the myth of bernard hopkins

[HandsofIron]

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.

I don't usually read core fans rants but I have to agree with you here.

And fyi, Trinidad started off at 140 and maxed out at 154, weight wise. He was no middleweight indeed.

[The Akbar One]

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

Echols, Allen, as well as Joppy, Trinidad, Johnson, etc. would all be Golovkin's best opposition to date. Get some knowledge of the division at the time period. Guys like Geale, Macklin, Monroe, Wade, Lemieux etc wouldn't even be one of the best 10 middleweights back then.

[Scipio2009]

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

You look at Golovkin's resume, and compare it to Hopkins' resume, and Hopkins still trumps Golovkin's run, lol.

Hopkins fought anyone and everyone that he could fight, and kept knocking folks off until the name guys had to fight him, and then when he knocked those guys off, he had a perch to stand from.

Hopkins loss his debut fight, had no backing, and was able to build a run of 20 title defense, before going up to light heavyweight and being champion again.

[Vasyl’s dad]

You look at Golovkin's resume, and compare it to Hopkins' resume, and Hopkins still trumps Golovkin's run, lol.

Hopkins fought anyone and everyone that he could fight, and kept knocking folks off until the name guys had to fight him, and then when he knocked those guys off, he had a perch to stand from.

And how is this any different from what is going on now?

Oh, its not. Btw, The guys Hopkins fought were not special. Tito was not a great middleweight. He was an all time welterweight. So he beat Joppy, big deal. Joppys biggest win is a 47 year old Duran.

Hopkins situation is not any different from GGG.

[Vasyl’s dad]

Echols, Allen, as well as Joppy, Trinidad, Johnson, etc. would all be Golovkin's best opposition to date. Get some knowledge of the division at the time period. Guys like Geale, Macklin, Monroe, Wade, Lemieux etc wouldn't even be one of the best 10 middleweights back then.

So what welterweight champion does GGG need to knock out in the 12th round? Allen and Joppy were no better than whats around now. Dont try to rewrite history.

[BennyST]

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.

I think you're confused mate. Hopkins was a two division lineal champ, and he skipped a division. So your first point is moot off the bat. Second, Brook jumped up direct from 147. Tito, and Oscar to a lesser degree, were genuine, legit middleweight champions. Tito had destroyed one of the best middleweights of that time in Joppy and was a favourite going in against Hopkins. Second point dead.

As to their middleweight opponents, which is the whole ****ty gist of this thread, you're right to a certain degree.

The difference is that Hopkins had some huge fights against HOF level opponents sprinkled in amongst the ****e. However, the best of GGG's opponents was run of the mill for Hopkins. Hopkins had similar ****e guys, but also had more really solid guys than GGG. For every Geale or Lemiuex, there was a much better version in Joppy or Jackson. For every Stevens, there was a Glen Johnson. For every Brook, there was a Tito or Oscar and for every Ouma, there was a Simon Brown.

Just better in every respect.

[BennyST]

So what welterweight champion does GGG need to knock out in the 12th round? Allen and Joppy were no better than whats around now. Dont try to rewrite history.

Canelo would be a start. A former welterweight that's moved up and become a middleweight champion, that's the kicker right there, just like Tito and Oscar.

You know what Canelo has done? Well, Tito did the same kind of thing, but just much, much, much better. No one would ***** about a Canelo fight because he's proven to be a championship level fighter at 160, by beating the champ there. Even if there are some differing circumstances around it, with all the catchweight BS.

Are you going to write a win over Canelo off as just another ****ty welterweight opponent because he once fought there? Doesn't really stick when you put it in context and use your own ****ty logic against you does it? Tito was considered the best middleweight champion in the world.

[pesticid]

Canelo would be a start. A former welterweight that's moved up and become a middleweight champion, that's the kicker right there, just like Tito and Oscar.

You know what Canelo has done? Well, Tito did the same kind of thing, but just much, much, much better. No one would ***** about a Canelo fight because he's proven to be a championship level fighter at 160, by beating the champ there. Even if there are some differing circumstances around it, with all the catchweight BS.

Are you going to write a win over Canelo off as just another ****ty welterweight opponent because he once fought there? Doesn't really stick when you put it in context and use your own ****ty logic against you does it? Tito was considered the best middleweight champion in the world.

Damn, you just murdered his post.

[Elroy The Great]

at least he moved up.
at least he fought quality opponents (win or lose)
3g fanatics cant use age as an excuse for not moving up.
borenard is a certified legend.

[BEEHOP]

Hopkins beat Tarver, I seriously doubt GGG could've beat a prime Tarver. Also his win over undefeated Pavlik is better than anything GGG has done. At the time Pavlik was rated as high as GGG is now.