the myth of bernard hopkins

[Canelo and GGG]

Please don't hurt me?

I have no mercy ,i set up killing blows with Jab like Monzon did when he killed his wife ,Jab and then finish ***** with rights when you feel the distance

[Szef]

I need 50K in cash, a plane ticket to Panama and a new identity. If anybody knows a guy, please PM me.

[Canelo and GGG]

I need 50K in cash, a plane ticket to Panama and a new identity. If anybody knows a guy, please PM me.

I Loled my friend,i will shot you through the Phone like Hitler in Kung fury

[_Maxi]

one division coward. welterweight killer.

Two of the main accusations thrown at golovkin, but didnt hopkins do much the same?

Hopkins didnt move up in weight until he was 41 years old. And he stayed at middleweight for 16 years!!! And in fact he only moved up after he lost to taylor. At no point was he on a winning streak and decided, 'wait i need to go up in weight for a challenge', he stayed there until he was old and until he lost again.

And then i examine hopkins record, werent two of his two best wins against smaller men?- de la hoya and trinidad. But golovkin beats brook and that win gets written off completely cause hes smaller, but when hopkins did it, wow what an amazing achievement beating 147 fighters (de la hoya actually started off way lighter than 147 too).

So can hopkins fans please explain to me what is so different about the circumstances of the two fighters? Is this just another case of glorifying a past era? Cause what he did in his prime years looks very much like what people are slating golovkin for.

You are 300% right but these assh0les are very ****** haters.

[Scipio2009]

one division coward. welterweight killer.

Two of the main accusations thrown at golovkin, but didnt hopkins do much the same?

Hopkins didnt move up in weight until he was 41 years old. And he stayed at middleweight for 16 years!!! And in fact he only moved up after he lost to taylor. At no point was he on a winning streak and decided, 'wait i need to go up in weight for a challenge', he stayed there until he was old and until he lost again.

And then i examine hopkins record, werent two of his two best wins against smaller men?- de la hoya and trinidad. But golovkin beats brook and that win gets written off completely cause hes smaller, but when hopkins did it, wow what an amazing achievement beating 147 fighters (de la hoya actually started off way lighter than 147 too).

So can hopkins fans please explain to me what is so different about the circumstances of the two fighters? Is this just another case of glorifying a past era? Cause what he did in his prime years looks very much like what people are slating golovkin for.

Bernard Hopkins won his IBF middleweight title in 1994 and didn't remotely get any heat behind him until Don King started the process to try and unify the middleweight belts towards the end of the 90s (with obvious eyes on using that to launch Felix Trinidad at 160lbs), and even then Hopkins didn't become an attraction is him own right until the ODLH fight in 2004 [For someone who has apparently reviewed Hopkins' record, it's odd to see you ignore how little TV interest Hopkins had over his career].

Old or not, once Hopkins got his IBF middleweight belt, he fought every fight, jumped through every hoop, and made every concession needed to keep fighting on.

Golovkin has made no concession ever to try and make a fight, with his biggest fight literally seeing him take a current welterweight champion and drag them up the full 13 pounds to the middleweight limit (even in your example, Hopkins gave Trinidad 2lbs, and Oscar 4lbs, to help make the fights).

nice try, though

[The Akbar One]

Hopkins middleweight opposition was significantly better than Golovkins. He had actual blue collar contenders to defend against. Golovkin has scrubs and 154 pounders that he defends against. Trinidad could hold his own as a middleweight. Hopkins was just better. Tito stopped a middleweight belt holder, and a top 10 contender, so saying that he was a smaller man, as a way to try and discredit Hopkins' win over him is dumb. Had Hopkins not been there. Trinidad would have been the unified Champ.

[Madison Boxing]

Bernard Hopkins won his IBF middleweight title in 1994 and didn't remotely get any heat behind him until Don King started the process to try and unify the middleweight belts towards the end of the 90s (with obvious eyes on using that to launch Felix Trinidad at 160lbs), and even then Hopkins didn't become an attraction is him own right until the ODLH fight in 2004 [For someone who has apparently reviewed Hopkins' record, it's odd to see you ignore how little TV interest Hopkins had over his career].

Old or not, once Hopkins got his IBF middleweight belt, he fought every fight, jumped through every hoop, and made every concession needed to keep fighting on.

Golovkin has made no concession ever to try and make a fight, with his biggest fight literally seeing him take a current welterweight champion and drag them up the full 13 pounds to the middleweight limit (even in your example, Hopkins gave Trinidad 2lbs, and Oscar 4lbs, to help make the fights).

nice try, though

Dont get what your point about TV has got to do with anything, surely that would have been a reason for hopkins to step in weight and fight more glamorous opponents, rather than stay at middleweight.
Which ever way you shape it, trinidad and de la hoya were better at 147 than 160 and they were smaller men than hopkins, who incidentally turned pro at light heavyweight, didnt de la hoya turn pro at super featherweight?

[JasonBoxing]

yeah, seems to be the case. Fighters get torn to shreds when they are active and then glorified when they are old or retired. Klitschko got absolutely torn to shreds when he was champion, surely one of the most criticised fighters, now hes old and not champion, hes spoken about so positively 'unbeatable in his prime years'.

I don't think anybody felt like Klitschko was unbeatable during his prime years. The best opponent Klitschko fought during his Prime Years was David Haye. Not Wlad's fault of course.

But ya, you are right. In 10 years time, Wlad will be praised more. But it's not always the case and not always accurate.

[JasonBoxing]

Also I think Hopkins earned accolades for what he achieved AFTER he was past prime. Not when he was prime.

A severely past prime Hopkins beating Kelly Pavlik/Tarver/Pascal was pretty impressive.

[Scipio2009]

Dont get what your point about TV has got to do with anything, surely that would have been a reason for hopkins to step in weight and fight more glamorous opponents, rather than stay at middleweight.
Which ever way you shape it, trinidad and de la hoya were better at 147 than 160 and they were smaller men than hopkins, who incidentally turned pro at light heavyweight, didnt de la hoya turn pro at super featherweight?

Hopkins was a middleweight champion that no one really had any interest in pushing. With that reality being what it was, Hopkins basically took every fight that was offered to him, on whatever terms that were offered, and hung his hat on "if I beat this guy, I'll get a better opportunity", until he got to the Oscar fight (where he was finally in position to call a shot).

Golovkin had a test run fight with Proksa but since then, he's had 10 of his next 12 fights financed by a broadcaster (with at least 5 off those fights having serious budgets backing them).

With the amount of money that Golovkin has backing him, compared to the type of money that Hopkins had backing him, Golovkin's resume is the driveling ****s compared to what it should've been.