All Time Great Fighters Who Never Lost in Their Prime...

Stopping Glen Johnson was a better win, being the only man to do so.

Then at 40+, beating Tarver, Winky, Pavlik and Pascal are all better wins.

The reason they're better wins are not just factoring Hopkins' age in, which is amazing, but also the fact that ALL those fighters would have comfortably beaten Anvil Man head to head, or in the case of Winky, did beat Anvil Man with ease.

Most high profile win != best win.

 

In pure boxing terms i'd agree, but it's the fight that "made" Hopkins. He went from relative obscurity to being as close to a household name as a boxer can these days.

 

Yeah, I can't argue with that.

Obviously it's his most high profile/important win, but in pure boxing terms it's absolutely not his best win.

 

Hopkins lost twice in his prime to Jermaine Taylor.

 

Yeah, agreed. Tito was a massive win at the time.

 

Which it shouldn't have been, but there you go, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Of course it should have been. Tito was huge at the time, on a nice running of killing everyone he fought as he moved up in weight.

 

Yep. Hindsight of course it's different but it was a massive win at the time.

 

It was a career-maker for Hopkins.

 

fuck the hindsight, trinidad was the best win of hopkins career. he'll tell you as much

 

Certainly, it is silly for anyone to say a case can't at least be made.

 

The hindsight refuses to be fucked. :nono:

 

How the fuck is it his best win in pure boxing terms when Tito lost to or would have lost to Winky, Pavlik, Pascal and Tarver? And Johnson too actually.

It's Hopkins' 6th best win. Sure it's an important win and made Nard mainstream, but there's no way it's his best win as a boxing match.

 

It's pretty ridiculous to fuck hind-sight when it was obvious Trinidad wan't shit without his wraps.

 

Does Irish seriously believe Hopkins was in his prime when he "lost" to Taylor?? Everyone's bias and agendas have SOME kind of limit..

 

LOL

it still kills me that mws seriously tries to argue this

 

Do you think Hopkins would not have lost to Taylor, then, had he been in his prime?

 

I think Hopkins would have knocked out Taylor in his prime. He became considerably less aggressive and active in the ring as he began to fade. Anyone who has followed his career knows that.

But Irish didn't know who Bernard Hopkins was before the Trinidad fight. Wouldn't surprise me if he didn't know who Trinidad was back then, either. The fact that he cites "struggling with Segundo Mercado" is illustrative of his ignorance of the circumstances of that fight as well as Hops' career as a whole.

 

I've followed his career.

And less aggressive doesn't mean past his prime. I think It had to do with Taylor's hand-speed. And the fact he got hit every time he tried to be aggressive.

 

He became less aggressive long before the Taylor fight. It showed in the Allen (3rd fight), DLH, and Eastman fights.

DLH gets Joe Lipsey'd by a prime Hopkins.

 

hopkins won the rematch with taylor anyhow.

 

Of course not.

 

I thought so too

close, but clear

 

Hopkins lost twice to Taylor. He just couldn't figure him out.

 

I thought the only clear fight was the first. A clear, close Taylor win. Seven rounds in that fight I don't think you can score for Hopkins.

The rematch was tough, could see it either way honestly.

 

Fuck, that was a bad bad KO. Hopkins knew Lipsey was out on his feet, and so he pounced on him like a lion on a baby gazelle.

 

:nono:

 

You're right. I forgot about Griffin.

Serves me right for trying to be nice to Jones ::

 

Aaron Pryor

 

Trinidad was fucking crap at middleweight. Anyone who knew boxing saw that result coming