Comments Thread For: GGG: Look at Hopkins; My Record's Much Bigger, Stronger at 160!

[Sugar Adam Ali]

top of my head.....
Jackson
Johnson
and I'm going to say Taylor, coz Hopkins won the first fight imho

but we don't even need to discuss those guys

Trinidad > Jacobs..... /story

I agree Trinidad > Jacobs

Taylor beat Hopkins

Jackson was a fat piece of shyt and totally shot when Hopkins fought him.

The 20 defenses hopkins has, literally everything but Tito is pretty unimpressive.

Hopkins claim to fame is everything he did as an old man at 175. Nobody was hyping him up as a great in the 90s, when Roy boxed his ears off.

Longevity was hopkins best asset, not his wins at mw

[Mzembe]

“I feel like a star, like a star because, just if you check Bernard’s opponents probably you understand that my record is much bigger, is much stronger, bigger,” Golovkin said. “This is a good situation for me and for my career and for my fans, of course. That’s it.”

He's been smoking the same stuff his fans smoke. What a moron.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's be a little open minded here. Hopkins record at 160 is literally littered with BUMS after BUMS. He fought Robert Allen three times, Antwon Echols twice and the only reason Hopkins became somebody is because he beat up Trinidad and Oscar. Both had no shot at beating him since they were much smaller than him.

Infact after Hopkins beat Tito in 2001 he went on to fight some fringe contenders until he beat Oscar in 2004. Hopkins is a great fighter that I respect but I only came to respect him after he moved up to 175 and literally beat almost everyone except Kovalev and all the guys he beat were much younger than him so on a grander scale of course Hopkins is a legend while the verdict on GGG is still out there.

Please take a look at Hopkins record at 160 before and after he beat Tito. He even ducked Roy Jones and asked for a 50-50 split of the purse just because he had beaten Tito. Hopkins was not in a position to dictate the terms with the then P4P King. He had never even been on PPV.

Try to be open minded like I said and just look at his list of opponents at 160 and tell me it's better than GGG. It is NOT

[aboutfkntime]

I agree Trinidad > Jacobs

Taylor beat Hopkins

Jackson was a fat piece of shyt and totally shot when Hopkins fought him.

The 20 defenses hopkins has, literally everything but Tito is pretty unimpressive.

Hopkins claim to fame is everything he did as an old man at 175. Nobody was hyping him up as a great in the 90s, when Roy boxed his ears off.

Longevity was hopkins best asset, not his wins at mw

you just called Jackson a has-been, forgetting that Jacobs was a never-was..... Danny was totally written-off as a chinny hypejob before the Golovkin fight, because of the way Pirog sparked him.....

Johnson PROVED himself over the course of his career..... the fact that he lost early to a GREAT fighter like Hopkins does not change that

and like I said..... Trinidad > all of Golovkin's opponents, so the subject of Jacobs is irrelevant

if Danny loses his next fight, folks will argue that Golovkin's best win is the solid Martin Murray (who is better than Lemieux)..... and this conversation will end there..... so, relying on a still-unproven Danny Jacobs is shaky ground imho

no such questions exist regarding Jackson/Johnson

[aboutfkntime]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's be a little open minded here. Hopkins record at 160 is literally littered with BUMS after BUMS. He fought Robert Allen three times, Antwon Echols twice and the only reason Hopkins became somebody is because he beat up Trinidad and Oscar. Both had no shot at beating him since they were much smaller than him.

Infact after Hopkins beat Tito in 2001 he went on to fight some fringe contenders until he beat Oscar in 2004. Hopkins is a great fighter that I respect but I only came to respect him after he moved up to 175 and literally beat almost everyone except Kovalev and all the guys he beat were much younger than him so on a grander scale of course Hopkins is a legend while the verdict on GGG is still out there.

Please take a look at Hopkins record at 160 before and after he beat Tito. He even ducked Roy Jones and asked for a 50-50 split of the purse just because he had beaten Tito. Hopkins was not in a position to dictate the terms with the then P4P King. He had never even been on PPV.

Try to be open minded like I said and just look at his list of opponents at 160 and tell me it's better than GGG. It is NOT

WHO FKN CARES ?????

we are not discussing how low Hopkins career was

nor are we discussing how low Golovkin's career sunk at times lol

we are not discussing their floor, we are discussing their ceiling

you mentioning Hopkins lowest-level opponents, is just you trying to make excuses to justify Golovkin's low-level of opponents..... which will not prove how great either of those guys were

Hopkins beat Trinidad..... and Golovkin beat Jacobs
/story

[aboutfkntime]

Hopkins has a better resume..... and judging by the eye-test, is a better more well-rounded fighter..... who would have beaten Golovkin head-to-head

he also reached for greatness on multiple occasions, getting there, on multiple occasions

this is just a silly comparison imho.....

and Golovkin's record is fake

unless you wanna write me an essay explaining how the defences that Murata is currently stacking up are legit..... despite the fact that Golovkin is now the real WBA middleweight champion

[Mzembe]

Name them..

How hard is it?

Just name Hopkins mw opponents he beat that were better than Jacobs. Besides Tito.

---------------------------------------------------------------

That's exactly what I keep saying. Even Tito was NOT a great boxer. He got literally beat up by pure boxers. Tito literally had no plan B against Hopkins and even worse against Winky Wright. Wright beat him with one single punch, the jab. Watch that fight on YouTube, Tito's dad had no game plan or advice to give Tito after the 7th round.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

you just called Jackson a has-been, forgetting that Jacobs was a never-was..... Danny was totally written-off as a chinny hypejob before the Golovkin fight, because of the way Pirog sparked him.....

Johnson PROVED himself over the course of his career..... the fact that he lost early to a GREAT fighter like Hopkins does not change that

and like I said..... Trinidad > all of Golovkin's opponents, so the subject of Jacobs is irrelevant

if Danny loses his next fight, folks will argue that Golovkin's best win is the solid Martin Murray (who is better than Lemieux)..... and this conversation will end there..... so, relying on a still-unproven Danny Jacobs is shaky ground imho

no such questions exist regarding Jackson/Johnson

It’s not who won the single biggest fight, it’s who had the best run, ggg fought more viable opponents for the most part than Hopkins did.
You can’t judge a division run on one opponent

[aboutfkntime]

It’s not who won the single biggest fight, it’s who had the best run, ggg fought more viable opponents for the most part than Hopkins did.
You can’t judge a division run on one opponent

nah, it is not..... we have already established that

WHO, with consideration given to when/how..... is all that matters

you are touching on ridiculous now

the FACT: that Hopkins had a better win..... means he proved that he had a higher ceiling

keyword = " PROVED " ..... otherwise, you are simply judging them on the eye-test and semantics

also..... I completely disagree with you that Golovkin fought better opponents..... he did not have a better run

he CLEARLY avoided mover/spoilers

[aboutfkntime]

this debate proves one thing.....

Golovkin's cherry-picking has already bitten him on the ass..... and he aint even retired yet lol

[Sugar Adam Ali]

nah, it is not..... we have already established that

WHO, with consideration given to when/how..... is all that matters

you are touching on ridiculous now

the FACT: that Hopkins had a better win..... means he proved that he had a higher ceiling

keyword = " PROVED " ..... otherwise, you are simply judging them on the eye-test and semantics

also..... I completely disagree with you that Golovkin fought better opponents..... he did not have a better run

he CLEARLY avoided mover/spoilers

That’s flawed logic.. so buster douglas has a better heavyweight run than every heavyweight since Ali.

Outside of Tito, every hopkins mw opponent was pretty garbage and average at best.

Name the fighters you think that were better than Murray, geale, etc.