the myth of bernard hopkins

[Larry the boss]

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?

And Hopkins gave him a catchweight even tho he had the WBO TITLE....Canelo turned pro at 140 and GGG refuses to do a catchweight..see the difference?

[LoadedWraps]

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.

Can't red K you again yet, but as soon as I can, you're getting red K bombed for this sacriligeous post.



[IMG]http://i465.***********.com/albums/rr14/themishkin/GIFs/Rep/Game-Show-Punch-Negged.gif[/IMG]

[Madison Boxing]

Can't red K you again yet, but as soon as I can, you're getting red K bombed for this sacriligeous post.



[IMG]http://i465.***********.com/albums/rr14/themishkin/GIFs/Rep/Game-Show-Punch-Negged.gif[/IMG]

how can it be sacriligeous when what ive put is fact, he was a middleweight for 16 years, he didnt step up in weight until he was 41, his two defining wins at middleweight were against welterweights. stop being a cry baby and whining cause you dont like what youve read, theres others on the thread who have agreed with it

[Canelo and GGG]

how can it be sacriligeous when what ive put is fact, he was a middleweight for 16 years, he didnt step up in weight until he was 41, his two defining wins at middleweight were against welterweights. stop being a cry baby and whining cause you dont like what youve read, theres others on the thread who have agreed with it

LoadedWraps is ****** he gave me red K for saying that Toney is Flatfooted ,guess what Loaded you ****** HE Is ****ING FLATFOOTED .

[Vasyl’s dad]

Hopkins fought 2 guys who were ATG, both of whom had won something at middleweight and had HOF careers at welterweight. No one can really say "wow" when GGG beats Brook who in all honesty, hasnt done much. It's a good win but nothing special or career defining.

At the same time, it's idiotic to call for GGG to move up and claim that as a negative.

You obviously didn't see the Sturm fight if you think Oscar was some great achievement for Bernard at 160.

[soul_survivor]

You obviously didn't see the Sturm fight if you think Oscar was some great achievement for Bernard at 160.

I'm not stating Oscar's performance against Sturm was great, I'm saying he held a title at 160lb. He also had great wins at 147 AND 154 and showcased skill and power. He was arguably a top p4p fighter too.

All of that is a lot better than 30 years of Kell Brook.

[Madison Boxing]

LoadedWraps is ****** he gave me red K for saying that Toney is Flatfooted ,guess what Loaded you ****** HE Is ****ING FLATFOOTED .

hes an idiot, what more is there to be said.

[Vasyl’s dad]

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.

Yea, because fighting Robert Allen and Echols five times makes Hopkines middleweight reign the best ever.

[Vasyl’s dad]

I'm not stating Oscar's performance against Sturm was great, I'm saying he held a title at 160lb. He also had great wins at 147 AND 154 and showcased skill and power. He was arguably a top p4p fighter too.

All of that is a lot better than 30 years of Kell Brook.

He was given a title at 160. So again, what is so great about Hopkins beating him?

Absolutely nothing. He beat a past prime, part time fighter. A smaller one at that.

But for some reason,

this makes Hopkins resume legit.

[b Murphington]

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.

Sooo, are you saying GGG > Hopkins?