-
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.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
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.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
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;)
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
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.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
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
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
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.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greig
Quote:
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.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
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.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
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.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
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.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
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??
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
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? :rolleyes:
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
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.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Yer he fought small guys but to be kicking elites ass at 43yo is sick.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
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.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bikersk
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??
Duran beat Leonard beat Hearns beat Duran. Frazier beat Ali beat Foreman beat Frazier. Boxing ain't as easy as ABC. You really can't answer your own question about how different Joe fought in comparison to Pavlik? (slaps or not, at least he was throwing them without being distracted by every little feint Bernard made, plus he doesn't take a whole second to reset his feet after throwing his power hand - couple clues for you there - also highlighted where you went a little wropng with your assertions, maybe you can watch both fights again and ask yourself 'who took more backward steps? Kelly or Joe?')
I like the disclaimer everyone seems to say 'not taking anything away from him but.....', always found it a rather contradictory statement. I'm not for one second saying that you can't scrutinize a guys career, and that you have to say that the man is some sort of god, just that there is no fighter in history with a truly perfect unquestionable record, and that Hopkins' stands right up there with the best of 'em.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bikersk
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??
Duran beat Leonard beat Hearns beat Duran. Frazier beat Ali beat Foreman beat Frazier. Boxing ain't as easy as ABC. You really can't answer your own question about how different Joe fought in comparison to Pavlik? (slaps or not, at least he was throwing them without being distracted by every little feint Bernard made, plus he doesn't take a whole second to reset his feet after throwing his power hand - couple clues for you there - also highlighted where you went a little wropng with your assertions, maybe you can watch both fights again and ask yourself 'who took more backward steps? Kelly or Joe?')
I like the disclaimer everyone seems to say 'not taking anything away from him but.....', always found it a rather contradictory statement. I'm not for one second saying that you can't scrutinize a guys career, and that you have to say that the man is some sort of god, just that there is no fighter in history with a truly perfect unquestionable record, and that Hopkins' stands right up there with the best of 'em.
Hey Bomp, don't get me wrong, I watched the Hopkins V Calzaghe fight live and enjoyed the win by Joe, it was well deserved on the night. I was commenting on what my girl's dad said. Joe does run but it's not a criticisim, it's just perfect stick and move. There was no disclaimer from me I am just a little skeptical of GBP these days and the fights they win and lose. I know styles make fights and that's why some guys will win against someone but not another but the politics of boxing at present makes me wonder about this fight is all, not taking anything away from Joe, you can't argue his undefeated record but it just smells a bit fishy to me is all.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bikersk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bikersk
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??
Duran beat Leonard beat Hearns beat Duran. Frazier beat Ali beat Foreman beat Frazier. Boxing ain't as easy as ABC. You really can't answer your own question about how different Joe fought in comparison to Pavlik? (slaps or not, at least he was throwing them without being distracted by every little feint Bernard made, plus he doesn't take a whole second to reset his feet after throwing his power hand - couple clues for you there - also highlighted where you went a little wropng with your assertions, maybe you can watch both fights again and ask yourself 'who took more backward steps? Kelly or Joe?')
I like the disclaimer everyone seems to say 'not taking anything away from him but.....', always found it a rather contradictory statement. I'm not for one second saying that you can't scrutinize a guys career, and that you have to say that the man is some sort of god, just that there is no fighter in history with a truly perfect unquestionable record, and that Hopkins' stands right up there with the best of 'em.
Hey Bomp, don't get me wrong, I watched the Hopkins V Calzaghe fight live and enjoyed the win by Joe, it was well deserved on the night. I was commenting on what my girl's dad said. Joe does run but it's not a criticisim, it's just perfect stick and move. There was no disclaimer from me I am just a little skeptical of GBP these days and the fights they win and lose. I know styles make fights and that's why some guys will win against someone but not another but the politics of boxing at present makes me wonder about this fight is all, not taking anything away from Joe, you can't argue his undefeated record but it just smells a bit fishy to me is all.
The disclaimer comment wasn't directed at you. GBP is full of shit, however Pavlik is a top rank fighter and there'll be no rematch, no chance they persuaded Pavlik to take a dive if that's what you're worried about. I didn't think your Calzaghe comment was an insult to Joe, I was just using as an exmaple of how diferent styles makes fight, and that I'm actually quite certain that CalzaGHE WAS FAR MORE AGGRESSIVE THAN pAVLIK AND LESS WORRIED ABOUT WHAT WAS COMMING BACK. YOU CAN CLEARLY TELL THAT pAVLIK GOT RATHER FIDGETY AND REACTED TO WHAT hOP DID AFTER THE FIRST COUPLE OF ROUNDS, RATHER THAN INITIATING THE ATTACKS - BUT THAT HAD A LOT TO DO WITH hOP NOT ALLOWING HIM TO SET HIS FEET, CALZAGHE PUNCHES WEIRD AND HE THROWS THEM WETHER HE'S SET OR NOT.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
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.
You kind of forgot champions Holmes,Joppy,and undefeated future champ Johnson.
People allways forget that,Hopkins beat everyone that was holding a middleweight title belt at the start of the unification series,AND Trinidad too
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bikersk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
Duran beat Leonard beat Hearns beat Duran. Frazier beat Ali beat Foreman beat Frazier. Boxing ain't as easy as ABC. You really can't answer your own question about how different Joe fought in comparison to Pavlik? (slaps or not, at least he was throwing them without being distracted by every little feint Bernard made, plus he doesn't take a whole second to reset his feet after throwing his power hand - couple clues for you there - also highlighted where you went a little wropng with your assertions, maybe you can watch both fights again and ask yourself 'who took more backward steps? Kelly or Joe?')
I like the disclaimer everyone seems to say 'not taking anything away from him but.....', always found it a rather contradictory statement. I'm not for one second saying that you can't scrutinize a guys career, and that you have to say that the man is some sort of god, just that there is no fighter in history with a truly perfect unquestionable record, and that Hopkins' stands right up there with the best of 'em.
Hey Bomp, don't get me wrong, I watched the Hopkins V Calzaghe fight live and enjoyed the win by Joe, it was well deserved on the night. I was commenting on what my girl's dad said. Joe does run but it's not a criticisim, it's just perfect stick and move. There was no disclaimer from me I am just a little skeptical of GBP these days and the fights they win and lose. I know styles make fights and that's why some guys will win against someone but not another but the politics of boxing at present makes me wonder about this fight is all, not taking anything away from Joe, you can't argue his undefeated record but it just smells a bit fishy to me is all.
The disclaimer comment wasn't directed at you. GBP is full of shit, however Pavlik is a top rank fighter and there'll be no rematch, no chance they persuaded Pavlik to take a dive if that's what you're worried about. I didn't think your Calzaghe comment was an insult to Joe, I was just using as an exmaple of how diferent styles makes fight, and that I'm actually quite certain that CalzaGHE WAS FAR MORE AGGRESSIVE THAN pAVLIK AND LESS WORRIED ABOUT WHAT WAS COMMING BACK. YOU CAN CLEARLY TELL THAT pAVLIK GOT RATHER FIDGETY AND REACTED TO WHAT hOP DID AFTER THE FIRST COUPLE OF ROUNDS, RATHER THAN INITIATING THE ATTACKS - BUT THAT HAD A LOT TO DO WITH hOP NOT ALLOWING HIM TO SET HIS FEET, CALZAGHE PUNCHES WEIRD AND HE THROWS THEM WETHER HE'S SET OR NOT.
No Pavlik would never take a dive. He was nervous about the fight from the start and it showed in the ring, he was "fidgety" as you say and not certain about his ability to hurt Hopkins i think. But like you i'm a bit sus on GBP so am not sure of the effort Bhop put in with Joe is all.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trainer Monkey
Quote:
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.
You kind of forgot champions
Holmes,Joppy,and undefeated future champ Johnson.
People allways forget that,Hopkins beat everyone that was holding a middleweight title belt at the start of the unification series,AND Trinidad too
I forgot those two because they are forgettable.
Forgot about Glen Johnson, that was an oversight - but I don't think Glen had peaked when he fought Hopkins, and I also think he gets far too much credit for a win over a shot Roy Jones.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greig
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trainer Monkey
Quote:
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.
You kind of forgot champions
Holmes,Joppy,and undefeated future champ Johnson.
People allways forget that,Hopkins beat everyone that was holding a middleweight title belt at the start of the unification series,AND Trinidad too
I forgot those two because they are forgettable.
Forgot about Glen Johnson, that was an oversight - but I don't think Glen had peaked when he fought Hopkins, and I also think he gets far too much credit for a win over a shot Roy Jones.
I'll use Roy Jones line here,"They didnt look bad before I fought them"
Holmes was holding a belt,Trinidad was holding a belt, and Joppy was the third guy in the unification series
Bernard beat all three.
And Johnson was rolling higher when Bernard beat him,he went in to a tailspin right after. But Bernard can do that to people. Taylor has never been the same since Bernard fought him,Tarver has never been the same,It took years for Johnson to right his ship. Holmes and Joppy went from being solid champs to being solid over.
Whats really going to be interesting is to see if Pavlik bounces back from the Bernard jinx.
I will give Jones credit(and everyone knows I think he's more hype then fight) Jones just kept on chugging after fighting Bernard,almost everyone else thats ever fought Bernard,was never quite the same
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Trainer Monkey - lots of guys hold belts who aren't top level fighters.
Holmes and Joppy were never elite middleweights, they were solid at best.
Joppy was lucky to scrape past Howard Eastman before Hopkins beat him.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greig
Trainer Monkey - lots of guys hold belts who aren't top level fighters.
Holmes and Joppy were never elite middleweights, they were solid at best.
Joppy was lucky to scrape past Howard Eastman before Hopkins beat him.
Speaking of people Bernard beat,Eastmen lost too
He wasnt supposed to beat Trinidad,he wasnt supposed to beat Wright,he wasnt supposed to beat Tarver,and he wasnt supposed to beat Pavlik
Give it up,he unified the title at middleweight,he moved up,he's done everything thats left to be done. Even his losses are heavily arguable. Hell even when he was fresh out of Fraziers,he beat Mercado having to travel from Philly to Rochester only finding out he was fighting that day. He took a round and a half from Echols one handed because he had a seperated shoulder,when he could have retired and still won because he was well ahead on the cards.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
TM - I've just seen you criticize Cazlaghe's opposition in another thread, but yet you are trying to make William Joppy & Keith Holmes some kind of great resume for Hopkins :confused:
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
I've yet to see the fight but knew Hopkins would beat him ;D
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
I think Bernard is great. He's a defensive wizard, practically impossible to hit cleanly. He has Phd in boxing science, the man truly is a marvel.
But some of his greatest wins I simply do not rate that highly (DLH and Winky are two that immediately spring to mind).
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
I think Hopkins win over Trinidad was a great win.
Trinidad proved himself at middleweight by completely destroying Joppy in 5 rounds, No one has done anything like that to Joppy. Hopkins hit Joppy with everything he had years later and couldn't stop him.
Hopkins was the underdog in that fight, No one talked about the weight issue before the fight, It only became a issue after Hopkins took him to school.
I see Hopkins win over Oscar as a decent win, No way as big as the tito win, Oscar simply didn't belong at 160. Oscar did have a belt though.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greig
I think Bernard is great. He's a defensive wizard, practically impossible to hit cleanly. He has Phd in boxing science, the man truly is a marvel.
But some of his greatest wins I simply do not rate that highly (DLH and Winky are two that immediately spring to mind).
That's exactly why Calzaghe struggled to land punches well on him;)
I knew he'd be too skilled and crafty fot Pavlik...who imo is limited in skills!
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
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.
Mmmm... I hear you and then think about who he could have fought... Calzaghe? Jones again? I mean, he beat all comers and if I were him and ODLH wanted a fight, I'd fight... If trinidad who was one of the hottest punchers out there at the time wanted to fight?... I'd fight him.
I mean, I see what your saying... Not really blaming him but making the corrilation. I see it but in the grand scheme it won't matter.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
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.
You need to have your eyes checked, Baggins. The weight carrying the ring has clearly distorted your vision. Hopkins looked much bigger than Pavlik. Since Pavlik wasn't moving up in weight and plans to go back and defend the MW title, all he did was train and not starve and dry himself out to make weight. Hopkins added at least 10 pounds of muscle working with Mackie before the Tarver fight. At this point, Hopkins is a legit LWH. Pavlik didn't add muscle mass and "move up" to 170 as much as he didn't cut all the way down to his fighting weight. I was amazed at how much BIGGER Hopkins looked than Pavlik.
Also, I don't think anybody doubts that Pavlik is a less diverse and complete fighter than Hopkins. You're pretty much pointing out the obvious.
Pavlik will need to add muscle mass to move up. If he moves up the right way, like Hopkins did, he will have success. If he moves up and just doesn't work as hard to control is weight, ie James Toney, he won't be successful as he lacks the skills of a Toney or McCallum. Those guys could fight fat about their natural weights because of there skills and styles. Pavlik won't have that luxury as his game is power.
Pavlik is only 26. He should be able to make 160 for at least 2 more years if he stays focused.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
And just to clarify, I'm not saying Pavlik lost because Hopkins was bigger. Your point that Hopkins (and Mayweather) won because they are better is accurate. In the case of Mayweather, both men were the same size, but in the case of this fight, Hopkins was both bigger and the better boxer.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greig
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trainer Monkey
Quote:
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.
You kind of forgot champions
Holmes,Joppy,and undefeated future champ Johnson.
People allways forget that,Hopkins beat everyone that was holding a middleweight title belt at the start of the unification series,AND Trinidad too
I forgot those two because they are forgettable.
Forgot about Glen Johnson, that was an oversight - but I don't think Glen had peaked when he fought Hopkins, and I also think he gets far too much credit for a win over a shot Roy Jones.
Glen Johnson was 32-0 at the time, and Keith Holmes at that time. Had good wins over Richie Woodhall, who is considered one of Joe Calzaghe's best wins. And a win against 33-0 Robert McCracken, who wasn't a bad fighter at all.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
TM - I've just seen you criticize Cazlaghe's opposition in another thread, but yet you are trying to make William Joppy & Keith Holmes some kind of great resume for Hopkins :confused:
Keith Holmes destroyed a younger version of Richie Woodhall, and Richie Woodhall is considered one of Joe Calzaghe best wins. But Joe Calzaghe fought an older more shot Richie Woodhall. Keith Holmes was never elite i'll admit, but he is better than most of Joe Calzaghe's opposition.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
TM - I've just seen you criticize Cazlaghe's opposition in another thread, but yet you are trying to make William Joppy & Keith Holmes some kind of great resume for Hopkins :confused:
Keith Holmes destroyed a younger version of Richie Woodhall, and Richie Woodhall is considered one of Joe Calzaghe best wins. But Joe Calzaghe fought an older more shot Richie Woodhall. Keith Holmes was never elite i'll admit, but he is better than most of Joe Calzaghe's opposition.
A better way to look at it would be to list all the people that Hopkins could've fought at Middleweight during his reign but didn't and all the people Calzaghe could've fought at SMW but didn't. I bet you'll find that they both fought the best that was available and that the big fights didn't happen because other fighters had moved weight divisions.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
These are the one's JC did fight, who he didn't fight (without bullshit reasons) I am struggling with
Chris Eubank - 2 weight World champion
Richie Woodhall - WBC Champion
Robin Reid - WBC Champion
Charles Brewer - IBF Champion
Byron Mitchell - WBA Champion
Jeff Lacy - IBF Champion (but we all knew he was overrated didn't we :rolleyes:)
Mikkel Kessler -WBA/WBC Champion
Bernard Hopkins - Think he won something ;)
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
The shame is that he didn't have bigger fights earlier on because he would have been able to show what a fantastic fighter he really was.
Some of his pre-Tito wins are a bit underrated but there's no point in going into that.
One of the great mysteries to me is how the two Taylor fights were even close enough to be controversial (I thought he won both but I could see how activity only people would see Taylor winning) but what he's done since then at his age is pretty ridiculous. I mean I could see how people would bring up steroids, its that ridiculous.
I will say that some of his biggest wins (Tarver, Tito, Pavlik to an extent) are getting downplayed now but all of those he was heavy heavy underdogs in and he ended up dominating.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trainer Monkey
He wasnt supposed to beat Trinidad,he wasnt supposed to beat Wright
This is definitely not to take anything away from B-Hop, but I've seen this mentioned a few times since the weekend, and I just dont get it. I had him the solid favorite before going in there with Winky (mostly due to size and the weight they fought at), and I had the feeling most picked like me?
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
I think Wright-Hopkins was pretty much a pick em type thing. Pretty split across the board. At least that's how I remember it.
-
Re: The knock on Bernard Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OumaFan
I think Wright-Hopkins was pretty much a pick em type thing. Pretty split across the board. At least that's how I remember it.
I was talking to people constantly that said there was no way that Bernard could deal with Wrights technical skill.
Of course they still had Bernards ugly fights against Echols in the back of their heads.
