The knock on Bernard Hopkins

[Bomp]

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.

[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.

[Bomp]

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.

[Trainer Monkey]

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

[bikersk]

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.

[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.

[Trainer Monkey]

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

[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.

[Trainer Monkey]

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.

[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

[smashup]

I've yet to see the fight but knew Hopkins would beat him

[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).

[Pugilistic]

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.

[smashup]

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!

[PRIDE OF BOSTON]

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.