Thread: The knock on Bernard Hopkins

First up, let me say that I think Bernard Hopkins is a future hall of famer, one of the best I've ever seen and one of the best of all time.

BUT.

All of his career defining victories came against guys who were moving up in weight (except for Tarver, but I never thought much of him anyway + I thinkk he was drained from moving down in weight) and against whom he boasted some considerable advantages in size and strength.

Name an elite level middleweight he beat in their prime. Robert Allen? Echols? No, his biggest wins at 160 were against Trinidad and DLH, guys who were in their prime at 147.

At 175 he's fought Winky, who peaked when he was at 154, Calzaghe (who beat him anyway) who is a 168lber and Pavlik, a natural middleweight he fought at 170lbs.


Anybody else feeling this?


I guess it ties in with him being the smartest fighter ever, he likes to stack the odds in his favour.

Well you can say the exact same about Marvin Hagler.

I also don't buy the excuse with Kelly Pavlik. Pavlik is a naturally bigger man than Hopkins, he actually made Bernard look small in the ring.

It's the same as when Ricky lost to Floyd. It was nothing to do with him fighting at welterweight. Floyd is no bigger than Ricky.

They both got beat because they lost to better boxers.

If Hop could still make 160 he would have beat Pavlik there.

Tito and Oscar I definitely agree with but the weight issue isn't what won him the fight with Pavlik, that dude is huge and SHOULD be fighting at 168.

He won't be able to make 160 for much longer imo. If he can't hack it at 168 or 170 then it's because he a less versatile fighter than Bernard.

Originally Posted by Greig

First up, let me say that I think Bernard Hopkins is a future hall of famer, one of the best I've ever seen and one of the best of all time.

BUT.

All of his career defining victories came against guys who were moving up in weight (except for Tarver, but I never thought much of him anyway + I thinkk he was drained from moving down in weight) and against whom he boasted some considerable advantages in size and strength.

Name an elite level middleweight he beat in their prime. Robert Allen? Echols? No, his biggest wins at 160 were against Trinidad and DLH, guys who were in their prime at 147.

At 175 he's fought Winky, who peaked when he was at 154, Calzaghe (who beat him anyway) who is a 168lber and Pavlik, a natural middleweight he fought at 170lbs.


Anybody else feeling this?


I guess it ties in with him being the smartest fighter ever, he likes to stack the odds in his favour.

His best victories have been againsed smaller men. Who's gonna argue with that? Your right

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Well you can say the exact same about Marvin Hagler.

I also don't buy the excuse with Kelly Pavlik. Pavlik is a naturally bigger man than Hopkins, he actually made Bernard look small in the ring.

It's the same as when Ricky lost to Floyd. It was nothing to do with him fighting at welterweight. Floyd is no bigger than Ricky.

They both got beat because they lost to better boxers.

If Hop could still make 160 he would have beat Pavlik there.

Tito and Oscar I definitely agree with but the weight issue isn't what won him the fight with Pavlik, that dude is huge and SHOULD be fighting at 168.

He won't be able to make 160 for much longer imo. If he can't hack it at 168 or 170 then it's because he a less versatile fighter than Bernard.

Exactly, we discuss it all the time here how you could take apart anybody's record if you try, and especially if you are picky with the facts.

He beat everyone the division had to offer, he unlike some other fighters out there named Oscar De La Hoya never sought out the smaller men he fought they sought him out...

Trinidad in the MW tourney was not Bhops idea, He did not ask DLH to jump to 160....

Echols, Vanderpool, Allen, Eastman, Joppy, Brown, James etc had all been campaigning at MW when he faced them, Most had good records with a better then 85% win ratio.....He fought who came to him....

Just like those in Calzaghes division when he was the SMW champ...not his fault the division was the way it was....He kept it his own just as Hopkins did for all those years....Was he supposed to leave the division for the approval of the fans?....He did what he was supposed to and reigned with a tight fist....Those who sought him out smaller or not sought him out....

Funny how he is criticized after he dismantles the guy who was supposed to "Send him into retirement"........

Seems Hopkins has a history of spoiling those assumptions then is blamed for doing so

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Well you can say the exact same about Marvin Hagler.

I also don't buy the excuse with Kelly Pavlik. Pavlik is a naturally bigger man than Hopkins, he actually made Bernard look small in the ring.

It's the same as when Ricky lost to Floyd. It was nothing to do with him fighting at welterweight. Floyd is no bigger than Ricky.

They both got beat because they lost to better boxers.

If Hop could still make 160 he would have beat Pavlik there.

Tito and Oscar I definitely agree with but the weight issue isn't what won him the fight with Pavlik, that dude is huge and SHOULD be fighting at 168.

He won't be able to make 160 for much longer imo. If he can't hack it at 168 or 170 then it's because he a less versatile fighter than Bernard.

I disagree with that entirely, he maybe looked taller than Hopkins, but in terms of his frame, Hopkins looked far thicker than Pavlik, far more defined through the trunk, back and arms.

Was there an unofficial HBO scale on the night? We got the Top Rank coverage here...

If there was I think Bernard would have at least 5 pounds on Pavlik, probably more.

And I am not using that as an excuse - based on what I saw Saturday, Hopkins beats Pavlik at 160, 168 - wherever the hell they fight. I'm just saying that all Hopkins career defining victories came against smaller guys.

I also think that the class of middleweight Hagler would beat regularly (Antofermo, Briscoe, Minter, Hamsho, Roldan, Mugabe et al.) are better than the Echols' and Allen's that B-Hop did.


I'm not having a go at Hopkins because I think he is a great fighter, just pointing out that when confronted with guys on his playing field weight wise (Jones, Taylor 1 and 2) he struggled.

Originally Posted by Greig

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Well you can say the exact same about Marvin Hagler.

I also don't buy the excuse with Kelly Pavlik. Pavlik is a naturally bigger man than Hopkins, he actually made Bernard look small in the ring.

It's the same as when Ricky lost to Floyd. It was nothing to do with him fighting at welterweight. Floyd is no bigger than Ricky.

They both got beat because they lost to better boxers.

If Hop could still make 160 he would have beat Pavlik there.

Tito and Oscar I definitely agree with but the weight issue isn't what won him the fight with Pavlik, that dude is huge and SHOULD be fighting at 168.

He won't be able to make 160 for much longer imo. If he can't hack it at 168 or 170 then it's because he a less versatile fighter than Bernard.

I disagree with that entirely, he maybe looked taller than Hopkins, but in terms of his frame, Hopkins looked far thicker than Pavlik, far more defined through the trunk, back and arms.

Was there an unofficial HBO scale on the night? We got the Top Rank coverage here...

If there was I think Bernard would have at least 5 pounds on Pavlik, probably more.

And I am not using that as an excuse - based on what I saw Saturday, Hopkins beats Pavlik at 160, 168 - wherever the hell they fight. I'm just saying that all Hopkins career defining victories came against smaller guys.

I also think that the class of middleweight Hagler would beat regularly (Antofermo, Briscoe, Minter, Hamsho, Roldan, Mugabe et al.) are better than the Echols' and Allen's that B-Hop did.


I'm not having a go at Hopkins because I think he is a great fighter, just pointing out that when confronted with guys on his playing field weight wise (Jones, Taylor 1 and 2) he struggled.

I think Pavlik was around 173-175-ish and Hopkins was around 180-185-ish, that from memory though, so it might not be all that accurate.

Hopkins is a great fighter, but I have the same reservations. More so since he left the MW division because its been just as much about tactical matchmaking as tactics within the actual ring.

The only legitimate LHW fight Hopkins has won since moving up is against Tarver. It was a very significant win. Calzaghe beat him (the tactical matchmaking went wrong. Calzaghe was better than they expected). Wright and Pavlik were both fighting 2 divisions outside what they should have been. Perhaps Hopkins would have done the same to them both at MW but neither fighter had any business going up so high to face Hopkins who has grown into the bigger weight well.

I thought Hopkins did a great job against Pavlik and I dont really want to criticise it, but it is a fact that Pavlik was fighting at a much heavier weight than he should have been.

Originally Posted by miles

Hopkins is a great fighter, but I have the same reservations. More so since he left the MW division because its been just as much about tactical matchmaking as tactics within the actual ring.

The only legitimate LHW fight Hopkins has won since moving up is against Tarver. It was a very significant win. Calzaghe beat him (the tactical matchmaking went wrong. Calzaghe was better than they expected). Wright and Pavlik were both fighting 2 divisions outside what they should have been. Perhaps Hopkins would have done the same to them both at MW but neither fighter had any business going up so high to face Hopkins who has grown into the bigger weight well.

I thought Hopkins did a great job against Pavlik and I dont really want to criticise it, but it is a fact that Pavlik was fighting at a much heavier weight than he should have been.

Well Hopkins fought at middleweight too for decades. How come he didn't suffer from the move up in weight? It's a bullshit excuse always made by those who lose.

Originally Posted by miles

Hopkins is a great fighter, but I have the same reservations. More so since he left the MW division because its been just as much about tactical matchmaking as tactics within the actual ring.

The only legitimate LHW fight Hopkins has won since moving up is against Tarver. It was a very significant win. Calzaghe beat him (the tactical matchmaking went wrong. Calzaghe was better than they expected). Wright and Pavlik were both fighting 2 divisions outside what they should have been. Perhaps Hopkins would have done the same to them both at MW but neither fighter had any business going up so high to face Hopkins who has grown into the bigger weight well.

I thought Hopkins did a great job against Pavlik and I dont really want to criticise it, but it is a fact that Pavlik was fighting at a much heavier weight than he should have been.

Well Hopkins fought at middleweight too for decades. How come he didn't suffer from the move up in weight? It's a bullshit excuse always made by those who lose.

It was Pavliks second fight aobve 160, once at 168 and once at 170.

Hopkins has only fought above 160 3 times, once at 175 against Tarver, at 170 against Winky and 175 against Joe. He lost the third fight, (presumably because he was fighting out of his weight class? ) and went in with a 2-1 record above 160 whilst Pavlik was 1-0.

If Pavlik would have won nobody on the site would have said it was because Hopkins was too small and was a natural 160 lber even though he spent 20 years fighting there, so why give Kelly all these excuses.

He lost the better man, that's why he lost.

Very good point Greig. My view is that Hopkins is probably the smartest fighter out there, I've always liked him. I loved that fight where he beat Tarver. I am left feeling a bit cynical after this fight though. Not about the Hopkins - Pavlik fight but the Hopkins - Calzaghe fight. I watched the BHOP v Joe fight with my beautiful lady's father recently. He fought a bit in his younger days around the Kempsey area where the likes of Hector Thompson and his family grew up and his father was a very good fighter. Anyway he knows boxing. We watched the Bhop v Joe fight and he was very unimpressed with Joe, it was his first time seeing him fight, and called it a slapfest. So watch the Joe fight then the Pavlik fight and ask ones self why didn't Bernard fight like that against Joe. I know Joe runs a lot and Pavlik stands in front of his opponent, but really, how does the guy who schooled the guy that schooled Hopkins (Taylor) get schooled by Hopkins

Rematch planned perhaps??

Originally Posted by Greig

First up, let me say that I think Bernard Hopkins is a future hall of famer, one of the best I've ever seen and one of the best of all time.

BUT.

All of his career defining victories came against guys who were moving up in weight (except for Tarver, but I never thought much of him anyway + I thinkk he was drained from moving down in weight) and against whom he boasted some considerable advantages in size and strength.

Name an elite level middleweight he beat in their prime. Robert Allen? Echols? No, his biggest wins at 160 were against Trinidad and DLH, guys who were in their prime at 147.

At 175 he's fought Winky, who peaked when he was at 154, Calzaghe (who beat him anyway) who is a 168lber and Pavlik, a natural middleweight he fought at 170lbs.


Anybody else feeling this?


I guess it ties in with him being the smartest fighter ever, he likes to stack the odds in his favour.

How come he keeps ducking Danny Green and Mundine?

They could come down to middle weight to fight him but he keeps ducking them. How come?

Originally Posted by Greig

First up, let me say that I think Bernard Hopkins is a future hall of famer, one of the best I've ever seen and one of the best of all time.

BUT.

All of his career defining victories came against guys who were moving up in weight (except for Tarver, but I never thought much of him anyway + I thinkk he was drained from moving down in weight) and against whom he boasted some considerable advantages in size and strength.

Name an elite level middleweight he beat in their prime. Robert Allen? Echols? No, his biggest wins at 160 were against Trinidad and DLH, guys who were in their prime at 147.

At 175 he's fought Winky, who peaked when he was at 154, Calzaghe (who beat him anyway) who is a 168lber and Pavlik, a natural middleweight he fought at 170lbs.


Anybody else feeling this?


I guess it ties in with him being the smartest fighter ever, he likes to stack the odds in his favour.

I 100% agree with all your points. I am not taking anything away from Hopkins, because I think he is awesome, but I don't think his opposition at Middleweight was that great. I can't think of anybody he fought that was ever likely to beat him (except for Jones who did). It's not his fault, you can only fight who is put in front of you, but he didn't face any Monzon's Hearns, Leonards or Haglers.

Yer he fought small guys but to be kicking elites ass at 43yo is sick.

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Originally Posted by miles

Hopkins is a great fighter, but I have the same reservations. More so since he left the MW division because its been just as much about tactical matchmaking as tactics within the actual ring.

The only legitimate LHW fight Hopkins has won since moving up is against Tarver. It was a very significant win. Calzaghe beat him (the tactical matchmaking went wrong. Calzaghe was better than they expected). Wright and Pavlik were both fighting 2 divisions outside what they should have been. Perhaps Hopkins would have done the same to them both at MW but neither fighter had any business going up so high to face Hopkins who has grown into the bigger weight well.

I thought Hopkins did a great job against Pavlik and I dont really want to criticise it, but it is a fact that Pavlik was fighting at a much heavier weight than he should have been.

Well Hopkins fought at middleweight too for decades. How come he didn't suffer from the move up in weight? It's a bullshit excuse always made by those who lose.

It was Pavliks second fight aobve 160, once at 168 and once at 170.

Hopkins has only fought above 160 3 times, once at 175 against Tarver, at 170 against Winky and 175 against Joe. He lost the third fight, (presumably because he was fighting out of his weight class? ) and went in with a 2-1 record above 160 whilst Pavlik was 1-0.

If Pavlik would have won nobody on the site would have said it was because Hopkins was too small and was a natural 160 lber even though he spent 20 years fighting there, so why give Kelly all these excuses.

He lost the better man, that's why he lost.

Hopkins was the better man. No doubts about that.

Hopkins has gone up in weight and maintained incredible form for someone his age. He obviously stays in shape all the year round and his weight probably doesnt fluctuate very much at all. Hopkins has probably been walking around at 170 pounds for the last 3 years. Certainly since the Tarver fight he has had a lot of time to grow comfortable at the weight. He is a freak of nature in terms of how much dedication he puts into looking after his body.

The Tarver fight was impressive as I said before. Not long after the Taylor fight and jumping up 2 divisions like that was a stellar achievement. I dont really rate the Wright win all that highly though. Wright is at his best at 154 pounds and 160 seemed to be his limit. Ive always maintained that it was a pointless fight and calculated to the max by Hopkins. I was surprised Hopkins ever went through with a fight with Calzaghe and though messy Calzaghe did what he needed to do. Calzaghe was indeed the one going up in weight but Hopkins had probably been walking around at 170 pounds or so for a good 2 years. Hopkins felt he was just as big as Calzaghe and maybe thought he had an edge in that regard. The Pavlik fight was a brave move by Hopkins. But at the same time, it was against a middleweight who had been beckoned up significantly beyond his comfort zone.

Hopkins put on an exhibition. And I was surprised by how effective he was. It was remarkable. But it doesnt hurt to question the weights the fighters are fighting at and also look at the tactical matchmaking that goes on too.

As I say it was brilliant, Hopkins doing that at 43. But I do feel he is an opportunist and does try to take whatever advantages he can. He is a very smart individual.