Bernard Hopkins Is A Legend?

I respectfully disagree about Bhops level of competition. On the surface and at Middleweight, there weren't many big names except Tito but a deeper dive and he fought some real dudes. I remember when Robert Allen was the US National champion as an amateur. That was in the early 90's when that truly meant something.

I will say that I agree he didn't have the as good of competition at 160 as Hagler but what he did at 175 in his 40's was unreal. He didn't just beat, he dominated multiple world champions like Tarver, Jones Jr, Pavlik, Wright, Cloud, Pascal. Overall, I would argue he beat better competition if you include his light-heavyweight years. He never ducked anyone and constantly challenged himself. How many 50 year old would face a prime Kovalev? That is just insane.

 

Too me, he is without question an atg. Unfortunately for him, his middleweight career wasn't loaded with big names. He can't control that. He fought everyone that was available and never came into the ring at anything less than 100% prepared. I get why folks don't like him personally but no way can anyone deny his resolve.

I always go on and on about amateur pedigree but certain guys like Toney, Duran and Bhop did what they did without a significant amateur background. That is simply remarkable to me.

 

I was never a fan of Hopkins, but one has to respect his achievements, as well as his consistent demonstration of skill.

I can also see why some might view him as having reached 'legendary' status, particularly given his longevity and what he did at 175. I'd agree, too, that while his middleweight reign was, in the main, over modest opposition, some solid guys were in the mix of his ledger.

All of that said, I personally won't be holding him up as a legend. For mine, that kind of label is reserved for people who make more of an 'impact' relative to the times and become emblematic of the zeitgeist, resonating with the spirit and popular culture of their era. For example: Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Tyson, Robinson, Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, and Duran.

 

I respect your opinion and that's what makes debates fun - two posters with opposing views each trying to make their point.
If we are talking about accomplishments at an older age no doubt Hopkins had legendary performances especially at an advanced age.
But if we are talking about his title reign I would have to disagree.
Hopkins vs Allen 1 immediately comes to mind. Hopkins was having severe problems with Allen and when Hopkins attempted his rough stuff Allen met him head on and Hopkins didn't know how to handle that.
There is absolutely NO WAY Hopkins got pushed through the ring- he did that on purpose looking for a way out. Allen was getting the better of it and Hopkins was looking for a way out.
Now with that being said Hopkins had a very high boxing IQ and made adjustments in the subsequent rematches with Allen and prevailed.
I do not doubt Hopkins as being a skilled operator because he clearly had skills and the discipline and work ethic. But his reign was long but in my opinion it was not even close to being legendary.

 

Duran and Toney both had world class trainers who taught them everything and molded them into the fighters they became.
Bill Miller was an incredible trainer and taught Toney the old school boxing used by the former greats and you can see it in Toney.

 

Good point. Toney had Bill Miller, Duran had Ray Arcel and BHOP had Bouie Fisher. That is some crazy boxing knowledge.

 

I believe Hopkins is a legend in the sport. Being the oldest champ of all time, having the most MW title defences ever, and being a staple of P4P lists even into your 40s is insane.
We can argue about the quality of his MW opposition but you can only fight who's available and some of the guys he fought were very credible and solid fighters. He fought everybody from his era of 160 that he could and he won.
Bernard Hopkins is a testament to where discipline and hard work can get you in life. The man started out as a criminal in Philadelphia but after his incarceration discovered his gift for boxing and dedicated himself to the sport fully. He spent the majority of his career under-appreciated and overlooked yet didn't let that stop him. He kept grinding away until he was finally given his first mainstream fight at the age of 39 against a huge puncher in Trinidad. I can understand how many would find him grating (and some of his actions have been deplorable admittedly) but in my book, he's a legend and an inspiration.

 

Interesting thing is at MW Hopkins beat undefeated Glen Johnson. Johnson is the best LHW of his era Hopkins didn't end up fighting. Hopkins at 175 also added Pavlik and Wright who were 2 of the best 160ers Hopkins didn't fight.

Hopkins 160 competition at 160 wasn't great but it wasn't "god awful". Trinidad, Joppy, De La Hoya, Eastman, Vanderpool, Daniels, Echols, Holmes, Council is a good list of names besides the aformentioned Johnson and Allen. His 2 best opponents were guys coming from WW in Trinidad and De La Hoya. But they won alphabet belts over real MWs in Joppy and Sturm.

Haglers competition at 160 being better is close. No question Hagler was more dominant he stopped all his MW title defenses except Duran while most of Hopkins fights went double digit rounds. But in terms of the collection of names? Its close.

I think Hopkins competition gets better starting with Johnson. The early part of the reign is kinda bad with Mercado, Frank, Lipsey, Bo James and John David Jackson. And the fact he did 5 rematches after that is a legitimite problem but he still has 12 or 13 really good MW wins starting from that point.

 

It was GOD awful and it is not up for a debate.

1. De La Hoya- got beat up by Felix Strum in his previous fight and did absolutely nothing at middleweight.
2. Echols- was a pretty good puncher and that was basically it.
3. Carl Daniels - I was actually a huge Daniels fan when he was a JR. MIDDLEWEIGHT. He was never really a middleweight and was not nearly as good.
4. Simon Brown- Great welterweight champion and very good at jr.middle. I have no idea how he got a middleweight title shot considering he was far removed from his prime c
5. Glen Johnson - as a middleweight he built a record up but honestly he was not impressive at all. He reminds me of Harold Brazier in a way as he got better as he learned his trade. As a matter of fact I do not think he ever beat a world class middleweight at middleweight.
6. John David Jackson - awsome as a jr.middleweight so-so as a middleweight. Still have no idea how he got a title shot considering he was coming off a LOSS his fight before.
7. Howard Eastman - very talented bit also a head case. Every time he stepped up he found a way to lose.
8.Joe Lipsey- built up a record that featured many stoppages. First-time he stepped up in class he got crushed(Hopkins) and was never really heard from again.
9. Robert Allen - very good amateur Cenk fell completely flat in the pros. Gave Hopkins issues in the 1rst meeting but after the dominant loss in the 2nd fight why the need for a 3rd fight?

I think Joppy,Holmes, and Vanderpool along with Tito were Hopkins best wins.

 

1.Fair but champs from the lower weight classes getting shots is normal. He was a beltholder.
2.He won the USBA/NABF double. Very good fighter.
3.For most of history 154 was MW its 6 pounds down. Carl Daniels was fine at MW.
4.Agree
5.He was 32-0 and would prove to be a great LHW. So the win age aged amazing regardless. If one beats Roy Jones, Tarver, Montell Griffin, Woods, Hall and Harding they get a pass for their 32-0 thats like 125 wins below 500. Its a really awful 32 wins that includes a SD over a 2-16 fighter but alas it doesn't matter because he had a HOF career.
6.Agree. Yes fighters getting title shots coming off losses is a pet peeve of mine. Jackson lost a split decision to a 9-6 fighter who'd gotten knocked out by Echols easy. How did that happen is there more to this story?
7.Disagree. He was a 40-1 Commonwealth and European champ who barely lost to Joppy. Eastmans was the third best MW for much of Hopkins reign.
8.Agree.
9.Yes hes Bill Squires reincarnated. A worthy title opponent but yeah you shouldn't have 3 title defenses against the same guy because trilogys should be for 1-1s.

Also he beat Council. Good top 10 opponent.

 

Word's meaningless if he ain't.