Are Bhops two best wins..

I thought Segundo Mercado ls gave Hopkins a tough , rough fight in their first meeting. He knocked Hopkins down twice . Hopkins had a gut check in that fight .

It was scored a draw.

 

Bernard Hopkins is truly an ATG if ever there was one.. He whupped Calzaghe's a$$ He also beat Tay7lor twice all 3 were POLITICAL decisions. For you to call Hopkins an ass kisser is LUDICROUS .That was Hopkins downfall he REFUSED to kiss as & marched to his own drummer.
Don't forget Calzaghe had the chance to rematch Hopkins at home in Wales. But instead the Slapper took to the hills & "RETIRED" Slappy was sniffin coke, abusing alcohol & chasing hookers while Bernard was still kicking ass
Calzaghe isn't fit to carry Bernards Jockstrap

 

Don't agree with you on much, but I agree with your post.

 

None of those were at Middleweight.

 

You need to be hanged in a public toilet.

 

wasn't BHop like a 4 to 1 underdog vs Tarver?

 

Tito and the 2nd Echols fight, Bernard showed all macho in the Echols II fight.

 

Hopkins's career is very unique. He hung around middleweight and dominated for a long time, however it was during a period when middleweight was very weak. And there were two guys in the sport at that time, who had already moved up in weight Toney and Jones, one of which had already proved to be superior to Hopkins by beating him decisively.

Nobody can argue with the man's skill or accomplishments. He has had an unbelievable career. But I don't think he is AS GREAT as some make him out to be.

He lost to Jones. But some will say he was still "green". I disagree. He was in his physical prime, and was on like a 20 fight win streak.

He goes on a great run as champion after that at middleweight. Beating some good guys (Glen Johnson proved later to be a better win than it was thought of at the time). But no "great" fighters.

He then beats Tito and Oscar. 2 great fighters, but they were "great" at WW and SWW. NOT middleweight.

He then loses to Taylor, twice. The decisions are a bit controversial, but Taylor was never that great himself, and Hopkins couldn't beat him decisively in 2 tries?!?

So now everyone is saying Hopkins is too old, and that's why he lost.

But then he goes ahead and moves up (Finally), and gets some of the best wins of his career after that? :huh

So was he "too old" against Taylor, or not? Nobody knows. But he gets a pass for those losses anyway. Was he "too green" against Jones or not? Nobody knows. But he gets a pass for that loss anyway.

I thought the calzaghe fight was close, but he clearly lost that one too. Was he "too old" there? He went on after to beat Pascal and win another title after that though? So was he really "too old" vs Calzaghe? Nobody knows. But he gets a pass for that loss too.

Then he gets smoked by Dawson, but then beats Cloud and Murat. Was he "too old" vs Dawson, is that why he lost???

This **** drives me crazy. When was this man's "prime"????

Was he just never really good enough to beat the elite at any respective time? Did he just have a tricky style that was a nightmare for 95% of other boxers, but he didn't have what it took to beat the other 5%???


To answer the question. His 2 best wins are:
1. Tito Trinidad
2. Pavlik
He was masterful in those 2 fights. :deal

IMHO.

 

Two classic masterpieces

 

I find it funny when people talk about how Dawson beat Hopkins as if Hopkins got beat up or something, when it was nothing like that. Yes, Dawson won the boxing match, but look at his face at the end of it and tell me who won the fight.

 

Sergei KRUSHER kovalev took old man to school

 

To me, Hopkin's stoppage of Glen Johnson and his win over Shumenov at that age are clearly better than the DLH win. De la Hoya is not a natural middleweight, while Hopkins basically boiled down to middleweight for years. In the days of same day weigh-ins, Hopkins would have become a LHW much earlier.

 

IMO Tarver and Tito.