Re: Give Bernard Hopkins his just due!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigstinkybug
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ykdadamaja
After it is all said and done, the record will relfect B-Hop's achievment over all other middleweights.
*Oh ,i don't think so... it'll show his relevance i the game over a long period of time... Hop's "greatness" is something that was never really spoken until he moved up in weight and fighting Tarver.. Cal.. Dawson... etc... as a middleweight, he was a good fighter fiesting on small game. When it mattered, he fell short.. Taylor beat him twice... Roy jones ...
Hop is a better fighter now than he ever was as a middleweight..JMHO
Hopkins never had a middleweight division full of stellar competition but I'd say he had the opportunity to show how good he was after he left more so then he turned into a better fighter.
He still made 20 title defenses and dominated a division for a decade. And during that run he would have been a handful for any middleweight in history. Its not his fault that many of his opponents anymore then it is Wlads or was Calzaghes.
I don't think its fair to keep on claiming that he beat smaller men. Tito was a huge welterweight and walked around an in shape 170 pounds. Hopkins fought at the same weight on fight night that he weighed in at a day before.He was a natural middleweight just as Floyd is a natural welter and so far the only undisputed champion of this century. You never hear about Monzon feasting on x welterweights.
When you think about what he has done, how he did it and the when its nothing short of unbelievable. He's like a modern day Archie Moore. Sure he looks a little sloppy and yet once again just schooled Cloud.
I think Hopkins may actually surpass Moores active record.
I don't think Hagler or Hearns could have kept up with Hopkins pressure. Call me a heretic if you wish!!!
Re: Give Bernard Hopkins his just due!
Pressure???? What pressure, the guy runs he doesn't apply any pressure at all!
Hagler would hunt him down, it may well take all of 10 rounds to do it but Hopkins is no Hagler.
Ray.
Re: Give Bernard Hopkins his just due!
People shit on Bhop for whipping smaller guys, but then say he isn't on Hagler's level, a guy who is most famous for his fights with 3 smaller guys who had moved up to middleweight (KO'd Hearns, was given BIG trouble by former LW champ Duran, and then obviously lost to Ray Leonard who hadn't fought for 3 years prior to their fight).
I see a bit of a double standard there, no?
Re: Give Bernard Hopkins his just due!
Bernard has been fighting for 25 years professionally, he's now 48 years old, and we've NEVER seen him get his ass kicked. We've never seen him outclassed. He's lost 6 times in that span, ALL decisions, only 2 of which were unanimous (and one of those is controversial). Four SD's and MD's, most of which were also controversial.
Nobody has ever looked good against Hopkins. Nobody has ever beat him up. And for those of you who say his opposition has been crap... you're crazy. He's fought a ton of killers. People love to go on about the virtues of guys like Hagler, Hearns, Leonard, Duran... well, besides themselves, how many other great fighters did they fight? They fought some tough opposition, and they also fought a lot of forgettable names like anyone else.
Point being, championship boxing is a shark tank, and you don't get to stay in Bhops spot for so long without being great, especially at his age.
Re: Give Bernard Hopkins his just due!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Bernard has been fighting for 25 years professionally, he's now 48 years old, and we've NEVER seen him get his ass kicked. We've never seen him outclassed. He's lost 6 times in that span, ALL decisions, only 2 of which were unanimous (and one of those is controversial). Four SD's and MD's, most of which were also controversial.
Nobody has ever looked good against Hopkins. Nobody has ever beat him up. And for those of you who say his opposition has been crap... you're crazy. He's fought a ton of killers. People love to go on about the virtues of guys like Hagler, Hearns, Leonard, Duran... well, besides themselves, how many other great fighters did they fight? They fought some tough opposition, and they also fought a lot of forgettable names like anyone else.
Point being, championship boxing is a shark tank, and you don't get to stay in Bhops spot for so long without being great, especially at his age.
Exactly. He is a real warrior champion!
;D
Re: Give Bernard Hopkins his just due!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigstinkybug
[COLOR="darkred
Hopkins has made his name beating B fighters... every name fighter he fought, he lost to... Cal..Roy Jones.. Dawson... [/COLOR]
Unfortunatley for Hopkins he couldn't dig up the prime corpses of a Hagler or Hearns and that cannot be held against him. You play the hand you are dealt. He beat, literally, every Ring ranked middleweight as a champion save for a Swede. What did he fail in the big picture to do that the same Jones, Calzaghe etc did? He beat up a run of mandatorys just as Roy. Joe beat up a shot ghost in Roy, and had a debatable win over Hopkins...feel free to hang your hat on that if ya want. He cleaned out a division...then he jumped up and set records then broke them.
Tito was a legitimate middle after thrashing Joppy from pillar to post and a heavy favorite v Hopkins and that fight alone was being billed as the best middle unification since a Hagler-Leonard. Literally. And being honest Dawson is but a name in his own household but the fact is we are talking about Bernard before, during and after him now. Dawson had to twice fight guys who Hopkins literally dominated but once.
*If u think Tito was a legitimate middleweight... then nothing i say will make a difference.
Re: Give Bernard Hopkins his just due!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigstinkybug
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigstinkybug
[COLOR="darkred
Hopkins has made his name beating B fighters... every name fighter he fought, he lost to... Cal..Roy Jones.. Dawson... [/COLOR]
Unfortunatley for Hopkins he couldn't dig up the prime corpses of a Hagler or Hearns and that cannot be held against him. You play the hand you are dealt. He beat, literally, every Ring ranked middleweight as a champion save for a Swede. What did he fail in the big picture to do that the same Jones, Calzaghe etc did? He beat up a run of mandatorys just as Roy. Joe beat up a shot ghost in Roy, and had a debatable win over Hopkins...feel free to hang your hat on that if ya want. He cleaned out a division...then he jumped up and set records then broke them.
Tito was a legitimate middle after thrashing Joppy from pillar to post and a heavy favorite v Hopkins and that fight alone was being billed as the best middle unification since a Hagler-Leonard. Literally. And being honest Dawson is but a name in his own household but the fact is we are talking about Bernard before, during and after him now. Dawson had to twice fight guys who Hopkins literally dominated but once.
*If u think Tito was a legitimate middleweight... then nothing i say will make a difference.
Ask Joppy if Tito was a middlewieght. ;)
Re: Give Bernard Hopkins his just due!
;D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ykdadamaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
What is his next big challenge?
Run for President.
:D
Re: Give Bernard Hopkins his just due!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigstinkybug
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigstinkybug
[COLOR="darkred
Hopkins has made his name beating B fighters... every name fighter he fought, he lost to... Cal..Roy Jones.. Dawson... [/COLOR]
Unfortunatley for Hopkins he couldn't dig up the prime corpses of a Hagler or Hearns and that cannot be held against him. You play the hand you are dealt. He beat, literally, every Ring ranked middleweight as a champion save for a Swede. What did he fail in the big picture to do that the same Jones, Calzaghe etc did? He beat up a run of mandatorys just as Roy. Joe beat up a shot ghost in Roy, and had a debatable win over Hopkins...feel free to hang your hat on that if ya want. He cleaned out a division...then he jumped up and set records then broke them.
Tito was a legitimate middle after thrashing Joppy from pillar to post and a heavy favorite v Hopkins and that fight alone was being billed as the best middle unification since a Hagler-Leonard. Literally. And being honest Dawson is but a name in his own household but the fact is we are talking about Bernard before, during and after him now. Dawson had to twice fight guys who Hopkins literally dominated but once.
*If u think Tito was a legitimate middleweight... then nothing i say will make a difference.
Was Robinson a legitimate middleweight? This ubiquitous myth that Tito was a welterweight fighting a middleweight needs to go the way of the dodo bird. Its one of the biggest crocks of shit continuously seen on forums and in press lines. I'm one of the biggest Tito fans on the planet and hated Hopkins at that time but the weight issue is ludicrous.
Re: Give Bernard Hopkins his just due!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Was Robinson a legitimate middleweight? This ubiquitous myth that Tito was a welterweight fighting a middleweight needs to go the way of the dodo bird. Its one of the biggest crocks of shit continuously seen on forums and in press lines. I'm one of the biggest Tito fans on the planet and hated Hopkins at that time but the weight issue is ludicrous.
Gotta agree with this. Hopkins had a size advantage, that's undeniable, but I don't see why people act like this wasn't a dangerous/meaningful fight for Hopkins. Tito fought a legit, BIG middleweight in Joppy and steamrolled him with his vicious power that CLEARLY carried up to MW.
How is it any difference than Marvin Hagler beating Tommy Hearns, who (I think) was in his first middleweight fight - TOTALLY unproven at 160.
Re: Give Bernard Hopkins his just due!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Was Robinson a legitimate middleweight? This ubiquitous myth that Tito was a welterweight fighting a middleweight needs to go the way of the dodo bird. Its one of the biggest crocks of shit continuously seen on forums and in press lines. I'm one of the biggest Tito fans on the planet and hated Hopkins at that time but the weight issue is ludicrous.
Gotta agree with this. Hopkins had a size advantage, that's undeniable, but I don't see why people act like this wasn't a dangerous/meaningful fight for Hopkins. Tito fought a legit, BIG middleweight in Joppy and steamrolled him with his vicious power that CLEARLY carried up to MW.
How is it any difference than Marvin Hagler beating Tommy Hearns, who (I think) was in his first middleweight fight - TOTALLY unproven at 160.
Hop started at 175. He's a big boned middle but was not an overly big middle. He was actually the last natural middle since probably Greb or perhaps Burley. In the Tito fight I think he weighed in at 159 if memory serves and 162 on fight night. Tito was close to 170 on fight night. The notion that Hopkins beat up some shrimp is like saying when Hagler beat Mugabi he did the same. Tito like Mugabi was doing fine at 154 because they were simply bigger and stronger the night of the fight. Its ironic that people make such a big deal about weight in this 17 division time knowing full well how its abused. Does anyone here actually believe that Morales was a 122 pound fighter?
Re: Give Bernard Hopkins his just due!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigstinkybug
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigstinkybug
[COLOR="darkred
Hopkins has made his name beating B fighters... every name fighter he fought, he lost to... Cal..Roy Jones.. Dawson... [/COLOR]
Unfortunatley for Hopkins he couldn't dig up the prime corpses of a Hagler or Hearns and that cannot be held against him. You play the hand you are dealt. He beat, literally, every Ring ranked middleweight as a champion save for a Swede. What did he fail in the big picture to do that the same Jones, Calzaghe etc did? He beat up a run of mandatorys just as Roy. Joe beat up a shot ghost in Roy, and had a debatable win over Hopkins...feel free to hang your hat on that if ya want. He cleaned out a division...then he jumped up and set records then broke them.
Tito was a legitimate middle after thrashing Joppy from pillar to post and a heavy favorite v Hopkins and that fight alone was being billed as the best middle unification since a Hagler-Leonard. Literally. And being honest Dawson is but a name in his own household but the fact is we are talking about Bernard before, during and after him now. Dawson had to twice fight guys who Hopkins literally dominated but once.
*If u think Tito was a legitimate middleweight... then nothing i say will make a difference.
The #2 p4p fighter in the world moving up demolishing grade A fighters and destroying Rings number 2 middleweight in a recongnized middleweight tourney to determine a unified champion while being the betting favorite? Passes the smell test here.
Re: Give Bernard Hopkins his just due!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Was Robinson a legitimate middleweight? This ubiquitous myth that Tito was a welterweight fighting a middleweight needs to go the way of the dodo bird. Its one of the biggest crocks of shit continuously seen on forums and in press lines. I'm one of the biggest Tito fans on the planet and hated Hopkins at that time but the weight issue is ludicrous.
Gotta agree with this. Hopkins had a size advantage, that's undeniable, but I don't see why people act like this wasn't a dangerous/meaningful fight for Hopkins. Tito fought a legit, BIG middleweight in Joppy and steamrolled him with his vicious power that CLEARLY carried up to MW.
How is it any difference than Marvin Hagler beating Tommy Hearns, who (I think) was in his first middleweight fight - TOTALLY unproven at 160.
Or Duran coming back from the dead and beating a Moore...at jr middle... and then fighting for all three straps the first time Hagler defended them. That fight was scoffed at prior by more than a few.
