Bernard is historically greater than Manny or Floyd

[generalbulldog]

Speaking of legacy and money, I think guys like Foreman, Hagler, Leonard has it all. Success inside and outside of the ring with rock solid credentials that can't be denied. Not to mentioned all 3 have their brains intact and aren't punch drunk.

In fact if I was a fighter, I would prefer to go out and leave the game like Hagler and Foreman. Both ended their careers with controversial losses and didn't stick around to get beat up by lesser fighters and both have gobs of cash in their accounts.

[Boxer4life]

As far as right now is concerned bernard is the greatest fighter of our era, he passed roy because when it comes to ranking status, you don't look at who was better in their prime, you look at the resume, not the fight videos, and bernard by far has the best resume of our era, the guy continuously breaks records, manny and floyd aren't quite there yet

[Spicoli]

I agree Ouma. Two of them actually ply their trade and have a passion for the sport while one protects his golden goose egg of an "0", really don't know if his career is concluded or not? The reinvention of style and ring knowledge Ive seen of Hopkins from beginning of career to lastnight is amazing and a pleasure to see. I don't think Floyd has a thing on him, nattas!

[marbleheadmaui]

Honestly, I think his legacy pales in comparison to Pacquiao's. Hopkins feats are impressive because of his age, but I don't think they come close to what Pacquiao has done.

Floyd is more of a mystery. He has the skills to literally be the greatest boxer of all time, but his resume (relatively speaking) is mediocre for a fighter of his level.

I don't think Floyd is a mystery at all. I think one can fairly say the gap between the quality of his God-given talents and his accomplishments is as large, or larger than any fighter in history.

He is the anti-Carmen Basilio/Vito Antuofuermo

Yeah, mystery is probably the wrong word. An enigma perhaps? I just honestly think that he has the skills to literally be remembered as the best fighter ever (or at least be in the discussion), but while his early resume is quite strong he has absolutely pissed away his legacy in the past half-decade. Skill-wise, he's miles ahead of Hopkins, but he doesn't have the same desire that the old man does and I'd have him well behind at this point.

I still don't think Hopkins comes anywhere close to Pacquiao though.

The bold is why Floyd infuriates me. See I suspect his looniest, least rational fans are probably correct that he could have fought guys like Johnston and Spadafora and Casamyor and Kosta and HaTTON (AT 140) and Cotto and Margarito and Popo and Shane (when it mattered) and Manny and have beaten them all. I want to see greatness fully tested. But it isn't what Floyd wants and it is his life.

People's imaginations mean nothing. What happens, or doesn't, in the ring is everything.

The sad thing is that I think he would have beaten every fighter you listed. But, like Floyd has said for years, he fights for money, not glory. With that mind-set he'll always be taking the easiest route because his name alone will make him millions and he's able to keep fighting guys who are no real threat to his future earning power.

It's his life and if he can end up rich, healthy and personally satisfied? More power to him. I just wish real glory matterred to him a bit more.

I do too. Like I said, I think his skill-set is amazing. However, speaking objectively I think he's clearly made the more intelligent decision. I'd much rather end up a millionaire with my mind intact and have people question my legacy than be Evander Holyfield.

LOL. Yup. I'm not sure the opinions of a bunch of boxing nerds should matter much in that equation.

[Pavlik]

This is the real problem of arguing legacy across eras and weight classes, same as p4p discussions, in close situations there is no clear answer. Hopkins career doesn't have too many weight classes but there is a significant jump from middle to light heavy and I think he was Ring champ in both. His 20 defenses or whatever it was at middle weight is an amazing accomplishment as well. Manny rise through the weight classes is stunning but completely different. I have a hard time distinguishing one fighter over the other in legacy for Hopkins and Manny, but both are far ahead of Floyd. I believe Mayweather to have the potential to be ahead of both but he has sat back too much in his prime, unless he turns out to have the longevity of Hopkins, I doubt he will do anything/enough in the future to surpass the two other legacies as they are today.

good point. with pbf being fresh and does not have much miles on him he might as well be doing a hopkins in the future.

[:::PSL:::]

I think Bhop is great. But not Fighter Of The Decade type of greatness.

Yeah he's old. But he's a part time fighter.

[ICB]

Well in my own personal opinion, i think B-Hop should be rated higher. Because i don't think he's legitmately lost a fight since 1993, where as i think Manny Pacquiao lost twice to JMM.

[Spicoli]

Well in my own personal opinion, i think B-Hop should be rated higher. Because i don't think he's legitmately lost a fight since 1993, where as i think Manny Pacquiao lost twice to JMM.

I dunno Ice. Love Hopkins but Taylor ? I couldn't stand Hopkins in that 1st fight, late. He dogged it and I believe let a tko slip away. Arrogant pomp. Had him over Calzaghe slight but hey, Joe earned that one.

Devils advocate souly here ha.

[JazMerkin]

Ok, I disagree. Looking at lineal titles, Manny has 4, Floyd has 3, Bernard has 2. That's not the be all and end all, but I think the impressiveness of Bernard doing it at this age is colouring things a bit. Regardless of age are we really going to say that the opposition that he's beaten is better than that of Floyd or Manny? I don't believe it is. If you're going to discredit some of their wins for whatever reason, you can use the same reasoning to discredit B-Hop's.

I'll be clear, I rate Hopkins alongside them, but I also think it's very difficult to have any perspective on a fighter's career while they still fight. I believe Mayweather's career will look much better on reflection (see SRL's career), although if he doesn't fight Pacquiao than it will suffer possibly irreversibly. If he does & wins then he is sorted. The biggest risk to Pacquiao's legacy comes in his next fight. Lose to JMM & suddenly all the accusations about cherry-picking opponents will seem to be valid regardless of whether that is true. Hopkins age allows him the luxury of excusing a defeat such as if he loses to any of Dawson, Bute or Ward.

But the focus on Hopkins age ignores the feats that the other two have achieved. Pacquiao won a lineal world title while still a teenager. Mayweather won a lineal title just short of two years of turning professional. Those aren't common achievements.

Anyway, just my take on things.

[Julius Rain]

Manny is the tougher call IMO (and full disclosure I'm a big fan of Manny and Bernard, Floyd not so much).

But I'm leaning towards Hopkins over both. Definitely over Floyd. The weight jump is the big advantage for Manny.

I do think Bernard has passed Roy.

Yeah Floyds career has really gone out like a wet match lately, unless he fights Manny his ending will leave a sour taste I think.

Hopkins definitely has done something amazing for an old guy, but in absolute sense I'm not sure beating Pascal by razor thin decision is equal to just literally battering and dominating guys like Cotto, Margarito and Mosley that Manny has done lately.

B Hop is winning some and losing some against very good opposition, Manny is beating the snot out of his, and way above his natural fighting weight. That to me is more impressive as no other fighter in history has done that.

The important thing to remember is that Hopkins is 46. I bet Manny isn't doing what Hopkins is doing at 46. And I hate this talk of Manny fighting outside of his weight class. The guy weighs in above 140, the guy IS a WW. Forget all this "if he boiled down he could make 135 easy" talk, we simply don't know that, but what we do know is that Manny weighs in at WW and fights other WW's.

As for the greatness thing, they are all pretty great. I don't know which is greater, but Floyd's recent lack of anything does leave a sour taste.

Wait, you're the same guy who wants manny to fight marquez at 135 because you think it makes it a fair fight.

Am I missing something here

[JazMerkin]

Manny is the tougher call IMO (and full disclosure I'm a big fan of Manny and Bernard, Floyd not so much).

But I'm leaning towards Hopkins over both. Definitely over Floyd. The weight jump is the big advantage for Manny.

I do think Bernard has passed Roy.

Yeah Floyds career has really gone out like a wet match lately, unless he fights Manny his ending will leave a sour taste I think.

Hopkins definitely has done something amazing for an old guy, but in absolute sense I'm not sure beating Pascal by razor thin decision is equal to just literally battering and dominating guys like Cotto, Margarito and Mosley that Manny has done lately.

B Hop is winning some and losing some against very good opposition, Manny is beating the snot out of his, and way above his natural fighting weight. That to me is more impressive as no other fighter in history has done that.

The important thing to remember is that Hopkins is 46. I bet Manny isn't doing what Hopkins is doing at 46. And I hate this talk of Manny fighting outside of his weight class. The guy weighs in above 140, the guy IS a WW. Forget all this "if he boiled down he could make 135 easy" talk, we simply don't know that, but what we do know is that Manny weighs in at WW and fights other WW's.

As for the greatness thing, they are all pretty great. I don't know which is greater, but Floyd's recent lack of anything does leave a sour taste.

Wait, you're the same guy who wants manny to fight marquez at 135 because you think it makes it a fair fight.

Am I missing something here

Yes, you appear to have missed that Miles really doesn't like Pacquiao & will have a go at him regardless

[marbleheadmaui]

Well in my own personal opinion, i think B-Hop should be rated higher. Because i don't think he's legitmately lost a fight since 1993, where as i think Manny Pacquiao lost twice to JMM.

Respectfully (*and I mean that), I don't get that kind of thinking. Once one starts down that road? Doesn't one have to look at every possible fight of every , at least major, fighter?

Secondly, are you really comfortable that scoring a close fight from TV is accurate? I'm sure as hell not. The views change, the angles are different from a real judges and one is poisoned by commentary.

My own view is a lot of the time (and the two Manny-JMM fights fit) fights are too close to call, or effectively draws, and we've agreed to have this thing called judges decide them.

[IamInuit]

Speaking of legacy and money, I think guys like Foreman, Hagler, Leonard has it all. Success inside and outside of the ring with rock solid credentials that can't be denied. Not to mentioned all 3 have their brains intact and aren't punch drunk.

In fact if I was a fighter, I would prefer to go out and leave the game like Hagler and Foreman. Both ended their careers with controversial losses and didn't stick around to get beat up by lesser fighters and both have gobs of cash in their accounts.

Foreman made more money from his grill then he ever made in boxing lol and Hagler had all those Italian spaghetti westerns.

I also think Hop should walk. I think he'd make one hell of a trainer.

As far as legacy goes the case could most certainly be made that he is the best fighter over the last ten years. He's been a first ballot Hall of Famer for years and he's a top 5 all time middleweight.

[ICB]

Well in my own personal opinion, i think B-Hop should be rated higher. Because i don't think he's legitmately lost a fight since 1993, where as i think Manny Pacquiao lost twice to JMM.

Respectfully (*and I mean that), I don't get that kind of thinking. Once one starts down that road? Doesn't one have to look at every possible fight of every , at least major, fighter?

Secondly, are you really comfortable that scoring a close fight from TV is accurate? I'm sure as hell not. The views change, the angles are different from a real judges and one is poisoned by commentary.

My own view is a lot of the time (and the two Manny-JMM fights fit) fights are too close to call, or effectively draws, and we've agreed to have this thing called judges decide them.

That's just my own personal opinion, im not saying it goes for everyone else. But i think the 1st Taylor vs Hopkins was a draw, the 2nd fight Hopkins won 7-5, and Hopkins winning by 1 point against Calzaghe.

The only time you can say B-Hop has lost a fight legitmately, was way back in 1993. And even that fight wasn't one sided, and he was green and up against a prime RJJ.

Just goes to show how good of all rounder B-Hop is.

[miron_lang]

Jean Pascal appears to have skyrocketed Bernard Hopkins legacy ...well at least to some of the members here.

Who can we compare from Floyd and Pac's resume in terms of accomplishment and stature?


Lehlo Ledwabba is clearly the best 122lbs fighter when Pacquiao fought him and maybe the same with Jose luis Castillo at 135 for Floyd. But Bhop was 46 and Pacquiao and Floyd were young. so that makes it less impressive? maybe ...but what is the summary of what Hopkins have done before becoming this legendary old fighter?


1. Future/Former Lightheavyweight champs Glen Johnson and Antonio Tarver
2. Wins over Dela Hoya and Trinidad
3. Win over Kelly Pavlik @170
4. 3 Wins over Robert Allen, Keith Holmes , William Joppy



Records in comparison

Hopkins = 60 Fights 52 Wins 5 losses 2 Draws
Floyd = 41 Fights 41 Wins 0 losses 0 Draws
Pac = 58 Fights 53 Wins 3 losses 2 Draws


ATM

1. Pac 2. Bhop 3. Floyd