Same about Calzaghes for key opponents. Eubank was preparing for another division, Hopkins and Jones were naturally best at MW. Apart from two of them being fortysomethings. Adding to that Hopkins was undisputed, anytmie any man, Joe Cal was just fighting a small selection of the SMW contigent at any time.
Well Hopkins best wins for me came around the time he fought Calzaghe. He'd just beaten Wright (who imo is a better win that Tito), Tarver, the beat Pavlick straight after losing to Calzaghe (that was arguablys Hopkins best ever win) then beat Pascal a few years later so I think we can safely say it's not like Hopkins was shot or too small for the weight. You forget Hopkins was still WBC champ 4 YEARS after losing to Joe. I agree completely about Jones though, he was done.
sure they were his best accomplishments on a personal level, of course. but no, noone rates acheivements of a fortysomething as their highest operating ability, unless they are being disingenious. I am sure you arent being that and instead your message is unintentionally implying that you think its so. Sure old Hop had it in the tank and the brains to keep a title, but the 'for how long can he eke this out?' question was on peoples minds, not 'what new height will he scale now?' Whereas young Hopkins, when facing persona from other division, was facing them prime or near prime - thats my point. This old hop v new hop argument is subsidiary to what I am arguing, not central.
Best thing about Hopkins was the money made from betting on him. Damn he was given some long odds sometimes.
How can that be? Pavlik was 1 dimensional but had a significant size advantage at mw, move him up 2 divisions and he just becomes a 1d boxer. Wright also had no business moving up to lhw were he was way to slow.
I agree with this. I put a lot of bets on him over the years while he was at light heavy, everybody was always saying he was past it. I remember when he was going up against Calzaghe and everybody was going on like it would be an easy nights work for Joe. I knew different.
Well he never fought anyone like those guys during his younger years and I don't think he even made his pro debut until he was about 26 years old. Maybe he was better during his 30's but for me his best wins certainly came during his mid 40's and Calzaghe was definitly on the slide in a big big way by then. We all know Hopkins was offered a fight with Calzaghe much earlier but that's not what we're talking about.
i think its fair to say that the middleweight era hopkins fought in is the weakest ever, and still he lost 3 times, drew once, and embarrassingly jumped out of the ring another time.
The Mitchell bout headlined a Showtime event on US TV, and the dramatic action left the American money men promising to put up the cash to get Calzaghe in a career-defining clash. "We have to get Joe to America and the right fight is Bernard Hopkins," said Showtime boxing chief Jay Larkin. "Hopkins turned down a lot of money from us to fight Calzaghe last year, but after what Joe did to Mitchell we can up the ante and offer more."
The Mitchell bout headlined a Showtime event on US TV, and the dramatic action left the American money men promising to put up the cash to get Calzaghe in a career-defining clash. "We have to get Joe to America and the right fight is Bernard Hopkins," said Showtime boxing chief Jay Larkin. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/3030004.stm "Hopkins turned down a lot of money from us to fight Calzaghe last year, but after what Joe did to Mitchell we can up the ante and offer more."
Well Pavlivk was a natural Middleweight and let's be honest only really moved up one division for the fight. In my opinion Pavlick would have beaten DLH or Tito at middleweight and Hopkins not only beat him but utterly humiliated him so that's why it has to rank as one of his best ever wins for me.
yeah and one of em lost 3 times, had one draw, and threw himself outta the ring and the other won every fight. everytime hopkins has stepped up to fight elite fighters at a fair weight, he has always come undone.
Former chsmps isn't the only criteria. Hopkins unified earlier therefore there were less opportunities for there even to BE other champs. Is easy to see how guys like Echols and Vanderpool etc could have been champs in a weaker era or division. Or how the opposite might apply to guys like Woodhall or Brewer or Mitchell. So, to me, the amount of former champs isn't the best indicator of which was a better run. In truth both were sort of weak.