Hopkins p4p ranking?

[Fenster]

Hold up.

Where was Pascal rated P4P before this fight? He certainly wasn't top 10. MOST people seem to believe Hopkins was "robbed" against him first time. Hopkin's was the betting FAVOURITE. So he jumps in the top 3 by beating someone he already beat?

Where did FRoch get rated P4P after beating Pascal?

Seems like sentimentality to a geriatric. Fact.

[marbleheadmaui]

Hold up.

Where was Pascal rated P4P before this fight? He certainly wasn't top 10. MOST people seem to believe Hopkins was "robbed" against him first time. Hopkin's was the betting FAVOURITE. So he jumps in the top 3 by beating someone he already beat?

Where did FRoch get rated P4P after beating Pascal?

Seems like sentimentality to a geriatric. Fact.

You need to look up the definition of the word fact

The problem is BHOP didn't beat Pascal the first time. I looked it up in the record book.

Froch has never been a THE MAN champion. He doesn't have anywhere near the resume of BHOP.

You raise a really interesting question though.

Clearly winning a legit title at 46 is fascinating. But is is any more important that winning one at 23 or 29 or 33 or 36?

[CFH]

Hold up.

Where was Pascal rated P4P before this fight? He certainly wasn't top 10. MOST people seem to believe Hopkins was "robbed" against him first time. Hopkin's was the betting FAVOURITE. So he jumps in the top 3 by beating someone he already beat?

Where did FRoch get rated P4P after beating Pascal?

Seems like sentimentality to a geriatric. Fact.

You need to look up the definition of the word fact

The problem is BHOP didn't beat Pascal the first time. I looked it up in the record book.

Froch has never been a THE MAN champion. He doesn't have anywhere near the resume of BHOP.

You raise a really interesting question though.

Clearly winning a legit title at 46 is fascinating. But is is any more important that winning one at 23 or 29 or 33 or 36?

This might sound a bit odd, but I think his age plays a role in how strong his resume is - becoming the linear LHW champ at 46 is an amazing accomplishment - but age absolutely should not play a role in P4P discussions IMO.

[marbleheadmaui]

Hold up.

Where was Pascal rated P4P before this fight? He certainly wasn't top 10. MOST people seem to believe Hopkins was "robbed" against him first time. Hopkin's was the betting FAVOURITE. So he jumps in the top 3 by beating someone he already beat?

Where did FRoch get rated P4P after beating Pascal?

Seems like sentimentality to a geriatric. Fact.

You need to look up the definition of the word fact

The problem is BHOP didn't beat Pascal the first time. I looked it up in the record book.

Froch has never been a THE MAN champion. He doesn't have anywhere near the resume of BHOP.

You raise a really interesting question though.

Clearly winning a legit title at 46 is fascinating. But is is any more important that winning one at 23 or 29 or 33 or 36?

This might sound a bit odd, but I think his age plays a role in how strong his resume is - becoming the linear LHW champ at 46 is an amazing accomplishment - but age absolutely should not play a role in P4P discussions IMO.

I don't think that inconsistency is odd, they really are two different categories.

But why is winning at 46 more important than doing so at 34. Playing devil's advocate, why did it take him so long

[Boxer4life]

very good arguments guys, but i am not going off of one fight, his recent showings, impressive, he belongs in the top 5 and p4p has alto do with how you win and who you beat, and your status in the weight division your in swell as compared to the champs in other weight classes and i don't think anyone is better than b hop, who should rank higher if you disagree? ....the only reason b hop was a favorite coming in is because ppl were tired of being wrong betting against him....hopkins beat pavlik, redeemed his loss against jones, all thou a washed up jones, nonetheless, and went on to beat on a young champion twice, the same guy who put the loss on THE man at 175 at the time (dawson) thats what i base my judgement on. And you damn sure cant say just because pascale wasn't top 5 hopkins shouldn't be, p4p is full of different weight classes...in other words it doesn't mean he has to fight pac man to be number one

[Spicoli]

This is why p4p is theatrical smoke-n-mirrors. Anyone with a clear mind can look at Hopkins and know is is a more skilled, better through and through boxer then Carl friggin Froch. Really now

" yah mate thats actually a fact..saw it myself"

[Fenster]

The fact Hopkin's didn't beat Pascal first time makes his case WORSE! P4P is about what is currently happening. Hopkins, who was not rated P4P before his last fight, loses it against a guy that was also not rated P4P. Yet Hopkins now qualifies as P4P by beating the very same fighter, who has never been ranked P4P.

You're all rating Hopkins on his history. You're giving him bonus points for being a pensioner. He is a surefire all-time-great. It doesn't mean he is currently among the worlds 10 best fighters let alone top 3.

Marbleheadmaui - You can't get credit for lineal wins in P4P. Dozens of fighters rated P4P have never been lineal champ. As you yourself point out, Roy Jones has arguably never been THE man but he certainly was regarded P4P no.1 (using The Ring of course)

[marbleheadmaui]

The fact Hopkin's didn't beat Pascal first time makes his case WORSE! P4P is about what is currently happening. Hopkins, who was not rated P4P before his last fight, loses it against a guy that was also not rated P4P. Yet Hopkins now qualifies as P4P by beating the very same fighter, who has never been ranked P4P.

You're all rating Hopkins on his history. You're giving him bonus points for being a pensioner. He is a surefire all-time-great. It doesn't mean he is currently among the worlds 10 best fighters let alone top 3.

Marbleheadmaui - You can't get credit for lineal wins in P4P. Dozens of fighters rated P4P have never been lineal champ. As you yourself point out, Roy Jones has arguably never been THE man but he certainly was regarded P4P no.1 (using The Ring of course)

LOL, I've been HAD!

[Fenster]

This is why p4p is theatrical smoke-n-mirrors. Anyone with a clear mind can look at Hopkins and know is is a more skilled, better through and through boxer then Carl friggin Froch. Really now

" yah mate thats actually a fact..saw it myself"

It took Froch only one go to confirm his superiority over Pascal though.

So the current form says FRoch owns BHop. Fact. ().

[#1FightFan]

b-hop deserves credit, no matter his age.
what we saw last night was a work of art.
the way he made pascal miss and look like a fool, while tagging him repeatedly dead on target! it was great, and I'm happy for him. he might be an asshole, but u gotta give the guy credit. he has fought the best, younger, tougher...and prevailed.

so yes, he deserves to be up there in the p4p rankings!

[JazMerkin]

Hold up.

Where was Pascal rated P4P before this fight? He certainly wasn't top 10. MOST people seem to believe Hopkins was "robbed" against him first time. Hopkin's was the betting FAVOURITE. So he jumps in the top 3 by beating someone he already beat?

Where did FRoch get rated P4P after beating Pascal?

Seems like sentimentality to a geriatric. Fact.

I agree with that rationale, but Pascal was actually the betting favourite for this one. I don't know why, anyone who saw the first fight would've almost certainly have fancied Hopkins again, but he wasn't the favourite.

That said, this win in no way puts him at 2 or 3. It's supposed to be a take on who is the best fighter on the planet regardless of weight. Age & lineal titles play little role, in fact even inactivity shouldn't, as it's originally not supposed to be the 'what have you done lately' popularity contest it's become. It seems to have become some kind of bizarre division of its own.

[Kev]

Hold up.

Where was Pascal rated P4P before this fight? He certainly wasn't top 10. MOST people seem to believe Hopkins was "robbed" against him first time. Hopkin's was the betting FAVOURITE. So he jumps in the top 3 by beating someone he already beat?

Where did FRoch get rated P4P after beating Pascal?

Seems like sentimentality to a geriatric. Fact.

I agree with that rationale, but Pascal was actually the betting favourite for this one. I don't know why, anyone who saw the first fight would've almost certainly have fancied Hopkins again, but he wasn't the favourite.

That said, this win in no way puts him at 2 or 3. It's supposed to be a take on who is the best fighter on the planet regardless of weight. Age & lineal titles play little role, in fact even inactivity shouldn't, as it's originally not supposed to be the 'what have you done lately' popularity contest it's become. It seems to have become some kind of bizarre division of its own.

I think top 3 is fair. The criticisms you are levelling at Hopkins could just as easily be aimed at Martinez.

B Hops resume over last few years show huge upset wins over Taver, Pavlik and Pascal, plus wins over Winky Wright and Roy Jones, along with a draw to Pascal in which most thought he won, and a very close defeat to Calzaghe, again a fight many thought he won.

Contrast that with Martinez who won and lost to Paul Williams, beat Pavlik, drew with Kermit Cintron in a fight we all thought he should have won, and beat some decent little known light middle last time .out.

I would say even discarding the age factor Hopkins resume is better than Martinez. He beat Pavlik and.ruined him, beat two linear champs at 175 and in Calzaghe lost to a better fighter than Martinez has ever faced.

He's above Sergio for me on merit nothing to do with sentimentality over his age...

[Mr140]

Not to meantion in boxing age Bernard must be pushing 156 i think he should be on high end of the 10.

[JazMerkin]

I think top 3 is fair. The criticisms you are levelling at Hopkins could just as easily be aimed at Martinez.

B Hops resume over last few years show huge upset wins over Taver, Pavlik and Pascal, plus wins over Winky Wright and Roy Jones, along with a draw to Pascal in which most thought he won, and a very close defeat to Calzaghe, again a fight many thought he won.

Contrast that with Martinez who won and lost to Paul Williams, beat Pavlik, drew with Kermit Cintron in a fight we all thought he should have won, and beat some decent little known light middle last time .out.

I would say even discarding the age factor Hopkins resume is better than Martinez. He beat Pavlik and.ruined him, beat two linear champs at 175 and in Calzaghe lost to a better fighter than Martinez has ever faced.

He's above Sergio for me on merit nothing to do with sentimentality over his age...

Both beat Pavlik, but although Hopkins did it first you can make an argument that Martinez beat him at the weight at which he was established. Add to that a close loss (many felt he won) & a stunning KO of Williams (who was as high as #3 P4P for some people), as well as a win over the undefeated & highly rated Dzinziruk. Hopkins in that same time frame has beaten Enrique Ornelas, Roy Jones & gone 1-0-1 with Pascal. It's a decent resume & there's an argument for him being somewhere around #10, but the fact is if he & Martinez were the same size who do you think would win? I'd have Martinez. Hopkins has a greater resume overall, but he hasn't done as much & looked as good as Martinez has recently.

*Also noticing that both Fenster & Rant have said B-Hop lost his last fight before this. Might want to check that again fellas

[Pavlik]

Hold up.

Where was Pascal rated P4P before this fight? He certainly wasn't top 10. MOST people seem to believe Hopkins was "robbed" against him first time. Hopkin's was the betting FAVOURITE. So he jumps in the top 3 by beating someone he already beat?

Where did FRoch get rated P4P after beating Pascal?

Seems like sentimentality to a geriatric. Fact.

bro it was a feat by itself bhop is 46 y/o.