Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-24-2012, 04:03 PM   #46
Bokaj
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,232
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post
the difference for me is that most long reigning champions have a lot of filler competition with some great wins thrown in the mix.

louis has baer, walcott, conn, schmeling, etc.
Baer was terribly unskilled, Conn was 167 lbs when he faced Louis. Smaller than most MWs today. That you even name those fighters shows that there isn't that much to find. Still I rate Louis' reign tremedously.

Quote:
hagler's reign has sibson, antefurmo, hamsho, and mugabi. add in hearns and duran and it's damn solid.
Don't think Sibson, Antefurmo and Hamsho looked like that much. Don't see how they would stand a notch above Joppy, Holmes and Echols for example. Hearns and Duran more or less equals Tito and DLH in my book. The difference is that neither Tito or DLH took Hopkins the distance Personally, I can't see Hopkins looking that bad against a past-prime, blown up former LW.

The Duran win doesn't elevate his standing in my eyes. It rather asks the question how he would do if he met more skilled boxers, which he really didn't face that many of.

Mugabi clearly was a dangerous opponent, though. Perhaps better than anyone of the above. But as I said, there isn't much in it. We're really splittting hairs here.


Quote:
and the best middle he fought, jones, clearly beat him.
True, but Jones was phenom, though. And Hopkins gave him one of his best fights when still in his physical prime. Sure beats losing to Willie Monroe.

Quote:
i guess i also just rate robinson's reign and his era much higher than you; difference of opinion and all
Think that era is very overrated. And Robinson is overrated as a MW. Not as a p4p fighter, though. He was something else, after all.
Bokaj is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-24-2012, 04:08 PM   #47
Bokaj
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,232
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxed Ears View Post
He's in my top fifty. But, he's under Jones, Pacquiao, Mayweather, ODLH and Holyfield from his own long stretch of time, for me. I know many will dispute a couple or even all of those names, but, frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn. Longevity is great. But longevity alone is not but one piece of the puzzle. I'd be shocked if Marvin Hagler lost, even in the neighbourhood of fairness, to a Jermain Taylor at any stage of his championship career, also. Even a controversial decision, honestly.
Well, he'd been retired for 7 years when he was at the age Hopkins was when he lost to Taylor. For my part, I have a hard time seeing Hopkins reasonably close to his best losing to a WW coming out of 3 year retirement, which he spent mainly sniffing coke.

Hopkins did face the two best WWs of his era and soundly defeated both. No former LW, way past his prime, made him look foolish either.
Bokaj is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 04:12 PM   #48
frankwornank
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 274
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Not a great fighter. Very boring. The kind of fighter that detracts from the sport. He wins but is hard to watch.
frankwornank is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 04:20 PM   #49
Nightcrawler
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada!!!!
Posts: 2,215
vCash: 500
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokaj View Post
Well, he'd been retired for 7 years when he was at the age Hopkins was when he lost to Taylor. For my part, I have a hard time seeing Hopkins reasonably close to his best losing to a WW coming out of 3 year retirement, which he spent mainly sniffing coke.

Hopkins did face the two best WWs of his era and soundly defeated both. No former LW, way past his prime, made him look foolish either.
true but selective phrasing.another way of putting it is that a rusty, 12 month off hagler BARELY lost to one of the 20 greatest fighters of all time who had a perfect strategy.


hopkins beatdown of tito is boner-inspiring. oscar was no middleweight simple and that win means about as much as monzon's over napoles. duran is one of the best fighters ever and his fight plan to was amazing. i don't see hopkins doing any better...he'd be in with someone with a better lead/overhand right than his own, better movement, patience and fantastic defense
Nightcrawler is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 04:28 PM   #50
Boxed Ears
Smugly Savvy Feelings
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pazinfowit, Esperantia
Posts: 24,928
vCash: 26664
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher View Post
I didn't get the joke BE???? WTF, where is it, I just can't see the joke, oh wait it's picking a 39yo Hagler over Jermaine Taylor?? Oh and rating DLH over him, that's a good one
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokaj View Post
Well, he'd been retired for 7 years when he was at the age Hopkins was when he lost to Taylor. For my part, I have a hard time seeing Hopkins reasonably close to his best losing to a WW coming out of 3 year retirement, which he spent mainly sniffing coke.

Hopkins did face the two best WWs of his era and soundly defeated both. No former LW, way past his prime, made him look foolish either.
Are there really still hardcore boxing fans who believe longevity is only a matter of years lived and nothing else? Why, I thought they only existed in propaganda fairy tales from MMA proponents. Dear, oh, dear, oh, dear. You hear about these types but you never dream they live in your neck of the woods.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post
co the **** sign. i gave taylor both by a round. could hopkins have won? sure but he didn't. and they were not robberies but close fights turned into taylor wins by hopkins inability/apathy/distain for throwing punches. taylor won by wanting it more and throwing punches to take close rounds

hopkins is very very good. even great. but he showed his ceiling against jones, losing by a fair margin. then by thrice getting outworked in winnable fights against taylor and then calzaghe. for the smartest fighter in the game or whatever, he sure hasn't learned his ****ing lesson. pascal held him to a (disputed) draw by doing the same ****ing thing
Good man.
Boxed Ears is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 04:51 PM   #51
ushvinder
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin_Ribs View Post
Hagler came up through a far tougher middleweight division than Hopkins and had to wait ages to get his shot before going into the lion's den to face a good champion and winning dominantly before being showered in all kinds of abuse for doing so. He took plenty of risks. He was also 5'9 and had every possible pound packed into his frame; his body just wasn't suited to moving up, much less against a killer like Spinks. Even against the stronger middles like Minter, Sibbo, Vito, Briscoe, Hamsho etc he gave ground. Hopkins is about 6'0/6'1 and was able to gain weight far more effectively with the help of Shilstone.

Can't agree with you about Qawi, I don't think the old version of Hopkins would have touched him with a barge pole. His legs were far too diminished and he was more of a clever, scrappy spoiler at that stage imo, which isn't the way to go against Qawi whatever you think of him. I've already said I don't think Hops would have hung around at 175 if there were more world class fighters there, and I'll stick with that.

Jones is undoubtedly a great fighter in retrospect but can you say he was viewed that way at the time? If Hopkins was that much of a risk taker, why not pursue Jones when they were both at their respective peaks when it would have made mega bucks and settled the score? Instead of having a series with Robert Allen?

Anyway, I get the impression we're only going to go in circles here so we'll agree to disagree.
Duran was able to fight 5 weight classes past his best weight, whitaker was able to fight all the way up to 154, leonard fought all the way up to 168, but hagler wasn't meant to move up, sorry not buying it. Hagler was a great fighter but to me, if I were to rank the 5 best fighters from 1960 and onwards, hagler wouldnt even get a mention. Ali and Duran are far greater than him, leonard, whitaker and pac rank higher, as does napoles for me. Roy Jones would beat marvin at any weight class. I would also rank carlos ortiz above him.
ushvinder is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 04:52 PM   #52
Nightcrawler
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada!!!!
Posts: 2,215
vCash: 500
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokaj View Post
Baer was terribly unskilled, Conn was 167 lbs when he faced Louis. Smaller than most MWs today. That you even name those fighters shows that there isn't that much to find. Still I rate Louis' reign tremedously.



Don't think Sibson, Antefurmo and Hamsho looked like that much. Don't see how they would stand a notch above Joppy, Holmes and Echols for example. Hearns and Duran more or less equals Tito and DLH in my book. The difference is that neither Tito or DLH took Hopkins the distance Personally, I can't see Hopkins looking that bad against a past-prime, blown up former LW.

The Duran win doesn't elevate his standing in my eyes. It rather asks the question how he would do if he met more skilled boxers, which he really didn't face that many of.

Mugabi clearly was a dangerous opponent, though. Perhaps better than anyone of the above. But as I said, there isn't much in it. We're really splittting hairs here.




True, but Jones was phenom, though. And Hopkins gave him one of his best fights when still in his physical prime. Sure beats losing to Willie Monroe.



Think that era is very overrated. And Robinson is overrated as a MW. Not as a p4p fighter, though. He was something else, after all.
i may not agree with you but it was a pleasure as always sir
Nightcrawler is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 04:55 PM   #53
Bokaj
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,232
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxed Ears View Post
Are there really still hardcore boxing fans who believe longevity is only a matter of years lived and nothing else? Why, I thought they only existed in propaganda fairy tales from MMA proponents. Dear, oh, dear, oh, dear. You hear about these types but you never dream they live in your neck of the woods.
Of course not. Still doesn't make 40 a virgin age. 40 is old for a top athlete any way you twist it.

And it's hardly like Hagler was a ring wreck himself when he lost to Leonard. He was about the same age, but with less fights, as a certain former LW was when he gave Hagler some trouble.

We don't know really what version of Hagler a 40-year old Hopkins would translate into, and how that version of Hagler would do against Taylor. But we do know that Hopkins at no stage in his career had trouble with former LWs past their prime or lost to former WWs coming off long lay-offs.
Bokaj is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 04:55 PM   #54
Bokaj
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,232
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

...

Last edited by Bokaj; 11-24-2012 at 05:05 PM.
Bokaj is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 05:05 PM   #55
Bokaj
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,232
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post
true but selective phrasing.another way of putting it is that a rusty, 12 month off hagler BARELY lost to one of the 20 greatest fighters of all time who had a perfect strategy.
I was phrasing it the way everyone was phrasing it at the time. Hindsight and Hagler worship has rephrased it in some places, but I'm not terribly impressed by that.

That you call Hagler "rusty" in this context is quite hilarious. Just wished more people here saw the joke.


Quote:
hopkins beatdown of tito is boner-inspiring. oscar was no middleweight simple and that win means about as much as monzon's over napoles. duran is one of the best fighters ever and his fight plan to was amazing. i don't see hopkins doing any better...he'd be in with someone with a better lead/overhand right than his own, better movement, patience and fantastic defense
Duran was nothing special as a MW. Not only Benitez and Hearns, but also Laing had previously handled him far easier at 154. If Hopkins had had similar problems with, say, the Whitaker that faced Tito we wouldn't hear the end of it. Or even the Whitaker that faced DLH. It would be taken as a water tight proof that only the extremely shitty state of the MW division made Hopkins able to dominate it.

Even much more so than is currently the case. But for Hagler it's put forth as one of his better wins.
Bokaj is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 05:06 PM   #56
Bokaj
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,232
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post
i may not agree with you but it was a pleasure as always sir
Bokaj is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 05:10 PM   #57
ushvinder
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokaj View Post
I was phrasing it the way everyone was phrasing it at the time. Hindsight and Hagler worship has rephrased it in some places, but I'm not terribly impressed by that.

That you call Hagler "rusty" in this context is quite hilarious. Just wished more people here saw the joke.




Duran was nothing special as a MW. Not only Benitez and Hearns, but also Laing had previously handled him far easier at 154. If Hopkins had had similar problems with, say, the Whitaker that faced Tito we wouldn't hear the end of it. Or even the Whitaker that faced DLH. It would be taken as a water tight proof that only the extremely shitty state of the MW division made Hopkins able to dominate it.

Even much more so than is currently the case. But for Hagler it's put forth as one of his better wins.
Dont forget that duran actually won like 5-6 rounds against hagler, pretty sad. Hagler gets more credit for beating little guys than any other fighter in the history of the sport.
ushvinder is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 05:53 PM   #58
redrooster
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,549
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAG1965 View Post
he is a hard one to rate. He is great, yet he was not top 30 ATG.. A very solid fighter..
solid but not inspirational

how good you are in any industry is marked by how memorable you are

he does have longevity that others didnt have
redrooster is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 07:13 PM   #59
the cobra
Awesomeizationism!
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,988
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxed Ears View Post
He's in my top fifty. But, he's under Jones, Pacquiao, Mayweather, ODLH and Holyfield from his own long stretch of time, for me. I know many will dispute a couple or even all of those names, but, frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn. Longevity is great. But longevity alone is not but one piece of the puzzle. I'd be shocked if Marvin Hagler lost, even in the neighbourhood of fairness, to a Jermain Taylor at any stage of his championship career, also. Even a controversial decision, honestly.

And if he were given the same environment as Hopkins, does anyone really think Hagler wouldn't be just as likely to hold that defence record as not? Pfffft. Hopkins is truly excellent and he's done great things but people get very carried away with his late-stage successes against guys who are good but not great, like Pascal and Pavlik. And I don't see him as still relevant on this current scene, so I'm betting the book is essentially closed on his career after his last two. He will probably remain in my top 30-50, somewhere.
This comes across as a critical somewhat negative post, but I think you rate him as high as anyone, my man. No one really claims he deserves better than 30-50. I'll still pick him over Cleverly, btw, if that actually goes down.


Also: Mayweather - fine, whatever, fine...but **** that De la Hoya shit.
the cobra is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 07:36 PM   #60
Bummy Davis
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 9,477
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

He got better as he aged and picked up the level of opposition as he aged...His move up in weight proved to be a positive one....I rate him an ATG but I felt he lost clearly to Calzage...the older version very schooled would give trouble to the best but loses to the top 5- top 10...pulls out a few good wins while at it but loses to the best
Bummy Davis is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013