Is Bernard Hopkins the greatest boxer of the last 20 years (1990-2009)?

he fought in a **** poor middleweight devision when they was no1 around i disagree hes the best fighter of the last 20 years here are his best wins
trinidad-a welter weight/ light middleweight
ODLH-A guy who had no buissness fighting at 160 and whos heart was no longer in the game
Glen johnson-he wasnt even a top 10 fighter when hopkins beat him
winky wright-i guy who was a natural light middleweight and went all the way up to 175 to face him the win means nothing he was also coming off a big lay off
traver-a good win but considering the age of hopkins and that it was his first fight at 175
kelly pavlik-a great win he was age old and he schooled a younger and more powerful fighter but lets not beat around the bush pavlik is a big middleweight altough a great win he was fighting outside his natural weight class for the first time and we all know that pavlik is 1 dimensional and isnt an all round fighter
in conclusion his best wins were against 2 guys who were at there best 2 divisions below him a green and inexperienced glen johnson, an overrated 1 dimensional middleweight fighting outside his weight class for the first time, ronald wright he went up 3 devisions to fight him in a **** poor fight (the fight was a disgrace)
and traver i dont have anything to complain about against his win against antonio its probrably 1 of the finest wins of his career

 

UNDERRATED :admin

Hopkins is one of the most OVERRATED men on this forum, behave yourself please.

 

no. jones is still better.

 

RJJ, Pac, PBF, Whitaker.

Arguably Oscar & Morales are greater too. People harp on about how Oscar looses his biggest fights, he lost about half of them but didnt Hopkins loose his biggest fights too? RJJ, Calsaghe, Taylor*2.

 

:verysad

 

yeah, b-hop takes lewis (but not by much on my card) but morales is a tougher argument. the barrera, pac wins were the brilliant high points in a tremendous consistent career. i think the morales and b-hop argument can be made for either

 

Seriously mate, if you structured all 3,000 of your posts like this way, I can guarantee you've been pissing in the wind all year round.

 

Hopkins hasn't been a key player for 20 years at all. He didn't win his first world title till 1995, but he wasn't really a key player for at least a couple of years after that. If longevity is your only criteria, then James Toney is greater than Hopkins because JT won his first world title in 1991.

 

Oscar has a better resume.

 

Calm down kiddo, nobody trashed your boy or said his biggest achievement is being 1-2 in trilogies.

You'll see, just Lord give us another few decades and you'll have plenty of time to apologise. I accept in advance.

 

If Mayweather beats both Pacquiao and Mosley, convincingly or unconvincingly, I will definitely rank him higher than Hopkins, Bill.

Those would be two solid gold wins IMO. :good

 

i dont think its fare putting pernell up there he didnt even fight in the 00s his active years were beaten 86-99 i'd say pernell was 1 of the best between the 80s and 90s,

 

no....won't waist time telling you why,,if you don't know,you shouldn't be here!

 

No he doesn't.

Oscar: Quartey (disputed), Vargas, Mayorga, Whitaker (past prime)
Hopkins: Trinidad (shutout), Pavlik (shutout), Tarver (shutout), Wright

Tell me one great Middleweight who didn't fight a Welterweight coming up, and then tell me the odds for Hopkins fights with Pavlik, Trinidad, and Tarver.

 

If you're going to go down that rather silly road, then guys like Thomas Hearns, Joe Frazier, and even Roberto ****ing Duran lost their biggest fights too.

Hopkins definitely ranks higher than Oscar and Morales to anyone who isn't a huge Oscar or Morales fan. I have read your ****-poor posts on Hopkins before and I am aware of your ill-informed opinion on the man, so I'm not remotely surprised by such a stupid post.