. He made incredible sacrifices both mentally and physically to fight there for so long, where at 6'2 and possessing a 75" reach, he was bigger than almost all of his opponents.

We also can't forget that at times he was a very dirty fighter who used awful tactics when things weren't going his way.

He KO'd Glen Johnson when he was undefeated.

He KO'd Trinidad when he was undefeated and looking unstoppable.

He KO'd Oscar

He moved up in weight and UD'd a legit Light Heavyweight in Antonio Tarver coming from a Roy Jones KO in his first fight at 175

I thought he beat Calzaghe, who was undefeated.

Glen was undefeated, but he hadn't done anything at that point. But we can now look back and say it was a very good win.

In my opinion, his win over Tito was his best. Tito hadn't had many fights at MW, but he looked great in beating Joppy, and he was a heavy favourite over Bernard who was 36 at the time. A tremendous win.

His win over Oscar didn't impress me that much. He'd looked awful against Sturm.

I would class his win over Tarver as being great if I knew Tarver wasn't drained. But I've got a feeling he was, and Mackie Shilstone who Bernard hired to help prepare him said he was expecting him to be drained. He lost a lot of weight from his role in Rocky Balboa. And seeing as though the same thing also happened to Roy Jones, Chris Byrd and Chad Dawson, I definitely think Tarver wasn't 100% healthy.

You could make a case for a win over Calzaghe. It was quantity vs quality. I've only seen it once, but I had it as a draw.

He embarassed an undefeated Kelly Pavlik when he was looking unstoppable as an old man

He became the oldest World Champion of all time and embarassed Pascal twice

He destroyed Tavoris Cloud's career.

And to top it all off, as a ****ing Grandpa, this guy challenged the most dangerous ****ing light heavyweight in the world, in his prime, and was the first guy to survive 12 Against Kovalev.

His win against Kelly was an awesome performance. Absolutely fantastic, especially as he was in his 40's.

His win over Pascal was also very good due to his age. Pascal is limited, but he's also very tough.

The Cloud win wasn't overly impressive in my opinion.

Whilst I applaud and respect him for challenging Kovalev at 50, again, there's no way he'd have taken a fight like that when he was younger. Again, at that point, he had nothing to lose, and he loved the adulation that he received with his "Alien" persona.

Bernard Hopkins is a ****ing legend and the best fighter of our era. Mayweather's career doesn't even come close and Pacquiao arguably comes close.

Whilst Bernard was a great fighter, both of those guys should be rated higher than him.

[robertzimmerman]

B-Hop is greater than Floyd and Pacman.

He beat better fighters and took greater risks. It's really not debatable if you actually look past star/ppv status.

Hell, Marquez may even have a better resume and done greater things than them both too.

What risks did Bernard take before he lost to Taylor?

[robertzimmerman]

Hopkins in the beginning of his career was in no position to cherry pick. Don't know where you get that from.

He didn't want to get shafted by the promotes plus he was high risk low reward fighter. It took him to have all those middle weight defenses to get recognized.

He was content at MW.

He could have rematched Roy in 2002 at a CW, which was after he'd become the undisputed MW champ with nothing else to gain. Yet he refused. He then only moved up 4 years later in 2006 after he'd lost twice to Taylor.

In 2008, he admitted that he could have moved up 6 years earlier had he have wanted, but didn't due to not wanting to give up his advantages.

The above proves what his mindset was.

He didn't take risks in his prime.

[monkeyboy]

lol. i said losses by KO.

Lol? I'm not sure you understand how a 'lol' works. What you said isn't funny so I'm not sure why that would make you lol.

Pac's resume with wins over Barrera, Morales and Marquez is better than any by BHop. I like Bhop and find his later age run phenomenal but the quality of Pac's opposition and wins is better. Hop's best wins are Johnson (who lost quite a few afterwards but was always tough), Winky (smaller), Tarver (decent but not earth shattering) and Pavlik (good win). Other than that his resume is more about defying age rather than anything else. What are his defining fights? Blown up Tito? Smaller DLH? Nothing truly stands out.

A HOFer for sure but of lesser stature than Pac and Floyd.

[Lester Tutor]

Lol? I'm not sure you understand how a 'lol' works. What you said isn't funny so I'm not sure why that would make you lol.

Pac's resume with wins over Barrera, Morales and Marquez is better than any by BHop. I like Bhop and find his later age run phenomenal but the quality of Pac's opposition and wins is better. Hop's best wins are Johnson (who lost quite a few afterwards but was always tough), Winky (smaller), Tarver (decent but not earth shattering) and Pavlik (good win). Other than that his resume is more about defying age rather than anything else. What are his defining fights? Blown up Tito? Smaller DLH? Nothing truly stands out.

A HOFer for sure but of lesser stature than Pac and Floyd.

dude stop trolling. I clearly said LOSSES by KO referring to Singsurrat, Torrecampo, and Marquez. Find me those equivalent losses, by KO, with Bhops record! Less than Pac's? That gifted catchweight prince roiding behind the scenes toradol freak? fugg outta here. .. "Bradley" he says..

[monkeyboy]

dude stop trolling. I clearly said LOSSES by KO referring to Singsurrat, Torrecampo, and Marquez. Find me those equivalent losses, by KO, with Bhops record! Less than Pac's? That gifted catchweight prince roiding behind the scenes toradol freak? fugg outta here. .. "Bradley" he says..

Not trolling. I get really annoyed when people 'lol' as if they are all superior.

I get what you are saying but I judge a fighter by who, how and when they beat them, not by who they lost to. Certainly losses have some weight but just denigrating a fighter because they lost a few fights by KO(especially when they were a very offensive minded fighter) just seems a bit silly. By that logic Marciano is the GOAT and Duran was OK at best.

Pac fought and beat a large number of HOFers, some whilst moving up to their weight. I don't see the weight as a huge deal because it's usually a necessary move. But it does mean that he wasn't a bigger fighter cherry picking small guys. Most of Pac's high end opposition was better than BHop's. I told you the ones I rate. I also give great credit for Hop's domination of middleweight.

Hop is excellent and will be in the record books below Pac who will be below Floyd.