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

So you believe that Hearns win over Duran means nothin?? atsch

Wow, you hate boxing!

 

Did you answer my question, I'm not sure you did. Try again.

I thought maybe you were going to put up a case for his epic trilogy with Robert Allen. :rofl

(You did however --albeit covertly -- attempt to put Keith Holmes in the bracket of [approaching at least] world-class opposition.)

 

What the? How the heck is the principle the same?

So if Martinez, for eg, fights Pacquiao and wins...it's the same as Martinez fighting Marquez and winning? It's never the same. It's dependent on many factors.

Anyway I'm in a rush--no time for these dumb conversations. And stop calling me a troll gimp:?.

 

Nothing convenient about it, name another boxer who was still in his prime after the age of 37? It's much more convenient to your point of view to think Hopkins is some freak of nature that peaked physically and technically at an age when most other fighters have retired or have become stepping stones for young contenders?

I personally think Hopkins peak was between 1996-2003 and ended after the Joppy fight. Hopkins work rate began to really drop after the Joppy fight where he landed over 400 punches on Joppy and threw an impressive 819 punches.

In his next fight Hopkins was taken the distance by Allen who he KO'ed in 7 previously, which is a good indication he wasn't as good as when they first fought.

In the fight after that he started very slowly and was outpointed in the early rounds by De La Hoya who had no business being at middleweight, so another sign Hopkins wasn't as good as before.

Then the clincher against Eastman where he barely threw a combination and his work rate was pitifully low, so another sign he was in decline.

 

Hopkins was the best middleweight in the world from 96 to 05.

That doesn't happen by feasting on blown up anythings, it happens by beating the best guys around you (joppy and holmes) it happens by proving dominance over those moving up to challenge you (tito and hoya, but bear in mind these had already fought at the weight and only moved up from 154)

People criticise hopkin's victories over pav and wright but they were the two best middleweights in the world, only making a jump that hop himself made (although hop never had the benefit of a catchweight)

At the end of the day, a lot of great middleweights in history are defined by their victories over a welterweight champion.

Greb has walker
Hopkins has tito
Hagler has hearns
Monzon has napoles

It is just the way it works. The current welterweight champ tries to prove his greatness against the current middleweight champ. History shows they usually fail.

And i'm not making any comparison of ability, i'm stating that a great middleweight will have defeated his peers and will usually have defeated the welterweight champ.

 

Excellent post :good

 

He DID NOT deserved the decision or a draw against Taylor and even less so against Calzaghe :nono

All other argumentation you made are correct, as well as your main point. Unnecessary to spoil your post with bias :-(

 

Correct about Hopkins peak. But Calzaghes peak was NOT 2006 or 2007, just because he started to man up around that time and take on top names like Kessler. Once again: you make a sound argument. DONT spoil it with bias.

 

Exactly and history shows that in terms of greatness the welterweights ALWAYS HAVE THE ADVANTAGES simply put the welterweight is in a win win situation they either become a supreme atg or they remain a supreme welterweight. Noone criticises napoles or hoya for losing to these middleweights. Infact they get creditted just for stepping up to the challenge.

People today view things so skewed in context with boxing history it's unreal.

 

Don't worry Popkins, haters gonna hate regardless. Any true boxing fan knows that the Taylor 2 fight was razor close, Hopkins deserved the decision in the first fight, and also in the first fight with Pascal. As far as his fight with Calzaghe, if you score on missed punches and other non-scoring punches then I can see why people have it for Calzaghe in other words, they can't score worth anything. A fight is scored on DEFENSE, RING GENERALSHIP, and CLEAN PUNCHES. Hopkins excelled in every category countering Calzaghe coming in, not letting him fight his fight, and just being sharper defensively. The Taylor I fight he outworked him 7-12 as Taylor faded.


With his career, people may hate him for saying he won't let a white boy beat him but he didn't mean that and if he's so racist then why was Roach in his corner for the SAME fight? Clearly doesn't hate white people that much eh? Hopkins fought everyone his size he could and I'd like to know what great fighters "his size" were available when he reigned as a MW? Exactly. Echols, Mercado, Allen, Holmes, and Eastman were around his size and he beat them pretty clearly only having a NC against Allen but later beat him very clearly twice. Funny how if he didn't face Trinidad people would say he ducked him. Haters will hate but can't deny the facts.