the myth of bernard hopkins

[Robbie Barrett]

Yes but they are career WW's. Fact.

De La Hoya and Trinidad weren't WW's when they fought Hopkins. Brook was. That's the difference.

[soul_survivor]

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.

you have no idea what you're talking about or you have an inability to read and comprehend what I have written before

[Madison Boxing]

You 15yr olds new to boxing really need to stop....

what have i said thats incorrect?

[Motofan]

I do not understand peoples erections for fighters moving up in weight. If you are natural at one weight and that is where your body feels the best than why should you have to keep moving up? I swear a lot of you people are basing all of your boxing knowledge off of Manny and Floyd. B-hop kept himself in immaculate condition year round. He fought most of his career where he felt best. Not a damn thing wrong with that.

[Madison Boxing]

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.

he wasnt a middleweight, that just shows joppy wasnt that great. His best days were at 147 and he was the smaller man, that is without question. And those middleweight names your quoting arent top top fighters. He fought one of them (roy jones) and lost badly. Glen johnson ended up with 21 losses. Hopkins beat john david jackson after he lost to a boxer at 9-6. Again i think people are revising history and making out past title runs to be much bettter than current ones. GGG would get crucified if he fought someone who had just lost to a 9-6 fighter.

[Madison Boxing]

Sooo, are you saying GGG > Hopkins?

erm i would say there middleweight runs are pretty similar, except GGG never lost at middleweight, although obviously hes not fought an opponent in the same league as roy jones. More than anything i wanted to dispell this myth that hopkins went up in weight just to prove himself. No, he went up in weight cause he lost and because he was old. He never went up in weight in his prime years when he was winning

[sunny31]

he wasnt a middleweight, that just shows joppy wasnt that great. His best days were at 147 and he was the smaller man, that is without question. And those middleweight names your quoting arent top top fighters. He fought one of them (roy jones) and lost badly. Glen johnson ended up with 21 losses. Hopkins beat john david jackson after he lost to a boxer at 9-6. Again i think people are revising history and making out past title runs to be much bettter than current ones. GGG would get crucified if he fought someone who had just lost to a 9-6 fighter.

Talk about revising history. Hopkins - Jones was a 8-4 type of fight, very competitive. LOL at Glen Johnson comment, like that encapsulates his career in any way. William Joppy was a very solid and good fighter, nothing special but certainly respectable, it would be like Kell Brook coming up and beating Danny Jacobs or Billy Joe Saunders and then fighting GGG, it would have been a more notable win and respectable situation overall.

Hopkins resume is currently far superior to GGG. Even if you only include 160lbs. GGG has a long way to catch that - as someone already mentioned even the b and c level guys that each beat were better on Hopkins side. Trinidad was p4p top 2 when Hopkins totally dismantled him, its laughable to compare the Brook win to Trinidad or De la Hoya.

GGG needs the Canelo win, Jacobs, Saunders, than I think he is comparable to Hopkins for sure.

[b Murphington]

erm i would say there middleweight runs are pretty similar, except GGG never lost at middleweight, although obviously hes not fought an opponent in the same league as roy jones. More than anything i wanted to dispell this myth that hopkins went up in weight just to prove himself. No, he went up in weight cause he lost and because he was old. He never went up in weight in his prime years when he was winning

Well I would argue that some of the guys he fought at middleweight were better than GGG's current list of opponents. Trinidad an De La Hoya, regardless of being in higher weight classes, are HOF fights. Something GGG's resume is lacking. They also had previously won a title at that weight class, which proves that they were capable at that weight. Plus, Hopkins was the first to KO Oscar, an impressive feat.

I would also like to add that Hopkins first loss to Taylor was very controversial, hence the rematch. And even their 2nd fight was close.

I would even add that his best run was at light heavy weight just because of how successful it was at an advanced age. Doesn't matter the reason why he went up in weight.

[Scipio2009]

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.

Because, as an example, the Golovkin-Wade fight card (the last show that K2 risked their money on) had a combined guaranteed payout for the fighters of nearly $3m, yet K2 wants to cry about not being able to find anyone to fight.

If you actually want to fight good fighters, especially with that much money on the table, you bend a bit to try and make fights. Alvarez, Cotto, Sturm, Mundine, and a few others may end up spitting in your face, but there's hardly a fighter near Golovkin's size who isn't taking the fight for good money.

Golovkin's entire slate of opponents, so far, get washed by William Joppy, yet you want to talk mess?

[Vasyl’s dad]

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.

Too bad canelo dropped his status as middleweight champion just so he wouldn't have to do what Tito did.

So, who else then?