If Bernard Hopkins had beaten Jermain Taylor....

ripcity · 03-25-2011, 12:18 AM

Would he have been the boxer of the decade?
I belive that the right decision was made as Hopkins did not really do anything for the first 7 rounds allowing Taylor to build up a lead and hold on for the win. What if Hopkins had gotten the decision or even a draw? Than considering there would have been conterversity won the rematch with Taylor 5 months latter by a close decision. Still being the Middle weight champion he stays at 160, beats [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (regains the IBF championship) in May 06. He dose not fight [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. The rest of his career is the same from that point. He beats Winky Wright, loses to [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and beats [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] as well as [Only registered and activated users can see links. ].
Also consider his middle weight run which might be more quinity than quility. He dose have some very good wins though.
Would Hopkins have done enough to be considered the boxer of the decade over Mayweather or Pacquiao?

kmcc505 · 03-25-2011, 12:37 AM

Maybe. But I give the edge to either of the two other fighters you mention. I voted for Pacquiao based on resume.

WhataRock · 03-25-2011, 02:47 AM

To tell you the truth it might of made his achievements less impressive..He might not of necessarily fought Joe if some big money fights were hanging around 154..

Taylor would have fallen off the wagon fairly quickly after a handful of meaningless win followed by a couple of brutal losses...like what happened after Pavlik beat him.

HBO made Taylor a star, a possible p4p candidate...Pavlik inherited this when he beat him and because of his style was even more popular.

Had Nard only beat Pavlik as a contender and not the undisputed middleweight champ..most would be saying that Kelly was just some overhyped prospect no worthy of the praise he was garnering at the time.

Beating a closer to prime Winky at 160 would have been a bigger achievement...but he barely beat a bloated, slipping one. No guarantee he would have been beaten Ron, to me he looked like the weight was starting to give him issues by the time he took on Taylor..he should have beaten him as or more convincingly then he did the first time but instead it was a pretty close fight from memory. Based on that performance, Id actually favour Wright to grind out the win.

Tarver is one of his best career wins...even if the milkdud was only so-so and was coming off a weighty sabbatical because of acting. He was still a heavy favourite and the man at the weight more or less.

I honestly think it would have pontentially given him less of an argument to be fighter of the decade.

sweet_scientist · 03-25-2011, 02:54 AM

Bernard looked less than stellar for much of the 00's. Even if he did get the decisions against Calzaghe and Taylor, it still wouldn't make me see him as the fighter of the decade given the actual performances he put up.

View Poll Results: The boxer of the decade would be?
I think It would be Hopkins	0	0%
No I still have Mayweather	2	33.33%
No I still have Pacquiao	4	66.67%
Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll

03-25-2011, 12:18 AM	#1
ripcity Undisputed Champion East Side VIP Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: "Somebody may beat me, but they are going to have to bleed to do it." Posts: 12,052 vCash: 856	If Bernard Hopkins had beaten Jermain Taylor.... Would he have been the boxer of the decade? I belive that the right decision was made as Hopkins did not really do anything for the first 7 rounds allowing Taylor to build up a lead and hold on for the win. What if Hopkins had gotten the decision or even a draw? Than considering there would have been conterversity won the rematch with Taylor 5 months latter by a close decision. Still being the Middle weight champion he stays at 160, beats [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (regains the IBF championship) in May 06. He dose not fight [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. The rest of his career is the same from that point. He beats Winky Wright, loses to [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and beats [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] as well as [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. Also consider his middle weight run which might be more quinity than quility. He dose have some very good wins though. Would Hopkins have done enough to be considered the boxer of the decade over Mayweather or Pacquiao?
Top

03-25-2011, 12:37 AM	#2
kmcc505 Sweet Scientist ESB Full Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 446 vCash: 1000	Re: If Bernard Hopkins had beaten Jermain Taylor.... Maybe. But I give the edge to either of the two other fighters you mention. I voted for Pacquiao based on resume.
Top

03-25-2011, 02:47 AM	#3
WhataRock Undisputed Champion East Side VIP Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Sydney Posts: 13,412 vCash: 166	Re: If Bernard Hopkins had beaten Jermain Taylor.... To tell you the truth it might of made his achievements less impressive..He might not of necessarily fought Joe if some big money fights were hanging around 154.. Taylor would have fallen off the wagon fairly quickly after a handful of meaningless win followed by a couple of brutal losses...like what happened after Pavlik beat him. HBO made Taylor a star, a possible p4p candidate...Pavlik inherited this when he beat him and because of his style was even more popular. Had Nard only beat Pavlik as a contender and not the undisputed middleweight champ..most would be saying that Kelly was just some overhyped prospect no worthy of the praise he was garnering at the time. Beating a closer to prime Winky at 160 would have been a bigger achievement...but he barely beat a bloated, slipping one. No guarantee he would have been beaten Ron, to me he looked like the weight was starting to give him issues by the time he took on Taylor..he should have beaten him as or more convincingly then he did the first time but instead it was a pretty close fight from memory. Based on that performance, Id actually favour Wright to grind out the win. Tarver is one of his best career wins...even if the milkdud was only so-so and was coming off a weighty sabbatical because of acting. He was still a heavy favourite and the man at the weight more or less. I honestly think it would have pontentially given him less of an argument to be fighter of the decade.
Top

03-25-2011, 02:54 AM	#4
sweet_scientist Champion East Side Guru Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,301 vCash: 1000	Re: If Bernard Hopkins had beaten Jermain Taylor.... Bernard looked less than stellar for much of the 00's. Even if he did get the decisions against Calzaghe and Taylor, it still wouldn't make me see him as the fighter of the decade given the actual performances he put up.
Top