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

[markther]

I'll ask again;

How many *undefeated* beltholders @ 160 has the Triple Duck beaten?

Marvin Hagler didn’t beat any undefeated belt holders @ 160 either so what’s your point. You don’t measure fighters by how many “undefeated” belt holders they faced but the overall quality of their opposition and in this case at middleweight. If I followed your logic, that would make William Joppy, who beat an undefeated blown up middleweight in Trinadad, better than Hagler who beat “0” undefeated middleweight champions-lol..what a joke!!!!

[The Problem Child]

Golovkin is the greatest fighter of all time, period.

[Nay_Sayer]

Marvin Hagler didn’t beat any undefeated belt holders @ 160 either so what’s your point

LMAO

Marvelous Marvin has the KO win over Thomas Hearns.

Exactly WHO has Bumlovkin beaten?

[Nay_Sayer]

Glen johnson was a rugged come forward fighter when he beat jones and tarver.

Glen was a green counterpuncher when he fought Hopkins.

There is a world of difference between the 2.

Like first and last names maybe?

Lol..

[Nay_Sayer]

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

While that might be true, how is Hopkins' resume any better? Just take out Oscar who started his career at 130 and was given a gift decision against Sturm at 160. And take out Tito who was also a guy that started his career at 140 and more important, Tito was just an average boxer with power. He got embarrassed by Winky Wright in one of the most one sided fight I have ever watched.

Take those two names out and tell me which opponent of Hopkins was better than the ones GGG has fought. Lastly, GGG is 36 and will fight probably 10 more times so his resume can only get better

Ok, lets be fair about it.

Take Jacobs and Murray off of Bumlovkin's resume and what exactly are you left with? A grocery store full of TOMATO CANs.

[aboutfkntime]

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

I threw that in on top of the list of cans that Hopkins fought. Here's the other thing, Hopkins has always been a very ugly and dirty fighter. Not until he moved up to 170 did his boxing acumen became obvious especially against much younger guys that were tipped to beat him (Pavlik, Pascal even Tarver).
I never liked Hopkins at 160 because he was beating up smaller guys like Tito and Oscar and refused to step up to fight Roy at 168. I think Roy was willing to come down to 165 but Hopkins concern was money. And I do understand the financial demands of Hopkins because he was the most underpaid champion of any weight class.

The reality is Hopkins record at 160 is so bad that I could list his list of opponents but I doubt you'd give two cents. Just google them and tell me who among his hit list is even in the Hall of Fame. Leave out Oscar and Tito. Oscar was gifted that belt at 160 anyway. He got beat by Felix Sturm and I am sure you agree with me

1) Hopkins beat champions for his titles, Golovkin did not

2) Hopkins did not defend lower/junior titles, like Golovkin did

3) Hopkins did not duck his mando to break Monzon's record..... like Golovkin ducked his mando to break Hopkins record

4) Hopkins did not avoid mover/spoilers, like Golovkin did

5) I think that Golovkin is a total fkn hypejob, who has tip-toed through the tulips for his entire career..... he just ducked a 10-fight rookie because the guy was "too dangerous"

those guys are clearly not cut from the same cloth man

it is amusing that you need me to " leave out " Oscar and Tito

you sound like you joined yesterday

[aboutfkntime]

Ok, lets be fair about it.

Take Jacobs and Murray off of Bumlovkin's resume are what exactly are you left with? A grocery store full of TOMATO CANs.

[aboutfkntime]

Ok, lets be fair about it.

Take Jacobs and Murray off of Bumlovkin's resume are what exactly are you left with? A grocery store full of TOMATO CANs.

if you have an average resume after campaigning for a decade, it could be indicative of a weak era

if you have an average resume after campaigning for a decade, and the list of guys who you should have fought is MUCH BIGGER than your list of accomplishments..... that could be indicative of a wet vagina

Hopkins would not have ducked the guys who Golovkin ducked

after Golovkin fans spent the duration of Gennady's career blurting out silly excuses to justify why he avoided better opponents..... let the record show, Golovkin is on record for avoiding the 10-fight rookie Derevy because he is "too risky"..... which tells the WHOLE story

they lied to their gullible fanbase

[PRINCEKOOL]

Bernard Hopkins should of fought Golovkin, Stylistically he would of beat him! Even in 2015 Bernard Hopkins would of beat Golovkin!

[markther]

LMAO

Marvelous Marvin has the KO win over Thomas Hearns.

Exactly WHO has Bumlovkin beaten?

Stick to your damn argument. Didn’t you say how many “undefeated belt holders at 160?” Hearns had already had a loss to Leonard when he fought Hagler and Hearns started out at welterweight. Your a big time fool, phony boxing fan-LOL!!!