Another way to look at the "B-Hop only fought smaller men" theory...

there weren't many better people for hopkins to fight than who he did. but his marquee wins were generally against smaller men-tito, odlh, wright, pavlik etc. but they are still good wins, especially taking into account hopkins age. im interested that people rate bhops win over johnson so highly, johnson had fought very poor competition up till then and didnt deserve the title shot. he then went up in weight and lost quite a few fights, yes many of them were controversial but glen was an old school fighter who improved with experience, he only became an elite fighter at 175 and wasn't close to one at 160. so i dont consider that a great win for bhop.

 

Hate this purist bull****.

So anyone who doesn't think the sun shines out of Hopkins ass is not being objective and knows nothing about boxing?

Plently of legit criticisms of Hopkins' resume and career: Some of his top wins were over naturally smaller guys. 2 losses to Jermain Taylor. Lots of weak opposition in his MW run etc etc

 

It's only legitimate criticism if Hopkins could have fought better opposition at his weight, but the fact is he fought the best that were available at middleweight at that time. He didn't duck and fought who was available, which is commendable.

Nobody is saying Hopkins is an ATG top 10, nobody is saying he is even the best middleweight ever because quite frankly he is not.

But Popkins brings up a fair point that Hopkins is often held up to a level of unfair criticism. Who else at middleweight could he have fought during his reign because when he was champion there were no other great middleweights for him to face.

Critics on this forum simply point out how he fought smaller men, like Hagler and ignore the fact he moved up in weight unlike Hagler. He gets criticised for not having a resume as good as Hagler yet nobody is claiming his resume is better.

I don't see very much legitimate criticism, all I see is bias.

 

I see bias in favour of Hopkins all the time esp when he is compared to Calzaghe. People will slag of Calzaghe for fighting weak oppostion during his SMW reign yet praise Hopkins for his MW run. Their level of opposition is actually pretty similar. Throw in the fact that Calzaghe beat Hopkins in the States, at a new weight. And that Calzaghe went undefeated whilst Hopkins has picked up a few losses/draws. Then i think the bias exists when people rate Hopkins as top 40 ATG yet claim Calzaghe is no where near that level.

Clazaghe wouldn't have dropped 2 decisions to a fighter like Taylor and if he did he certainly wouldn't get the pass that Hopkins has got for them.

 

Hopkins wasn't a natural Middleweight, he just boiled down to middleweight due to his docipline. Remember when he wanted DLH and TRinidad but he said he couldn't go down in weight because of his waist size he said something to larry merchant about him being a size 32. He did beat upon smaller men, Trinidad wasn't a threat at 160 he looked soft and flabby, Hopkins looked like he was made out stone completely ripped no body fat. De la hoya wasn't a legit 160 pounder neither. Not hating just stating facts.

 

And there it is, a total douchebag exposing himself deal :good

"Hopkins hurt my feelings :|:| now he's a bum"

 

Ah, the voice of reason.

 

That for me has to be one of the most ******ed bull**** lies spread about Hopkins.

Yes Hopkins was dedicated and maintained his weight through discipline. But so does every other fighter below heavweight. If a fighter fights too much below his natural weight they end up being weight drained and weakened, yet somehow Hopkins can do this and defy the natural order and drain himself below his natural weight without detriment and therefore gain an unfair advantage. :huh

Do you really think that Hopkins has super non weight draining powers. Or is every other light heavy just lazy and could make middleweight if they were just to try hard enough?

Hopkins has weighted as little as 156 when middleweight champion. Was he weight drained at such a low weight? Answer, no because it was his natural weight.

Even as a light heavy he twice fought at 170lbs, name another light heavy who regularly does that.

 

Second one was supposed to be johnson.

Ok what would you say his ten best victories are?

 

ODLH,Winky,and Trinidad all came up to challage Hopkins and they got what they got.That cant be held against Hopkins. Pavlick wasnt smaller than Hopkins and neither was Pascal. Hopkins and Pascal came in at the same weight. Pascal had the reach advantage and a eighteen year age advantage. He got what he got. You cant hate on BHop for that. Contrary to popular belief, Hopkins was a natural MW. He walked around within five lbs of the MW limit. When he went up to fight Tarver, he hired a nutritionist to help put the lbs on him. Hopkins never ducked any ****in body.and he is and always has been his own man. In my book, B-Hop dont take a backseat to any middleweight that was ever born.Haters gon hate but the fact is , that the man is a legitimate gangster in that square circle.:bbb:bbb:bbb

 

The lunacy of this criticism is staggering because it only serves to increase his legend.

He's either a man who dominated an unnatural division for a decade (how many "natural lightheavyweights" throughout history have dominated the middleweight scene?)

Under that scenario fighting smaller guys is ok because he's boiling down and they're jumping up, even stevens.

Or you have a middleweight dominating fellow middleweights, lightheavyweights and lightmiddleweights.

Either way it's pretty awe inspiring right?

Infact can anyone name a great middleweight who's defining victories do not include former welterweights?


As for this being "purist bull****" then fine, if me appreciating the career of a fukin legend (and make no mistake, what hopkins has done is legendary) makes me a purist then I personally take that as a compliment of the highest order.

As a footnote, let's be honest, I can put on videos of the taylor fights and the calzaghe fight, I can take out my scorepad and put forth a credible argument he lost none of them fights. I could put forth a credible argument that hopkins has beaten everyone he has faced in the ring with the only blemishes being a draw to taylor and a loss to jones, both of which he would avenge. I'm not going to but every reasonable follower of this sport knows full well that I could do so.

We're boxing fans witnessing a legend break records, why the hell would anyone hate on that? I don't wanna hear any racial bs, we all know about ali. Hell guys like john l sullivan, dempsey and tunney wouldn't even fight a black man.

The funny thing is the more people hate, the more people reflect on his career and the greater he seems.

As a second footnote, who else in 96 that was regarded as the best in their division can make that same claim today?

 

It's crazy man, once you become a regular poster on the classic you get a great appreciation of boxing history and then you see some of the **** that gets written in this forum and you can't help but question the integrity of the people making them. They're either unknowledgeable or hating, not a great dilemma to be in!

 

This content is protected

in hopkins next fight 6 months later, he fought hakar for $750'000, a quarter of the career high pay day he would have recieved for welcoming joe calzaghe to america.

 

You are really trying to say hopkins ducked joe c? Didn't he, in his 40's, fight him once joe'd established his supremacy at super middleweight?

 

Look no one is saying Hopkins is **** or anything. Great career, achieved a hell of a lot. I don't think the level of criticism is that high at all- just saying he isn't quite as good as his fans make him out to be.

Why i think he is overrated by some of his fans is because of their refusal to accept any criticism of his record. Any loss or legit criticism is twisted and spun and the person making it painted as a hater.

I don't like the attitude, that seems to be common with Hopkins fans, that his losses don't really count as they scored them for him. With the exception of outrageous robberies (which Hopkins' losses clearly weren't) i think you've got to go by the official score cards. Otherwise you will always get fans scoring any close fight for their guy. Big Hopkins fans aren't exactly going to be he most impartial judges of his fights.