Most Overrated MIDDLEWEIGHT champion of all time

You forgot Women.

 

How good was Greb? Good enough to pulp the face of Gene Tunney. Greb could fight and Hopkins would learn a thing or two about dirty fighting too. Hopkins would get his ass handed to him by Gene Tunney. Hopkins really is overrated to all hell. De La Hoya my ass. Sturm beat his ass. He went life and death with a damaged Vargas. Lost to Mosley and then grabs his balls and falls on the canvas vs Hopkins. BS.

 

:limp:

 

Conversation over.

 

No way Tunney beats a fighter on gear.

He isn't a natural.

 

It was over the minute you opened your mouth

you never had a point because you were missing the entire point of the orignal post, per usual

 

I wonder how many Middleweights you can come up with you'd expect to beat Gene Tunney at LHW?

 

No, he wasn't. He'd already come up from welter and knocked out a legitimate MW titlist in the process.

I don't respect the opinion of anyone, hater or otherwise, who doesn't recognize Hopkins as an all-time great fighter. In his prime, his talent should've been evident to anyone who called themselves a boxing fan.

 

He is a great fighter. The middleweight portion of his career is extremely overrated though

 

Joppy and Holmes were fucking wank

 

There is some truth to the idea Hopkins' Middleweight reign may not receive the scrutiny it deserves, IMO.

 

Keith Holmes lost to Hacine Cherifi, FFS.

 

If your feeling hurt, still suffering the inner burning, use a prime Roy Jones to numb the pain, not Bernard Hopkins I say. American psychological rehabilitation 101.

And as for you,.. check out Wlad - Mccline,... then have a look at Wlad - Thompson,.. ... "Today's Wlad has improved" ... - no, no, no.. guess what

 

It goes both ways

The division was overall shit when Bernard was champ, but does anyone doubt he could have beaten Holmes/Joppy/Cherifi/Julio Cesar Green earlier if he would have been given the chance to unify against them? those guys wouldn't fight him, thats not really his fault

I mean, Bob Foster's division wasn't very good either but he dominated it, I dont think anyone, other than TLC or some other idiot like that, would ever say Bob Foster wasn't an all-time Light Heavyweight

Even if Bernard had been able to unify earlier, he still would have been the unified champ of a fairly awful middlewieght division, but theres not a lot that can be done about that... he beat down what was put in front of him... he is a great middleweight, I agree that his resume isn't spectacular at 160, but I also think there's really no way it COULD HAVE BEEN... who could he have fought at 160 during his reign that would make any of you say "oh, ok, he's definitely great. he proved it to me"?

 

If the same argument was made in favour of Calzaghe, you'd disagree through lad...

MTF

 

I'd disagree ebcause there were fights he could have made and because he looked thoroughly like shit against many of his absolutely atrocious opponents

 

Like which ones? The only two half decent blokes he could have fought were Ottke, who never left Deutschland and Johnson, which was absolutely Calzaghe's fault IMO. Hopkins bitched out of a fight with Calzaghe and Jones Jr has said that Joe was 'not on his radar'. Also, Calzaghe barely lost more than a couple of rounds against anyone...

MTF

 

While U Can't Front on his ACCOMPLISHMENTS, REED's Never Really Gotten All the Looooooooove that Carlos Monzon Generates...People Speak of "Subtle Greatness" when Discussing Monzon, to Explain the Lack of a "WOW" Factor that he had...


REED:hammert:

 

Monzon was the epitome of professional- simply put the man was dour guy with a good physique and solid fundamentals. He had a bad boy image, smoked two packs a day when not in camp and had some Latin "charm" and that completed the deal.

In effect, he is Hopkins with a hint more talent and better competition and a much smaller lip.

 

He wasn't particularly athletic, and very deliberate in his approach. I'm guessing this is why you view him as over-rated - he doesn't fit your mold of what a "great" boxer looks like.

I'm tempted to choose Emile Griffith as my choice. I think he was tough as nails, and great endurance. But clean punching? Effective aggression? Defense? Ring General-ship? I wouldn't say he exceled particularly in any of these categories, and yet he's regarded as having been one of the best.

 

REED Fell SHORT of Saying Monzon was "Overrated"...Call it what U Like, but REED Thinks "Greatness" Should JUMP OUT @ U...It Should B OBVIOUS, Almost from the OUTSET...


REED:hammert:

 

Monzon is "great" because he was the best guy of a decent era and has some good names on his rep: Briscoe, Benvenuit, Napoles, etc. He did jail time and flung his missus off a balcony and thats always a closer if you are looking for fame/infamy in the fight game.

 

Hagler's pretty overrated when you consider his best wins and the quality of opposition. He's a GREAT middleweight and had a great career but if he was judged by the same standards that guys like Jones, Hopkins, Calzaghe and mayweather are ...he'd fall very short too.

 

You like what I've done here Cdogg?

 

well, it's the topic of the fucking thread ! :giggle: forgive me for making such an outrageous inference.

i believe greatness comes in many forms. there's great performances. great fights. great moments. and then there's great fighters. and when it comes to great fighters, it's defined by longevity and victory over the most worthy rivals.

 

That's Because Hagler DIDN'T Test Himself @ Other Weights...



REED:kidcool:

 

word, plus he had the uncanny tendency of "testing" himself against smaller fighters moving up or guys that were small AND inactive for the past 3 years....

 

:bears:

MTF

 

Monzon and Griffith were two of the greatest fighters ever.

To say they were overrated is asinine.

Anyone that says they were "overrated" does not know shit about boxing.