Jermain Taylor vs Felix Trinidad @ 160

I know, I just wanted to clarify that what goes for one also goes for the other

 

Forget top 3 there's reason to believe him to be at the very TOP. Hopkins is UNDERRATED if anything.

At worst you can put him at #4 (behind Hagler, Robinson, Monzon).

 

Idiotic

 

Truth.

 

I suspect I'm not alone in feeling disillusioned when it comes to Hopkins.

He's madly overrated in fact.

 

I don't know what to say.

I've been following boxing for 25 years, watched tape of past greats like Robinson, Pep, Armstrong, Ike Williams, louis, Walcott...blah blah...and I see in Bernard one of the smartest, most creative geniuses ever to grace the ring. Hopkins is also elusive, brave, tough and very fit. His balance and positioning is also second to none.

I think he gets no love because he can be a dirty fighter and can be a bit of a whiner or racist.


Alot of these guy who are saying that Hopkins isn't even top 3 middleweight of all time probably also picked Tarver and/or Pavlik to beat him.

 

And all the other stuff. Hopkins has some nice old man wins that enhance a legacy.

 

I dont dispute that. It wont refute the point Im making about Calzaghe though.

 

No one disagreed with your point though Ramonza. They were both guilty of being massive pussies.

 

Tarver? Sure. That was an excellent win.

Pavlik? Another hype job, who was only built up because people were desperate for somebody to beat Calzaghe

Or do you mean Pascal? Carl Frochs leftovers?

:dunno:

 

Hopkins was no pussy. He fought De La Hoya and Trinidad, unified the Middleweight belt...moved up and defeated Pavlik. He had fought a prime Jones too.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Although there's no doubting that Hagler looked more badass!

 

I've covered Tito.

I didn't even think anybody would seriously bring up Oscar to be honest ::

Just covered Pavlik.

He had nothing to lose fighting Jones, and whilst he did well, he was still dominated

 

Ugh!!! You wrote me a few pages back and I was just finishing a long reply.

To surmise, I absolutely agree with you theres almost nothing between them at MW & SMW, yet Hopkins gets far more credit.

I absolutely disagree with you Hopkins hasnt distinguished himself from Calzaghe in their post MW/SMW careers. He has.

 

Hopkins is simply not better than Marvin Hagler

 

You've always been fair with this debate actually so I respect what you're saying, although I also respectfully disagree with the second part.

Out of curiosity, outside of the Tarver win, which fights do you feel he has distinguished himself with?

 

I did answer that in my wiped reply. You said they had one really good win each, Tarver for Hopkins, and Kessler for Calzaghe.

Id add Trinidad, Pavlik and Pascal (there is more to a quality win than purely the quality of foe sometimes) for Hopkins, and Hopkins himself for Calzaghe.

 

Shocking the world three times as Hopkins did vs. Tito, Tarver and Pavlik counts for something. It just does.

 

This. I have no problem at all with people who don't like Calzaghe. Hell, I don't like him...he's as dull as fuck, his father is a complete balloon and his balls only appeared late on in his career. But the difference between Calzaghe and Hopkins is HUGELY overrated around here simply because Hopkins, a cheating, devious fucking racist, is a 'legend' whilst Calzaghe, who beat Hopkins once Hops finally got around to bothering his arse fighting him (about five years too late), is some chump.

MTF :nono:

 

Neither of those guys were middleweights, though, and Pavlik, who was a middleweight, got chinned at 175. He fought a prime Jones, and lost. He fought Jermaine Taylor, and lost. He fought Calzaghe, and lost...

MTF

 

I won't disagree with that. I genuinely think Hopkins is a shade better but if it seems like I think it's much more than a shade it's just my hatred of Calzaghe and everything his career and style represents talking.

 

He fought Taylor as a 40 year old man and Calzaghe as a 43 year old man. Important qualifiers.

 

But Hopkins is seemingly ageless. I'm not just saying that glibly: the normal rules of boxing and aging just don't seem to apply to the guy. He's lost ONE fight in six years, despite his age. It's crazy. he should be like every other fighter of his age- shambling around taking beatings- but he isn't. He's still world class. You can't just say 'Hopkins is ancient' and expect that to wash as it normally would, because the evidence shows that he simply isn't aging like almost every other boxer in history does/did. Sure, he isn't what he was in his 'prime', but being 43 did NOT mean he was some bum. Since that fight he has wiped his ass with guys like Pavlik, Dawson and beat Tarver and wright in his forties...

BTW, when was Hopkins 'prime'? When he lost to Jones Jr? Most people think he was 'green' then. What about when he was beating legends like Steve Frank and William Bo James? Echols? Vanderpool? These guys were SHITE but were the mainstays of his prime. His ONE quality MW win is Glen Johnson. Tito was a shock I suppose but Tito was a one-dimensional welterweight. The Oscar fight was a shameless money grab. Joppy arguably lost to Howard fucking Eastman, who then also lost to Hopkins. Was Hopkins past prime by this point, because this was when he pulled out of fighting Calzaghe and lost to Taylor instead...

MTF

 

Anyone who really thought Trinidad and Pavlik were gonna win against Hopkins can't read boxing. The Tarver win genuinely shocked me though, fantastic win.

 

Mate, pop on some footage of the Echols fight then footage of a recent fight - the physical deterioration in terms of speed, balance, trigger, activity is pretty much in line with any fighter (who's stayed active hasn't taken beatings), his style/skill set just meant a certain immunity from that, especially given the right match making. I think his prime is roughly 96-02. He peaked late (like Calzaghe), but no man's still at his athletic peak at 43. It doesn't detract from the fact that Calzaghe beat a genuine world class fighter to acknowledge that it wasn't an absolute prime Hopkins.

FWIW, Hops pulled out of the showtime deal in mid 2002, fought Taylor 3 years later, (and yeah definitely past his peak by then though tightness at the weight was contributing as well as age).

 

But again, I agree with you guys that Hopkins is a tad overrated.

 

Underrated.

 

I had picked Trinidad to win, I have to admit, but that was more a heart decision than a head decision. I was a huge Tito fan at the time and didn't want to accept that he would lose. AWasn't surprised to see Hopkins pick him apart though.

Tarver and Pavlik...I had no doubts that Hopkins would dismantle them. Was never impressed with those two dudes.

 

people talk about him among the top 3 middleweigths ever which is WAY overrrating him

 

There's an argument for him being at the very top...so people suggesting that he doesn't deserve to be in the top 3 is WAY underrating him.

Gimme your top 5