Bernard Hopkins or Manny Pacquaio? Who do you think is better all around fighter?

Yeah he does, and I respect Hopkins, but P4P Manny's the better fighter, period. If you go by resume, ability to draw, style/fan appeal, and/or accomplishments Manny trumps him. I concede that if there were an SAT's of boxing skills Nard would win, but Hopkins "knowledge" hasn't translated to PAC level brilliance. He lost to RJJ, Taylor twice, Calzaghe, drew with Pascal, drew with Dawson...dude this isn't rocket surgery.

 

Who says Hopkins is more skilled than Floyd?

 

Alot of people. They say Floyd relies on his athletic abilities to much.

 

All true, but aside from his loss to RJJ, Hopkins was well past his physical prime in the fights you listed. He's about a decade past it right now and I'm sure a younger Bernard doesn't drop 4-5 rounds like he did to Pascal. I concede that Dawson would never be an easy fight for him though. I think a younger Bernard wins about 8-4 if he were to move up against the very best Dawson, but he'd have to make some adjustments to do so because he never liked getting into chess matches with quick jabbers (especailly those with length like Chad). Even Vanderpool and Allen gave him trouble and neither was in the same class as Chad.

It'd be interesting to see how they would fight each other (Pac and B-Hop) if they were the same size at their best. I don't think either has beaten a fighter as good as the other.

 

It does if you have offense to go along with it. If you can throw every punch in the book effectively. If you can make a fighter look like an amateur. Then yea, it does.

He can impose his style way better than Hopkins? Tell me a fighter that looked great beating Hopkins? Damn near all of Hopkins losses are disputed.

Your crazy if you think Manny has better footwork than Hopkins. Yea he isn't that easy to hit but Clottey had his face busted up.

 

I can def agree with this :deal. Although alot of those things you named Hopkins has. Great way of breaking it down :good

 

I'd agree with you that his footwork isn't better. Manny has quicker feet, but Hopkins has shown masterful footwork in his career. I don't think either is particularly great on the front foot though. Both can look kind of sloppy and off balance when hunting down a moving opponent, and Hopkins sometimes has a bad tendency to fall in and square himself up after throwing right hands while moving forward.

 

Yea they both can get sloppy coming forward. With Manny not many fighters can do the footwork he has. He jumps in off balance alot but he is very athletic so he can get away with it. Hopkins footwork is more textbook but he isn't great coming forward.

 

Hopkins has a better game by far.

Speed and power, are what Manny uses to win, lets see what he can do without those advantages. He's not as versatile, and his defense isn't good enough against a 1997-2000 Hopkins.

 

echols,johnson,trinidad,dlh,taylor (he arguably won those fights,i haven't seen them but thats the consensus) is a pretty good mw resume.and his opposition overall at least matches pac

 

you can perform surgery on rockets?

seriously though i think if you go by resume and accomplishment they're even but with the other factors yeah pac is greater.if hopkins still has anything left he can overtake manny.i think manny has accomplished all hes going to minus the floyd fight

 

Pacquiao never looked as good as hopkins did against trinidad

 

Is this a serious question?

One of the greatest fighters ever vs an extremely overrated dirty fighter.

 

hopkins is the better allround fighter can you imagine pacman without his speed he'll be counted all night