Is Bernard Old Enough Where...

i had to spill the beans on this board.

But when I saw that you-tube vid of him talking to Rashad Evans..

He was like a kid again. He was just so happy and giddy to share his knowledge. That's the real Bernard IMO. Real cool..

 

No of course his accomplishments don't get wiped away. But part of his story/legacy is that of a fighter who had a great, best in his era, prime but went on for too long and suffered a lot of nasty defeats. His record stands at 54-8 when discussing his career you can't just ignore the defeats completely.

If a non boxing fan asked me about Roy Jones i would obviously emphasise how great he was at his peak but i would also say how he got beaten a fair few times when he was past his best- for better or worse its part of who he is as a boxer.


What do you make of my point about Hopkins not being shot and so as a still very able boxer should have both his wins and loses counted?

 

Think of the greats and they almost always suffer past prime losses that make no detriment to their legacy: fitz, langford, robinson, charles, ali, pep, duran, leonard, louis and many more.

With hopkins right now, I think anyone beating him deserves credit. I think if he loses it has no negative impact on his legacy.

 

hopkins has proved himself and his legacy i set, one of da greatest fighters iv ever seen imo, and also imo he hasnt lost since roy jones 1, i thought he beat taylor twice, and definately beat calzaghe, look at all hes done, tru legend, who knows mayb one day he may even get beat bad or KOd but no matter wat his legacy is set and no loss will effect it!

 

A little off topic. The more Old Bernard keeps on winning, Calzaghe will look better. It can be argued now that Calzaghe was more on the decline than BHOP when they fought and Joe still won.

 

Not only is this complete bs but as you say, it's off topic. Start your own thread and throw in a poll for good measure but don't try twisting one thread into another.

 

when he eventually does lose the guy that beats wont really get the credit they deserve, people will look back a few years down the road and just dismiss it as a fight against an over the hill shot fighter.
it will be looked at like berbick beating ali, which isnt fair at all to whoever beats him.
it will be forgotten that right now he is still p4p top ten

 

yeah start your own thread, this forum needs more calzaghe hopkins threads.

 

this. agreed 100%.:thumbsup

 

i know. that dude is such a nuthugger!

 

I disagree. I do think past prime losses make a detriment to a boxer's legacy. I think it gets too messy to just judge a fighter on what they did in their 'prime' and saying all losses after that point don't really count. People define prime in different ways, boxers' primes last for differing amounts of time etc etc

Although IMO if a fighter is clearly totally shot- ALi from the Holmes fight, Roy Jones or Holyfield now etc then sure you can largely discount (although not totally) the losses. But my point is that Hopkins is not, due to being a freak of nature, not at that shot point yet. He is still a capable top level boxer thus both his wins and losses should count.

 

As I said mate, look at the greats. The guys who're considered the cream of the crop. They all carried on too long suffering bad losses but it never gets mentioned because it doesn't matter.

Because hopkins still operates at a level better than 99% of active boxers then his victor will get credit. Noone, however, will turn round and say "hopkins would be in my top 25 but I hold it against him that at age 47 he lost to bad chad dawson"

The truth is, hopkins has no right what so ever being even competitive in these match ups. People mention foreman but he stopped at the top level straight after beating moorer. Holyfield had his licence revoked. The powers that be stripped archie of every title until he left the division. Hopkins by all rights should have retired after losing the rematch to taylor. EVERYTHING after then can only enhance his legacy.

 

Of course it does. Age is just a number and guys like Hopkins or Benitez shouldn't be given any special praise and their losses shouldn't be ignored, just because of their ages. What actually matters is whether a fighter is significantly aged or even shot. If that is the case, then those losses can be ignored but Hopkins is still beating the best, so to give him preferential treatment because he's old is strange.

Being elite as this age is remarkable, yes. However, age is not taken into consideration when discussing legacy. If he wins, credit the win and if he loses, that'll hurt his legacy. Assuming he fights on when he's shot, that won't hurt his legacy.

 

Yes it was a bizarre post for him to make.

 

Did foreman damage his legacy when losing to holyfield and morrison? Of course not.

Would hearns have been damaged legacy wise if he lost to hill?