Bernard is historically greater than Manny or Floyd

[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.