A brief seminar on the theory "Hopkins couldn't beat guys his own size" etc

Hopkins says alot of things to boast his discipline.

But furthermore, a fighter should never be criticised for fighting at a certain weight, Hopkins was able to make 160 for longer than a decade and never seemed to have any major problems. Thats a testament to his dedication and commitment to boxing.

Its alot better than seeing guys like Pac fight for a LMW title weighing in at 144, or Arreola fighting as a fat ****.

MOREOVER, Thomas Hearns was never criticised for fighting at 147, Hagler was never criticised for fighting smaller men (and he never moved up in weight). So why do they get the pass, and Hopkins doesnt..

 

So if he wss past prime when he faced Taylor....when exactly was he in his prime??

 

What are you going on about? I'm not saying him fighting at 160 was "bad"...yet when he was there his best wins were against blown up welterweights and LMWs! Fighters around his level and weight (i.e. RJJ and Jermaine Taylor)...what happened?

BTW, did you just criticise Hagler for fighting some of the world's greatest ever boxers at his weight?...and then comparing that to who Hopkins was fighting?:huhatsch

 

Well isn't that convenient.

BTW, do me a favour and reel-off the world class opposition during that time period.

(Is the blown-up welterweight Trinidad going to make an appearance?:good:rasta:hi

 

Also another point is that many of bhop detractors usually refer to his big wins at MW as wins against small puffed up WW. But if this is gonna be the manner of judging, then justice demands that all previous boxers are treated in the same manner... So for example you would have to rob some of the greats of their great wins like Haglers wins against supposed smaller guys moving up in weight - leonard, duran, even hearns ....that's ridiculous. Every time a boxer moving up in weight its not necessarily a small guy... look at Ortiz and Gurrerro, both recently moved up in weight and looked good doing so.

 

People tend to forget that Hopkins arguably beat Taylor in both fights, Hopkins was clearly robbed. RJJ simply beat Hopkins because he is the better fighter prime for prime..

Did I criticize Hagler? No I didnt. But now I will... He fought a natural 135 pounder in Duran and failed to win a clear decision. Yes Duran is an ATG but Hagler had EVERY advantage in that fight.
Hearns started as a 147 pound fighter, i wont dismiss the greatness of Haglers win in that fight though, same as i wont dismiss Hopkins's win over Trinidad. But for those critizcizing Trinidads MW resume, dont forget Iran Barkley knocked out Hearns twice at MW...
SRL was coming back from a large absence in the ring, but personally I think Hagler was past his prime in this fight. But you cant forget that SRL started at 147

Of course there is a gulf in class between SRL and Trinidad, but its just food for thought. In my opinion both Hagler and Hopkins had great resumes and frankly i dont care that they fought lower weight fighters. SRR fought at WW and MW in the same year fluctuating between the two weights but that never affected him

 

According to your logic: Hearns's win over Duran means nothing because Duran was a natural 135 pounder and a blown up LMW.

You are a boxing scholar :happy

 

You just compared Leonard, Duran and Hearns to Hopkins' opposition...atsch x 10,000,000.

Duran is one of the greatest fighters that ever lived---it in no way slights Hagler that he came from a lower weight class.

Why are you comparing Trinidad to Hearns?:yikes

No, it's not food for thought. You cannot even attempt to compare SRL to Trinidad, regardless of their situations.

You compared Hopkins' resume to Hagler's!!!!!!atsch x 100,000,000.

I can't be bothered with this stuff anymore!

 

Do yourself a favour and stop posting. Take a deep breath. I'm being serious. The more you compare Hearns, Duran, SRL to Hopkins' opposition...the more deluded you sound. But it's hard to sound any more stupid to be perfectly honest.

 

He didnt beat Taylor and clearly lost Calzaghe. Borenard likes to score and referee his own fights and ALWAYS bitches when he (quite rightly) loses

 

You did not even read my post...

I actually side with your opinion, i simply gave out FACTUAL information which explains why you cant love up Hagler and then dismiss Hopkins.

The Duran situation is a perfectly valid point, Hagler should have done a better job but didnt. Of course Duran is one of the greatest ever, hes my fave fighter of all time, mentally Hagler was not as focused as he was for other fights, if he matched Durans intensity then Hagler would of been able to get the job done alot better

I did not compare Hearns and Trinidad atsch I simply gave out the information that Hearns was knocked out twice at MW. Which counters the argument that Trinidad is **** at MW because of his 2 win 3 loss record

You cant argue with my points therefore your calling me stupid
ok