Bernard Hopkins is the most Underrated fighter of our Era

[Tom Cruise]

B-Hop has been an underdog in 3 of his biggest wins. Tito, Pavlik, Tarver. Dismantled them all.

Floyd??
Pacman only had a starving DLH since Barrera.

Both Floyd and Pacman were favored against everyone else, minus the farce between them both.

Marquez fought them both before they fought each other. Marquez beat thee 130lb champion. And owns a brutal stoppage of Pacman while Floyd has Diego Corrales. Which is a laughable (best win).

He was the underdog because he wasnt that impressive leading up to those fights. Manny and Floyd were favourites because they nearly always look incredible against good/great opposition.

Leading up to Trinidad he was something of an unknown quality due to the era of middleweights he was beating not being very good. That was his 'Barrera' moment. No where near as good a win as Barrera but ok.

Coming into the Tarver fight he had just lost twice to Jermain Taylor. Going into the Pavlik fight he had just lost (debateable) in one of the worst fights ever vs Calzaghe.

Being an underdog doesnt make the wins better or worse. You are basically counting Manny and Floyds dominance against them.

[bojangles1987]

B-Hop has been an underdog in 3 of his biggest wins. Tito, Pavlik, Tarver. Dismantled them all.

Floyd??
Pacman only had a starving DLH since Barrera.

Both Floyd and Pacman were favored against everyone else, minus the farce between them both.

Marquez fought them both before they fought each other. Marquez beat thee 130lb champion. And owns a brutal stoppage of Pacman while Floyd has Diego Corrales. Which is a laughable (best win).

Whether they are underdogs or not doesn't speak to the level of competition, though. It just speaks to the level of fighter people believe Mayweather, Pacquiao, and Hopkins to be. Mayweather and Pacquiao were rarely underdogs because they were just that good. Hopkins wasn't considered as good as them, and also because of his age was the underdog more often.

I mean there's absolutely no way you can call Pavlik or Tarver better fighters than the guys Floyd and Pac beat. Trinidad is debatable and a great win, but also not likely to be better than Floyd and Pac's best wins. Then you add in just how many great names and top ranked fighters Mayweather and Pacquiao beat over the years, which Hopkins doesn't match either (especially Mayweather).

And Marquez...Marquez plain doesn't have the depth or names on his record to enter this conversation at all. He was a tremendous foil for Pacquiao and will always be remembered as such. He sure as **** wasn't as great as Mayweather or Pacquiao. I don't think he was even as great as Hopkins.

[therealpugilist]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Actually he is one of the more ovrerrated Greats in recent memory

the first half of his career was spend defending the ibf trinket against some of the world title challengers of the last 20 years

He has the record for most title defenses of a major title, and only defended the undisputed title 6 times.

Monzon holds to record for lineal defenses


Many of his best opponents he faced were when he was past prime and past the age of 35.

He took many calculated risks and his best opponents at 160 was a green Glen Johnson, and undersized DLH and Trinidad.....his best opponent was Jones whom he lost to


at 175....he received a lot of credit for his wins but his losses get brushed off or ignored


whether in his prime, in his 30s and recently, Hopkins has not shown the ability to deal with fighters that are equal to him in size, but are quicker, more mobile and more athletic

he has a reputation as a cagey tactician, which he is a very good technical boxer, but he tries to impose his style and tricks and when they don't work, he takes a loss.

Calzaghe, Jones, Taylor, Pascal, Dawson were all guys he couldn't adapt to mid fight to turn things in his favor


as a tactician and being adaptable, he is overrated


taking nothing away from him...he is an all time great, just not on the level of Pernell whitaker, Roy Jones or Floyd mayweather. They adapted to all styles when they were top fighters

[bojangles1987]

Calzaghe, Jones, Taylor, Pascal, Dawson were all guys he couldn't adapt to mid fight to turn things in his favor


as a tactician and being adaptable, he is overrated

Adjusting mid-fight is exactly what he did against Pascal in the first fight, which is why he arguably won despite 2 early KDs.

[Tom Cruise]

What's annoying is how these fans will elevate fighters like Cloud in order to make Hopkins look better (Tavoris ****ing Cloud!), but then obliterate fighters like Bradley, Guerrero, and Ortiz as nothing, when they were all better than Cloud when Mayweather or Pacquiao beat them. Trinidad is a great win, and so is Tarver. Is anyone really going to put Trinidad and Tarver on the same level as Mayweather beating Pacquiao or Pacquiao beating Barrera? I don't think it's close.

That longevity for Pac is really amazing. I feel his longevity goes very unmentioned. He's very clearly declined and yet he's still able to handle top 10 welterweights with ease. If he manage to pick up a Crawford win before he's done that will be unreal. Despite losing to Mayweather, he still has a chance to create real debate about who had the better career.

People forget how long both Manny and Floyd have been around. I was 8 years old when they both won their first world titles and they were still beating top guys within the last year or so.

I doubt Manny goes for Crawford in the end unless HBO/TR find some money from somewhere. Would be amazing if it happened though and its not like a loss at this point affects his legacy much. Pretty much a win win for him if they can make it

[therealpugilist]

Adjusting mid-fight is exactly what he did against Pascal in the first fight, which is why he arguably won despite 2 early KDs.

that's one fight in comparison to Calzaghe, Jones, Taylor 2x, Dawson and Kova recently

if plan A isn't working, Hopkins spoils or tries to do those NBA flops.....he did it vs dawson, Jones and several other fights

he knows all the tricks in the book but he doesn't deal with certain styles well....that is al

[Bushbaby]

Whether they are underdogs or not doesn't speak to the level of competition, though. It just speaks to the level of fighter people believe Mayweather, Pacquiao, and Hopkins to be. Mayweather and Pacquiao were rarely underdogs because they were just that good. Hopkins wasn't considered as good as them, and also because of his age was the underdog more often.

I mean there's absolutely no way you can call Pavlik or Tarver better fighters than the guys Floyd and Pac beat. Trinidad is debatable and a great win, but also not likely to be better than Floyd and Pac's best wins. Then you add in just how many great names and top ranked fighters Mayweather and Pacquiao beat over the years, which Hopkins doesn't match either (especially Mayweather).

And Marquez...Marquez plain doesn't have the depth or names on his record to enter this conversation at all. He was a tremendous foil for Pacquiao and will always be remembered as such. He sure as **** wasn't as great as Mayweather or Pacquiao. I don't think he was even as great as Hopkins.

Nope, no, not at all. If you can honestly tell me there weren't any fighters, (especially) at 154 and even 147, who they 'd be at least even against or underdogs against, then maybe what you say would be true. B-Hop fought those guys. Floyd and Pacman did not.

We know Floyd ran from his own interview when Margarito showed up. (Margarito) was the most feared welterweight before PDub took the cake. Floyd/Pacman didn't want the work. Team Pacman is even on record as saying "they're brave, but not that brave", concerning the Margarito that destroyed Cotto.

Both Martinez and GGG offered to fight Floyd and or Pacman at 154. Both were in fact 154 champions. Floyd/Pacman would not have been favored against those guys mentioned. Pacman only fought margarita after he was sure he was shot.

Not to mention the age in which B-Hop dominated favored opponents.

[Bushbaby]

He was the underdog because he wasnt that impressive leading up to those fights. Manny and Floyd were favourites because they nearly always look incredible against good/great opposition.

Leading up to Trinidad he was something of an unknown quality due to the era of middleweights he was beating not being very good. That was his 'Barrera' moment. No where near as good a win as Barrera but ok.

Coming into the Tarver fight he had just lost twice to Jermain Taylor. Going into the Pavlik fight he had just lost (debateable) in one of the worst fights ever vs Calzaghe.

Being an underdog doesnt make the wins better or worse. You are basically counting Manny and Floyds dominance against them.

People forget how long both Manny and Floyd have been around. I was 8 years old when they both won their first world titles and they were still beating top guys within the last year or so.

I doubt Manny goes for Crawford in the end unless HBO/TR find some money from somewhere. Would be amazing if it happened though and its not like a loss at this point affects his legacy much. Pretty much a win win for him if they can make it

Please resort to Bojangles response.

BTW, how long has B-Hop been around??

[bojangles1987]

that's one fight in comparison to Calzaghe, Jones, Taylor 2x, Dawson and Kova recently

if plan A isn't working, Hopkins spoils or tries to do those NBA flops.....he did it vs dawson, Jones and several other fights

he knows all the tricks in the book but he doesn't deal with certain styles well....that is al

He did the same thing against Taylor both times. He lost those fights because of slow starts, not inability to adjust. Mid-fight adjustments made both fights close.

[TOBYLEE1]

BH is a career of two half's.
In the first part when young and in prime he kind of cherry picked and didnt do much.
Second half different story. Better than Floyd but not pac cos of 9 division titilist

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.