The knock on Bernard Hopkins

[RozzySean]

Well you can say the exact same about Marvin Hagler.

I also don't buy the excuse with Kelly Pavlik. Pavlik is a naturally bigger man than Hopkins, he actually made Bernard look small in the ring.

It's the same as when Ricky lost to Floyd. It was nothing to do with him fighting at welterweight. Floyd is no bigger than Ricky.

They both got beat because they lost to better boxers.

If Hop could still make 160 he would have beat Pavlik there.

Tito and Oscar I definitely agree with but the weight issue isn't what won him the fight with Pavlik, that dude is huge and SHOULD be fighting at 168.

He won't be able to make 160 for much longer imo. If he can't hack it at 168 or 170 then it's because he a less versatile fighter than Bernard.

You need to have your eyes checked, Baggins. The weight carrying the ring has clearly distorted your vision. Hopkins looked much bigger than Pavlik. Since Pavlik wasn't moving up in weight and plans to go back and defend the MW title, all he did was train and not starve and dry himself out to make weight. Hopkins added at least 10 pounds of muscle working with Mackie before the Tarver fight. At this point, Hopkins is a legit LWH. Pavlik didn't add muscle mass and "move up" to 170 as much as he didn't cut all the way down to his fighting weight. I was amazed at how much BIGGER Hopkins looked than Pavlik.

Also, I don't think anybody doubts that Pavlik is a less diverse and complete fighter than Hopkins. You're pretty much pointing out the obvious.

Pavlik will need to add muscle mass to move up. If he moves up the right way, like Hopkins did, he will have success. If he moves up and just doesn't work as hard to control is weight, ie James Toney, he won't be successful as he lacks the skills of a Toney or McCallum. Those guys could fight fat about their natural weights because of there skills and styles. Pavlik won't have that luxury as his game is power.

Pavlik is only 26. He should be able to make 160 for at least 2 more years if he stays focused.

[RozzySean]

And just to clarify, I'm not saying Pavlik lost because Hopkins was bigger. Your point that Hopkins (and Mayweather) won because they are better is accurate. In the case of Mayweather, both men were the same size, but in the case of this fight, Hopkins was both bigger and the better boxer.

[ICB]

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.

Glen Johnson was 32-0 at the time, and Keith Holmes at that time. Had good wins over Richie Woodhall, who is considered one of Joe Calzaghe's best wins. And a win against 33-0 Robert McCracken, who wasn't a bad fighter at all.

[ICB]

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

Keith Holmes destroyed a younger version of Richie Woodhall, and Richie Woodhall is considered one of Joe Calzaghe best wins. But Joe Calzaghe fought an older more shot Richie Woodhall. Keith Holmes was never elite i'll admit, but he is better than most of Joe Calzaghe's opposition.

[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

Keith Holmes destroyed a younger version of Richie Woodhall, and Richie Woodhall is considered one of Joe Calzaghe best wins. But Joe Calzaghe fought an older more shot Richie Woodhall. Keith Holmes was never elite i'll admit, but he is better than most of Joe Calzaghe's opposition.

A better way to look at it would be to list all the people that Hopkins could've fought at Middleweight during his reign but didn't and all the people Calzaghe could've fought at SMW but didn't. I bet you'll find that they both fought the best that was available and that the big fights didn't happen because other fighters had moved weight divisions.

[BIG H]

These are the one's JC did fight, who he didn't fight (without bullshit reasons) I am struggling with

Chris Eubank - 2 weight World champion
Richie Woodhall - WBC Champion
Robin Reid - WBC Champion
Charles Brewer - IBF Champion
Byron Mitchell - WBA Champion
Jeff Lacy - IBF Champion (but we all knew he was overrated didn't we )
Mikkel Kessler -WBA/WBC Champion
Bernard Hopkins - Think he won something

[OumaFan]

The shame is that he didn't have bigger fights earlier on because he would have been able to show what a fantastic fighter he really was.

Some of his pre-Tito wins are a bit underrated but there's no point in going into that.

One of the great mysteries to me is how the two Taylor fights were even close enough to be controversial (I thought he won both but I could see how activity only people would see Taylor winning) but what he's done since then at his age is pretty ridiculous. I mean I could see how people would bring up steroids, its that ridiculous.

I will say that some of his biggest wins (Tarver, Tito, Pavlik to an extent) are getting downplayed now but all of those he was heavy heavy underdogs in and he ended up dominating.

[Mikkel_K]

He wasnt supposed to beat Trinidad,he wasnt supposed to beat Wright

This is definitely not to take anything away from B-Hop, but I've seen this mentioned a few times since the weekend, and I just dont get it. I had him the solid favorite before going in there with Winky (mostly due to size and the weight they fought at), and I had the feeling most picked like me?

[OumaFan]

I think Wright-Hopkins was pretty much a pick em type thing. Pretty split across the board. At least that's how I remember it.

[Trainer Monkey]

I think Wright-Hopkins was pretty much a pick em type thing. Pretty split across the board. At least that's how I remember it.

I was talking to people constantly that said there was no way that Bernard could deal with Wrights technical skill.
Of course they still had Bernards ugly fights against Echols in the back of their heads.

[ICB]

These are the one's JC did fight, who he didn't fight (without bullshit reasons) I am struggling with

Chris Eubank - 2 weight World champion
Richie Woodhall - WBC Champion
Robin Reid - WBC Champion
Charles Brewer - IBF Champion
Byron Mitchell - WBA Champion
Jeff Lacy - IBF Champion (but we all knew he was overrated didn't we )
Mikkel Kessler -WBA/WBC Champion
Bernard Hopkins - Think he won something

Never questioned that Joe Calzaghe or Bernard Hopkins didn't fight the best available. I just think Joe Calzaghe was in a weaker division than Bernard Hopkins was, which isn't his fault nor Bernard Hopkins but i still think Joe Calzaghe should of moved up to LHW ages ago.

As for the boxers Joe Calzaghe could of fought well there was Glen Johnson, and Sven Ottke but Sven Ottke didn't want no part of Joe Calzaghe.