01-31-2013, 06:31 AM
East Side VIP
Join Date: Sep 2008
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Charley Burley
Originally Posted by thistle1
this guy never said that at all... this guy happens to focus first on ERA's, the Best of those Era's, Champions & Contenders alike are streets ahead of weaker Era's.
because of the level of competition, number of fights among that competition, longievity in that Era & against such comp and lastly fighting up against the next division or two.
this guy said two things about Hopkins (and others),
1) in that Golden Era of the 1930s - mid-late 50s, Hopkins would have been a L-HW, a 6'1" guy at that time was never a MW except as a young teenage fighter passing through the division, leveling off as a L-HW cum HW.
2) against such reality and fighting facts, again Comp & number of fights against such Comp, does BHop 'stay' the distance, does he remain a TOP fighter???
well all we've got to compare is His Era, much weeker comp and a fighter who fought (like most today) well below his natural weight - there is very little to say that he swims with the sharks for a career of it.
Thats it, thats all, and it is the same for ALL fighters from weaker Era's, the fighters that DID it, are Sealed for ALL TIME, the ones that did'nt have to be looked at under the microscope to see where they would fit in such Era's and whether they would still be on top or not... thats it, it's that simple!
I said Bhop would be a 'Fringe Contender and a Journeyman fighter, as SO many greats then were and became, on the fringe finishing up journeymen.
as to Froch/Bute - the comparison was Two Great Fighters, the courts were split even as to who was going to win, but Froch walked it... Why? because he was just better... not a difficult analogy was it?
Burley's just better.
and believing in God all of a sudden rules a person out of discussion. Please.
The Froch/Bute comparison is still abysmal,