Hopkins: Should he get credit for beating smaller fighters

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=211&more=1

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=211&more=1

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/Interview-Fisher.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/sports/boxing-hopkins-can-say-he-told-you-so.html

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7GB-MYEkko&feature=player_embedded"][/ame]So the question is, is how much credit should Hopkins get for beating smaller fighters?

 

Sorry i didn't read the whole lot but surely the smaller fighters all stepped up to try and beat hopkins and failed why should bhop get grief for beating smaller fighters?

 

credit....yes. especially considering the caliber of fighters he beat and HOW he beat them. tito had destroyed joppy prior to fighting hopkins and kelly is 13-1 w/ 11 kos above the mw level.

but you are right, many were naturally smaller.

credit...yes

how much credit? depends on who you ask

 

It doesn't matter whether they were small or not, if they were good fighters. The significant thing is, they weren't great at the weight he faced them at because they were small. A guy like De La Hoya had no place at middle and Winky didn't belong over 160.

It's not just that they were small - Napoles was, but it was still a good win for Monzon. It's the fact these guys Hopkins beat didn't move up well.

 

so to answer your question i'm hitting yes simply b/c the answer can't be no. but again, how much credit is justifiably cause for debate.

 

very interesting post that agentsmith.

i don't particularly like hopkins but i will be the 1st to admit that hopkins is a very clever, streetwise guy.

 

jack, you bring up a good point.

in fact, odlh's fat ass getting "beat" arguably by sturm at 160 is the reason the bhop fight was contracted below 160. oscar had to know he had no shot in hell after the sturm fight.

 

this is an interesting question which is hard to answer for the reasons i said above. its hard to answer no because he does deserve some credit...

better question is how much credit does he deserve.

dunno how to put that into poll options but...

 

Trinidad moved up just fine. He looked better than ever in demolishing a good fighter in Joppy. Nobody ever did that to Joppy, and Trinidad was a heavy favorite going into the Hopkins fight. A proper schooling ensued, and therefore, Hopkins deserves mountains of credit for his performance and by taking down arguably the best fighter in the world at that point in time.

Winky Wright had previously moved up to 160lbs and gave the champion of the world a tough fight, earning himself a draw. Many people, myself included, felt that Winky had done enough to win that fight and I think that was good enough proof that Wright was still a very capable operator around that time. He didn't look great at 170, so Hopkins didn't pull off a great victory in winning a boring decision that night.

The Kelley Pavlik fight is similar to the Trinidad fight in the sense that conventional wisdom was saying that Pavlik would win and by knockout. I'm of the opinion that a lot is made of weight these days, perhaps its more of talking point than is really warranted. Pavlik had his ears boxed off, something I predicted would happen, and I still think would have happened had it been at 160. Hopkins as the old man, shouldn't have been allowed to perform like that against a P4P'er in Kelly Pavlik. I give Hopkins credit for this one.

 

If those fighters arent that good at the highter weight, then whats so good about beating them?

Oscar for example he lost to Sturm and was given a gift he then lost to Hopkins. So at MW he really should be 0-2.

Winky is 0-1 at lhw so how much credit should bhop get for beating that version of Winky? Even Calzaghe dismissed a Winky fight saying that Winky is simply too small.

 

Hops is overrated resume wise. As is Hagler.

 

How much credit should we give Sanchez for beating Gomez at 126lbs?

 

Im not that familiar with those two fighters, what did Gomez achieve at that weight class after losing to Sanchez? For example Haglers win over Duran is only meaningful because Duran went on to beat Iran Barkley at that weight class, if Duran moved down saying Mw is too high then I wouldnt give Hagler much credit for that win.

 

Gomez was a wrecking machine at 122lbs, destroying literally everything in his path. After he drew his first professional outting, he won every single other by stoppage as a Super Bantamweight. He moved up to take on Sanchez, first time at Featherweight, and everyone thought Gomez was going to win. I say everyone, but at least it was the consensus. He was pretty much dominated and stopped, and returned to 122lbs thereafter. He'd later campaign there again and one a title, and actually won one at 130lbs, but I don't think he ever proved himself to be a great Featherweight, just as I don't think Duran ever proved himself to be a great Middleweight...so I don't actually put a lot of stock in Hagler's win over Duran, personally.

 

Hopkins beat genuinely Great fighters, despite their being smaller. He deserves credit, just as Hagler deserves credit for beating Hearns and Duran - and a slew of other examples. No one fights people who purely fought in their weight class, yet some fighters take more heat for it.