Rank these fighters

[Jerry Rice]

I'll most likely be alone on this but so be it.
I suppose it’s how the individual views legacy. For me the number one position here is almost obvious if not for the blurs caused by the present. This guy won’t need a vote for the hall of fame because they will just send him his invitation. Whether he is fan friendly or not today or needs to go away in the minds of many is tainted and in most cases by those who have not witnessed his incredible run. He's a modern day Archie Moore and even if you hate him as I did for years as far as legacy goes he wins this hands down imo.






Bernard Hopkins

1993- Age28. He fights the legendary Roy Jones for the IBF title and loses on points. In doing so he also took more rounds off Jones then anyone did prior to his decline.

1995- Age 30. Wins IBF title.

1996 – 2000. Starting at age 31 and ending at age 35. He defends his title 12 times including knocking out Glen Johnson.

2001- Age 36. Enters middleweight tourney. Defends his IBF and partially unifies against Holmes for his WBA title.

2001- Age 36. In another unification just 5 months later he fights the legend Tito for his WBC title while defending the other 2 and puts on a clinic. People who were not around at the time in this medium or the boxing world in general really have no idea how big this fight was. I actually posted at Espn in those days lol. Next to Hearns/Leonard 1, it was personally devastating. (Tito never came back)

2002- 2004. Starting at age 37 and ending at close to 40. He defends all three belts 4 times and then meets Oscar for full unification and stops him. He becomes the first unified middleweight champion since Hagler. Shadowing 40 years old.

2005. Age 40. Fights the flavour of the HBO day in Taylor and loses a close and to this day very controversial decision. He then rematches the upstart and loses again in another almost to close to call fight. Many to this day including myself believe that if Taylor did enough to lift it in the first then Bernard did enough to get it back in the second. (Taylor was never the same)

Life goes on for this guy.

2006. Age 41 and a mere 6 months later. Jumps up 2 weight classes and destroys the man that beat the man at 175. (Tarver was ruined)

2007. Age 42. Fights and beats Winky Wright.

2008. Age 43. Calzaghe. Loses on points to one of the best fighters in the world.

2008. Age 43 just shy of 44. Drops ten pounds to fight HBO’S newest choir boy as a coming out fight and quite literally makes a fool out of him sending him into retirement.
The indestructible Kelly Pavlik. (Yet another thrown into darkness)

2009. Age 44. Fights a stay in shape fight really but wins it.

2010. Age 45. Well Roy was what it was.
At close to 46, he then fought Pascal in an ugly but effective fight.

2011. Age 46. Rematches and beats Pascal lifting his 175 title.

2012. Age 47. Rematches Chad Dawson in defense of his title in a losing effort.

2013. Age 48. Challenges the undefeated IBF light heavyweight champ who is about half his age and puts on another clinic.

To be continued….

Wait a second, you make it seem like the Trinidad fight was huge and the De La hoya fight was no big deal.

[justaguy]

Wait a second, you make it seem like the Trinidad fight was huge and the De La hoya fight was no big deal.

I can answer this one, if you don't mind.

In terms of what preceded these fights, that's correct. Tito was the presumptive middleweight king going into the tourney and many to most expected him to win. He and Hop both had convincing wins, but people saw him too strong and fast for Hopkins - he was the special talent and Hop was just a lunch pail champion who made the most with what he had. Hop wasn't expected to win, much less dominate that fight.

Contrast that with the DLH fight. Hop by then was a known commodity and accepted as middleweight king with a potential place in history. DLH was coming off off a questionable title win from Felix Sturm that some felt he really lost. Hop was actually seen as too big and strong for Oscar and he was expected to win that fight.

So, based upon what the climate was around both fights, the Tito fight was seen as by far the more impressive victory.

[Jerry Rice]

Wait a second, you make it seem like the Trinidad fight was huge and the De La hoya fight was no big deal.

I can answer this one, if you don't mind.

In terms of what preceded these fights, that's correct. Tito was the presumptive middleweight king going into the tourney and many to most expected him to win. He and Hop both had convincing wins, but people saw him too strong and fast for Hopkins - he was the special talent and Hop was just a lunch pail champion who made the most with what he had. Hop wasn't expected to win, much less dominate that fight.

Contrast that with the DLH fight. Hop by then was a known commodity and accepted as middleweight king with a potential place in history. DLH was coming off off a questionable title win from Felix Sturm that some felt he really lost. Hop was actually seen as too big and strong for Oscar and he was expected to win that fight.

So, based upon what the climate was around both fights, the Tito fight was seen as by far the more impressive victory.

Actually you have made my second point before I even got to it, thankyou, what you have proven is that Hopkins was able to fly under the radar until he fought Trinidad, he had been the champ for six years, had had 14 title defenses, and been at that same weight his whole career, Tito had been at JMW for only a year after moving up, he had only one bout at MW prior to the Hopkins match, Hopkins had a height/weight/reach advantage


My question is when looking back in hindsight both Oscar and Tito gave up a substantial size advantage against Hopkins, but the casual fan says Tito was his greatest victory and De La Hoya was no big deal.

[Jerry Rice]

And for the Record Trinidad did come back.

[Violent Demise]

Wait a second, you make it seem like the Trinidad fight was huge and the De La hoya fight was no big deal.

I can answer this one, if you don't mind.

In terms of what preceded these fights, that's correct. Tito was the presumptive middleweight king going into the tourney and many to most expected him to win. He and Hop both had convincing wins, but people saw him too strong and fast for Hopkins - he was the special talent and Hop was just a lunch pail champion who made the most with what he had. Hop wasn't expected to win, much less dominate that fight.

Contrast that with the DLH fight. Hop by then was a known commodity and accepted as middleweight king with a potential place in history. DLH was coming off off a questionable title win from Felix Sturm that some felt he really lost. Hop was actually seen as too big and strong for Oscar and he was expected to win that fight.

So, based upon what the climate was around both fights, the Tito fight was seen as by far the more impressive victory.

Actually you have made my second point before I even got to it, thankyou, what you have proven is that Hopkins was able to fly under the radar until he fought Trinidad, he had been the champ for six years, had had 14 title defenses, and been at that same weight his whole career, Tito had been at JMW for only a year after moving up, he had only one bout at MW prior to the Hopkins match, Hopkins had a height/weight/reach advantage


My question is when looking back in hindsight both Oscar and Tito gave up a substantial size advantage against Hopkins, but the casual fan says Tito was his greatest victory and De La Hoya was no big deal.

Oscar started his career as a Junior lightweight. Trinidad as a Junior Welterweight. Oscar would make Welterweight without any problems. Trinidad would struggle to make 147 and really should of moved out of the division earlier than he did. As a middleweight Oscar looked out of shape. The weight didn't suit him. Trinidad was chiseled and looked fine. Trinidad was always the bigger fighter physically. There was still a slight difference in size between Trinidad and Hopkins. But not as much as there was between Hopkins-De La Hoya

[Jerry Rice]

Wait a second, you make it seem like the Trinidad fight was huge and the De La hoya fight was no big deal.

I can answer this one, if you don't mind.

In terms of what preceded these fights, that's correct. Tito was the presumptive middleweight king going into the tourney and many to most expected him to win. He and Hop both had convincing wins, but people saw him too strong and fast for Hopkins - he was the special talent and Hop was just a lunch pail champion who made the most with what he had. Hop wasn't expected to win, much less dominate that fight.

Contrast that with the DLH fight. Hop by then was a known commodity and accepted as middleweight king with a potential place in history. DLH was coming off off a questionable title win from Felix Sturm that some felt he really lost. Hop was actually seen as too big and strong for Oscar and he was expected to win that fight.

So, based upon what the climate was around both fights, the Tito fight was seen as by far the more impressive victory.

Actually you have made my second point before I even got to it, thankyou, what you have proven is that Hopkins was able to fly under the radar until he fought Trinidad, he had been the champ for six years, had had 14 title defenses, and been at that same weight his whole career, Tito had been at JMW for only a year after moving up, he had only one bout at MW prior to the Hopkins match, Hopkins had a height/weight/reach advantage


My question is when looking back in hindsight both Oscar and Tito gave up a substantial size advantage against Hopkins, but the casual fan says Tito was his greatest victory and De La Hoya was no big deal.

Oscar started his career as a Junior lightweight. Trinidad as a Junior Welterweight. Oscar would make Welterweight without any problems. Trinidad would struggle to make 147 and really should of moved out of the division earlier than he did. As a middleweight Oscar looked out of shape. The weight didn't suit him. Trinidad was chiseled and looked fine. Trinidad was always the bigger fighter physically. There was still a slight difference in size between Trinidad and Hopkins. But not as much as there was between Hopkins-De La Hoya

Tito's first fight at junior middle was march of 2000 and his last was december of 2000, he was there less than a year, there was no reason for him to move up because 154 suited him just fine but he was so damn ambitious that he wanted to beat everyone in his path until he got to RJJ, his KO of Joppy is an example of a great fighter over achieving. De La Hoya was at junior middle for over 2 1/2years, he had more time to put on more size and adapt to MW.



But at least you're honest enough to admit Tito was smaller.


Pac looked chiseled against Margarito but that does not make him a junior middle.

RJJ looked chiseled against Ruiz but that does not make him a heavyweight

Those were opponents taylor made just like Joppy was.

[IamInuit]

I'll most likely be alone on this but so be it.
I suppose it’s how the individual views legacy. For me the number one position here is almost obvious if not for the blurs caused by the present. This guy won’t need a vote for the hall of fame because they will just send him his invitation. Whether he is fan friendly or not today or needs to go away in the minds of many is tainted and in most cases by those who have not witnessed his incredible run. He's a modern day Archie Moore and even if you hate him as I did for years as far as legacy goes he wins this hands down imo.






Bernard Hopkins

1993- Age28. He fights the legendary Roy Jones for the IBF title and loses on points. In doing so he also took more rounds off Jones then anyone did prior to his decline.

1995- Age 30. Wins IBF title.

1996 – 2000. Starting at age 31 and ending at age 35. He defends his title 12 times including knocking out Glen Johnson.

2001- Age 36. Enters middleweight tourney. Defends his IBF and partially unifies against Holmes for his WBA title.

2001- Age 36. In another unification just 5 months later he fights the legend Tito for his WBC title while defending the other 2 and puts on a clinic. People who were not around at the time in this medium or the boxing world in general really have no idea how big this fight was. I actually posted at Espn in those days lol. Next to Hearns/Leonard 1, it was personally devastating. (Tito never came back)

2002- 2004. Starting at age 37 and ending at close to 40. He defends all three belts 4 times and then meets Oscar for full unification and stops him. He becomes the first unified middleweight champion since Hagler. Shadowing 40 years old.

2005. Age 40. Fights the flavour of the HBO day in Taylor and loses a close and to this day very controversial decision. He then rematches the upstart and loses again in another almost to close to call fight. Many to this day including myself believe that if Taylor did enough to lift it in the first then Bernard did enough to get it back in the second. (Taylor was never the same)

Life goes on for this guy.

2006. Age 41 and a mere 6 months later. Jumps up 2 weight classes and destroys the man that beat the man at 175. (Tarver was ruined)

2007. Age 42. Fights and beats Winky Wright.

2008. Age 43. Calzaghe. Loses on points to one of the best fighters in the world.

2008. Age 43 just shy of 44. Drops ten pounds to fight HBO’S newest choir boy as a coming out fight and quite literally makes a fool out of him sending him into retirement.
The indestructible Kelly Pavlik. (Yet another thrown into darkness)

2009. Age 44. Fights a stay in shape fight really but wins it.

2010. Age 45. Well Roy was what it was.
At close to 46, he then fought Pascal in an ugly but effective fight.

2011. Age 46. Rematches and beats Pascal lifting his 175 title.

2012. Age 47. Rematches Chad Dawson in defense of his title in a losing effort.

2013. Age 48. Challenges the undefeated IBF light heavyweight champ who is about half his age and puts on another clinic.

To be continued….

Wait a second, you make it seem like the Trinidad fight was huge and the De La hoya fight was no big deal.

Then make a bigger deal out of Oscar and than-you for the support.

[Violent Demise]

Wait a second, you make it seem like the Trinidad fight was huge and the De La hoya fight was no big deal.

I can answer this one, if you don't mind.

In terms of what preceded these fights, that's correct. Tito was the presumptive middleweight king going into the tourney and many to most expected him to win. He and Hop both had convincing wins, but people saw him too strong and fast for Hopkins - he was the special talent and Hop was just a lunch pail champion who made the most with what he had. Hop wasn't expected to win, much less dominate that fight.

Contrast that with the DLH fight. Hop by then was a known commodity and accepted as middleweight king with a potential place in history. DLH was coming off off a questionable title win from Felix Sturm that some felt he really lost. Hop was actually seen as too big and strong for Oscar and he was expected to win that fight.

So, based upon what the climate was around both fights, the Tito fight was seen as by far the more impressive victory.

Actually you have made my second point before I even got to it, thankyou, what you have proven is that Hopkins was able to fly under the radar until he fought Trinidad, he had been the champ for six years, had had 14 title defenses, and been at that same weight his whole career, Tito had been at JMW for only a year after moving up, he had only one bout at MW prior to the Hopkins match, Hopkins had a height/weight/reach advantage


My question is when looking back in hindsight both Oscar and Tito gave up a substantial size advantage against Hopkins, but the casual fan says Tito was his greatest victory and De La Hoya was no big deal.

Oscar started his career as a Junior lightweight. Trinidad as a Junior Welterweight. Oscar would make Welterweight without any problems. Trinidad would struggle to make 147 and really should of moved out of the division earlier than he did. As a middleweight Oscar looked out of shape. The weight didn't suit him. Trinidad was chiseled and looked fine. Trinidad was always the bigger fighter physically. There was still a slight difference in size between Trinidad and Hopkins. But not as much as there was between Hopkins-De La Hoya

Tito's first fight at junior middle was march of 2000 and his last was december of 2000, he was there less than a year, there was no reason for him to move up because 154 suited him just fine but he was so damn ambitious that he wanted to beat everyone in his path until he got to RJJ, his KO of Joppy is an example of a great fighter over achieving. De La Hoya was at junior middle for over 2 1/2years, he had more time to put on more size and adapt to MW.



But at least you're honest enough to admit Tito was smaller.


Pac looked chiseled against Margarito but that does not make him a junior middle.

RJJ looked chiseled against Ruiz but that does not make him a heavyweight

Those were opponents taylor made just like Joppy was.

I agree with the 154 thing. Trinidad should of stood there longer. He looked strong and healthy at the weight. He was a fool for wanting to fight Jones. He was never gonna beat him.

[TitoFan]

i don't know how u don't rank Oscar over Tito...they both fought eachother and Oscar was robbed... there's not debating Tito lost that fight by at least three rounds or more... where-ever Tito is ranked, Oscar should one ahead of him...

Fighters Tito popped their cherry


Yori Campus
Oba Carr
Oscar De La Hoya
David Reid
Fernando Vargas

Only Oscar was able to go on to other things, everybody else was ruined

Such distortion of the truth. Trinidad didn't beat De La Hoya. So he shouldn't even be up there. Campas and Vargas won titles after fighting Trinidad. How is that ruining them? A lot of Campas best wins came after the Trinidad fight. Vargas was never the same after he had his back surgery. His back problems are what ruined him. Reid went into the Trinidad fight already ruined. Trinidad was a cash out fight for him. His eye was fucked up and there was no way to fix it. As for Oba Carr? When the fuck are people gonna stop overrating him? Carr was never considered "all that" He had a little hype behind him cuz he was a product of the Kronk gym and went into the Trinidad fight with a pretty 32-0 record. But the people who actually follow boxing (and not just look at records and pretend they know more than they really do) knew it was a hollow 32-0. By all rights It should of been 30-2. Pedro Sanchez dropped him and out fought him. And deserved the win. But that doesn't compare to the bullshit SD win Carr got over 600 year old Livingstone Bramble. Bramble dropped him twice and punked him all night. Carr would of took the loss if the fight wasn't in his hometown. It makes me laugh when I hear clueless people say Trinidad ruined Carr. He didn't ruin Carr. Carr was always just an average fighter. He never beat anyone of note before fighting Trinidad or after fighting Trinidad. But don't let facts stand in the way. Carry on with the distorted facts. Trinidad ruined Carr. He turned an average fighter into less average fighter. Yay.

Can't except you to be objective about any argument involving a P.R. fighter and a Mexican one. But I can't help but notice how you steer away from the argument that Oscar made a living out of feasting on Trinidad's leftovers. Fine... tear down the Reid's and the Carr's. It's a no-win argument either way. You know what they say about hindsight, or Monday-morning quarterbacking. Makes everyone look like geniuses. My argument is and has always been that, although admittedly Oscar was the better boxer, Trinidad was the more accomplished fighter AND had the more impressive career. Oscar was more globally popular for the same reason Baby Chavez is globally popular. There's millions and millions of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans who will eagerly throw their weight behind any "paisano" that comes along. You can be coddled (Chavez Jr.), or a known cheater (Margarito)... and you still get all the adulation, deserved or not. No hate, just the facts.

The problem is a very simple one. You're just to damn sensitive. I mean little 10 year old girl sensitive. You take facts as insults. That's why you think I'm always knocking Trinidad. When in reality I'm not. I wasn't tearing Reid or Carr down. I was just simply providing facts. Or am I lying? Feel free to counter anything I said. Prove I'm making shit up or I'm wrong in what I'm saying. And while you're at it, point out to me where I discredited Trinidad like you claim I always do. Like I told you before. Facts are not insults. You just take them that way

Back down, Fido. Down... boy. Nobody's mentioning anything about insults here, only you. In your own predictable fashion, you go off on your (by now very tiresome) tirade about me being overly sensitive and whatnot. I'm only stating my opinion to counter your opinion. Which, by the way, is what it is..... an OPINION. You see.... here's the difference between facts and opinions:

Your opinion is that Oscar had the better career.
My opinion is that Trinidad had the better career.
Follow me? Opinions.

Fact: Trinidad got the decision win over Oscar when they fought.

Deserved or not? Opinion.
See how this shit works?

I'll dumb it down for you and make it less complicated. You said I was tearing down the Reid and Carr wins. When did I do that?

You're too young for Alzheimers, I imagine.

Like.... when you said Reid was already SHOT when he fought Trinidad, and when you said that Carr was OVERRATED?? Maybe my English isn't up to snuff, but..... is that not tearing down or discrediting the Trinidad wins over both of these guys??

Those are facts. You think Reid had multiple eye surgery's for the fuck of it? You think he drooped his eye lid to look cool? How the fuck is a one-eyed fighter not a ruined fighter?

Name me Carr best win before fighting Trinidad that proved he was good. His previous fight before Trididad was against a 1-5 fighter. What the fuck is a 31-0 fighter doing fighting someone 1-5? Hell yeah he was overrated. Especially by the Trinidad groupies

Ok, so you ARE tearing down Trinidad's wins over Carr and Reid. Make up your mind please. You change your mind more often than a woman making up her mind what color panties to wear.

If you can retain your attention span long enough: You first tore down Trinidad's wins over those two guys. No argument from me about Reid... you've been arguing with yourself. Then you ask stupidly "When did I tear down the Reid and Carr wins?" And now you're doing it again. And again... no argument from me on Reid's condition previous to the fight.

It's bad enough getting into arguments with you when you're coherent. It's quite another when you're apparently ON something. Let's quietly just drop the issue.... ok? I swear... between you're biased ignorance and GB's sophomoric stalking... it's enough to make one puke.

[Violent Demise]

i don't know how u don't rank Oscar over Tito...they both fought eachother and Oscar was robbed... there's not debating Tito lost that fight by at least three rounds or more... where-ever Tito is ranked, Oscar should one ahead of him...

Fighters Tito popped their cherry


Yori Campus
Oba Carr
Oscar De La Hoya
David Reid
Fernando Vargas

Only Oscar was able to go on to other things, everybody else was ruined

Such distortion of the truth. Trinidad didn't beat De La Hoya. So he shouldn't even be up there. Campas and Vargas won titles after fighting Trinidad. How is that ruining them? A lot of Campas best wins came after the Trinidad fight. Vargas was never the same after he had his back surgery. His back problems are what ruined him. Reid went into the Trinidad fight already ruined. Trinidad was a cash out fight for him. His eye was fucked up and there was no way to fix it. As for Oba Carr? When the fuck are people gonna stop overrating him? Carr was never considered "all that" He had a little hype behind him cuz he was a product of the Kronk gym and went into the Trinidad fight with a pretty 32-0 record. But the people who actually follow boxing (and not just look at records and pretend they know more than they really do) knew it was a hollow 32-0. By all rights It should of been 30-2. Pedro Sanchez dropped him and out fought him. And deserved the win. But that doesn't compare to the bullshit SD win Carr got over 600 year old Livingstone Bramble. Bramble dropped him twice and punked him all night. Carr would of took the loss if the fight wasn't in his hometown. It makes me laugh when I hear clueless people say Trinidad ruined Carr. He didn't ruin Carr. Carr was always just an average fighter. He never beat anyone of note before fighting Trinidad or after fighting Trinidad. But don't let facts stand in the way. Carry on with the distorted facts. Trinidad ruined Carr. He turned an average fighter into less average fighter. Yay.

Can't except you to be objective about any argument involving a P.R. fighter and a Mexican one. But I can't help but notice how you steer away from the argument that Oscar made a living out of feasting on Trinidad's leftovers. Fine... tear down the Reid's and the Carr's. It's a no-win argument either way. You know what they say about hindsight, or Monday-morning quarterbacking. Makes everyone look like geniuses. My argument is and has always been that, although admittedly Oscar was the better boxer, Trinidad was the more accomplished fighter AND had the more impressive career. Oscar was more globally popular for the same reason Baby Chavez is globally popular. There's millions and millions of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans who will eagerly throw their weight behind any "paisano" that comes along. You can be coddled (Chavez Jr.), or a known cheater (Margarito)... and you still get all the adulation, deserved or not. No hate, just the facts.

The problem is a very simple one. You're just to damn sensitive. I mean little 10 year old girl sensitive. You take facts as insults. That's why you think I'm always knocking Trinidad. When in reality I'm not. I wasn't tearing Reid or Carr down. I was just simply providing facts. Or am I lying? Feel free to counter anything I said. Prove I'm making shit up or I'm wrong in what I'm saying. And while you're at it, point out to me where I discredited Trinidad like you claim I always do. Like I told you before. Facts are not insults. You just take them that way

Back down, Fido. Down... boy. Nobody's mentioning anything about insults here, only you. In your own predictable fashion, you go off on your (by now very tiresome) tirade about me being overly sensitive and whatnot. I'm only stating my opinion to counter your opinion. Which, by the way, is what it is..... an OPINION. You see.... here's the difference between facts and opinions:

Your opinion is that Oscar had the better career.
My opinion is that Trinidad had the better career.
Follow me? Opinions.

Fact: Trinidad got the decision win over Oscar when they fought.

Deserved or not? Opinion.
See how this shit works?

I'll dumb it down for you and make it less complicated. You said I was tearing down the Reid and Carr wins. When did I do that?

You're too young for Alzheimers, I imagine.

Like.... when you said Reid was already SHOT when he fought Trinidad, and when you said that Carr was OVERRATED?? Maybe my English isn't up to snuff, but..... is that not tearing down or discrediting the Trinidad wins over both of these guys??

Those are facts. You think Reid had multiple eye surgery's for the fuck of it? You think he drooped his eye lid to look cool? How the fuck is a one-eyed fighter not a ruined fighter?

Name me Carr best win before fighting Trinidad that proved he was good. His previous fight before Trididad was against a 1-5 fighter. What the fuck is a 31-0 fighter doing fighting someone 1-5? Hell yeah he was overrated. Especially by the Trinidad groupies

Ok, so you ARE tearing down Trinidad's wins over Carr and Reid. Make up your mind please. You change your mind more often than a woman making up her mind what color panties to wear.

If you can retain your attention span long enough: You first tore down Trinidad's wins over those two guys. No argument from me about Reid... you've been arguing with yourself. Then you ask stupidly "When did I tear down the Reid and Carr wins?" And now you're doing it again. And again... no argument from me on Reid's condition previous to the fight.

It's bad enough getting into arguments with you when you're coherent. It's quite another when you're apparently ON something. Let's quietly just drop the issue.... ok? I swear... between you're biased ignorance and GB's sophomoric stalking... it's enough to make one puke.

Let's see if I got this right. I tore down Trinidad by providing true facts? It's like you're addicted to stupid. All this time here and you haven't learned anything. Why accuse someone of tearing down fighters when you don't even know what the fuck it means? Tearing down Trinidad's opposition would be me saying Reid was garbage and fucking sucked. That's an opinion. An inaccurate opinion. I never said that. I provided true facts about Reid's injury and the reasons why the fight happened. See the difference? I doubt you do. So I'll leave it at this. Reid was a good fighter. And it was a good win for Trinidad. That's it. But that's not enough for you, is it?. Of course not. It has to be played up to be a great win. And damn it. Reid was great too. And who cares about Reid's condition. Cuz as ridiculous an inaccurate as it is, Trinidad must be given credit for ruining Reid.

[Spicoli]

I'll most likely be alone on this but so be it.
I suppose it’s how the individual views legacy. For me the number one position here is almost obvious if not for the blurs caused by the present. This guy won’t need a vote for the hall of fame because they will just send him his invitation. Whether he is fan friendly or not today or needs to go away in the minds of many is tainted and in most cases by those who have not witnessed his incredible run. He's a modern day Archie Moore and even if you hate him as I did for years as far as legacy goes he wins this hands down imo.






Bernard Hopkins

1993- Age28. He fights the legendary Roy Jones for the IBF title and loses on points. In doing so he also took more rounds off Jones then anyone did prior to his decline.

1995- Age 30. Wins IBF title.

1996 – 2000. Starting at age 31 and ending at age 35. He defends his title 12 times including knocking out Glen Johnson.

2001- Age 36. Enters middleweight tourney. Defends his IBF and partially unifies against Holmes for his WBA title.

2001- Age 36. In another unification just 5 months later he fights the legend Tito for his WBC title while defending the other 2 and puts on a clinic. People who were not around at the time in this medium or the boxing world in general really have no idea how big this fight was. I actually posted at Espn in those days lol. Next to Hearns/Leonard 1, it was personally devastating. (Tito never came back)

2002- 2004. Starting at age 37 and ending at close to 40. He defends all three belts 4 times and then meets Oscar for full unification and stops him. He becomes the first unified middleweight champion since Hagler. Shadowing 40 years old.

2005. Age 40. Fights the flavour of the HBO day in Taylor and loses a close and to this day very controversial decision. He then rematches the upstart and loses again in another almost to close to call fight. Many to this day including myself believe that if Taylor did enough to lift it in the first then Bernard did enough to get it back in the second. (Taylor was never the same)

Life goes on for this guy.

2006. Age 41 and a mere 6 months later. Jumps up 2 weight classes and destroys the man that beat the man at 175. (Tarver was ruined)

2007. Age 42. Fights and beats Winky Wright.

2008. Age 43. Calzaghe. Loses on points to one of the best fighters in the world.

2008. Age 43 just shy of 44. Drops ten pounds to fight HBO’S newest choir boy as a coming out fight and quite literally makes a fool out of him sending him into retirement.
The indestructible Kelly Pavlik. (Yet another thrown into darkness)

2009. Age 44. Fights a stay in shape fight really but wins it.

2010. Age 45. Well Roy was what it was.
At close to 46, he then fought Pascal in an ugly but effective fight.

2011. Age 46. Rematches and beats Pascal lifting his 175 title.

2012. Age 47. Rematches Chad Dawson in defense of his title in a losing effort.

2013. Age 48. Challenges the undefeated IBF light heavyweight champ who is about half his age and puts on another clinic.

To be continued….

Good stuff. Hopkins takes a lot of flack, some warranted over the years and some just piling on. He don't care. I've had pains watching him but its a pleasure to watch a craftsman. I think of guys much younger than him still carrying on only in name and clinging to shadows and can't find fault at all with a guy actually still on the top and winning impressively.

The whole Tito/Oscar thing is pretty obvious. Tito proved himself a guy who demolished a middleweight champion. He tore up Reid and Vargas and why linger at 154 in what was at the time a ghost town. Oscar got a gift against a middleweight champ and looked terrible. I didn't like that match. Oscar/Hopkins was a bit of an in house business-promotion affair to me. Tito/Hopkins was a legit superfight, one where Hopkins wasn't given much of a shot. I never could understand that.

[TitoFan]

Let's see if I got this right. I tore down Trinidad by providing true facts? It's like you're addicted to stupid. All this time here and you haven't learned anything. Why accuse someone of tearing down fighters when you don't even know what the fuck it means? Tearing down Trinidad's opposition would be me saying Reid was garbage and fucking sucked. That's an opinion. An inaccurate opinion. I never said that. I provided true facts about Reid's injury and the reasons why the fight happened. See the difference? I doubt you do. So I'll leave it at this. Reid was a good fighter. And it was a good win for Trinidad. That's it. But that's not enough for you, is it?. Of course not. It has to be played up to be a great win. And damn it. Reid was great too. And who cares about Reid's condition. Cuz as ridiculous an inaccurate as it is, Trinidad must be given credit for ruining Reid.

I've never crowed about Trinidad's win over Reid, bozo. Get that through your thick skull. You're arguing with yourself, which by the way you're getting pretty good at. You wanna argue with yourself? Hold on... let me get a baseball bat so you can break your own wrist in five places. I'll watch in astounded amusement.

[Violent Demise]

Let's see if I got this right. I tore down Trinidad by providing true facts? It's like you're addicted to stupid. All this time here and you haven't learned anything. Why accuse someone of tearing down fighters when you don't even know what the fuck it means? Tearing down Trinidad's opposition would be me saying Reid was garbage and fucking sucked. That's an opinion. An inaccurate opinion. I never said that. I provided true facts about Reid's injury and the reasons why the fight happened. See the difference? I doubt you do. So I'll leave it at this. Reid was a good fighter. And it was a good win for Trinidad. That's it. But that's not enough for you, is it?. Of course not. It has to be played up to be a great win. And damn it. Reid was great too. And who cares about Reid's condition. Cuz as ridiculous an inaccurate as it is, Trinidad must be given credit for ruining Reid.

I've never crowed about Trinidad's win over Reid, bozo. Get that through your thick skull. You're arguing with yourself, which by the way you're getting pretty good at. You wanna argue with yourself? Hold on... let me get a baseball bat so you can break your own wrist in five places. I'll watch in astounded amusement.

You sucked Trinidad's dick plenty of times before over the Reid win. But no more now, right? Good. About fucking time you learn something.

[TitoFan]

Let's see if I got this right. I tore down Trinidad by providing true facts? It's like you're addicted to stupid. All this time here and you haven't learned anything. Why accuse someone of tearing down fighters when you don't even know what the fuck it means? Tearing down Trinidad's opposition would be me saying Reid was garbage and fucking sucked. That's an opinion. An inaccurate opinion. I never said that. I provided true facts about Reid's injury and the reasons why the fight happened. See the difference? I doubt you do. So I'll leave it at this. Reid was a good fighter. And it was a good win for Trinidad. That's it. But that's not enough for you, is it?. Of course not. It has to be played up to be a great win. And damn it. Reid was great too. And who cares about Reid's condition. Cuz as ridiculous an inaccurate as it is, Trinidad must be given credit for ruining Reid.

I've never crowed about Trinidad's win over Reid, bozo. Get that through your thick skull. You're arguing with yourself, which by the way you're getting pretty good at. You wanna argue with yourself? Hold on... let me get a baseball bat so you can break your own wrist in five places. I'll watch in astounded amusement.

You sucked Trinidad's dick plenty of times before over the Reid win. But no more now, right? Good. About fucking time you learn something.

Great retort, Violet!

You seem to have retreated to your gangsta ways.
You know what they say.....

You can take the boy out of the ghetto... but you can't take the ghetto out of the boy.
Now run along. I hear Greenbeanz is waiting to kiss YOUR ass.

It's great having you two clowns around to constantly entertain me.

[Britkid]

1: Chavez: Greatest Mexican we have seen in this sport.

2: Whitaker: Brilliant but uninspiring in his time, but now get his kudos.

3: Mayweather Jr: An exceptional talent.

4: Hopkins: Now arguably the best 'old' fighter ever.

5: De La Hoya: Had a lot to live up too, and succeed.

6: Pacquiao: I did not think any Filipino would top Villa, I was wrong!

7: Mosley: An awesome phenomenon, who also had substance.

8: Trinidad: A fighter who has gone out of fashion, which was a shame as he was fun and talented.

9: Tszyu: Along with Arbachakov, was the first to show that the old 'Soviet' amateur system could in the new era produce brilliance at pro level.