Bernard Hopkins legacy

people who dismiss him as boring obviously havent watched his earlier fights he could do everything and wasnt the defense oriented fighter he is now

 

Agreed.

The first thing that comes to mind for most when mentioning Wright is that it was boring, yet a 42 year old handing Wright the only clear defeat of his career in 10 years is a side-note.

Tarver and Trinidad are discredited as fighters themselves for how Hopkins dominated them. Both were 3-1 or 4-1 favorites to win, and both were outclassed. All of Tarver's other losses (Jones, Johnson, and Harding) were very close, and a prime Trinidad was beaten worse than an unretired Trinidad was by Wright or Jones.

 

I said top 15 not number 15...anywhere in there.
[but prob closer to 10, IMO.]

Which is guranteed first ballot HOF. [nothing to sneeze at]

 

agreed...hopkins tactically picked wright apart which is hard to do to a guy as defensive and skilled as winky very underrated win

 

Hopkins most impressive win was Tarver, his two other big wins were really against welter weights when he was really in fact a light Heavy. I would have to put him up as one of the top 10 middle weights of all time but at the lower half of that 10 somewhere beween 7 and 10.

 

He was living in the house that Roy built.

 

What about his knockout over 31-0 Glen Johnson?

Also if i remember correctly i think Hopkins weighed in at a lower weight than Tito in their fight. Training hard and keepng your body in shape is part of being a great fighter

 

I've only seen Hopkins fight twice - Eastman + Calzaghe. But after watching these two fights I hold him in high regard as a fighter. As someone told me, "Nobody has done that to Calzaghe in his career".

 

I read a RING article about the Hopkins-Wright fight a few months after it happened. Winky was favored to win, and after losing a clear decision, the author said he felt sorry for Wright. Not because he lost, or because he suffered a bad cut, but because if you spend your whole career confusing guys and making them look bad while tactically breaking them down, it has to be the worse feeling in the world to know there's always been a guy better at it then you, and he just beat you, at 42 no less.

It's not really asthetically pleasing to watch, but it is interesting if you know your watching a man pick apart someone he should lose to on paper because you know your watching a master at work.

 

Glen Johnson is his best win in my opinion, certainly at middleweight. Nobody ever knocked out Johnson, and dominated him like that. He was also unbeaten at the time.

His overall body of work is nothing like a Hagler/Greb/Monzon though.

 

If you hold Hopkins in high regard for watching him fight Eastman and Calzaghe, you need to see him in his prime. He was twice the fighter he was in his 40's. Trinidad, Johnson, Joppy, Echols, even his fight with Simon Brown, he was fighting a totally outclassed foe, but the skills he showed were very impressive.

 

even against calzaghe (which i thought he pulled out the W) you could see he knew tactically how to fight calzaghe and at 43 almost got the decision

 

Without question agree on the Monzon and Greb comparisons, but I have no problem with him being above Hagler. Hagler's best wins are against superior fighters, but in none of them was he as dominant as Hopkins was against Trinidad, Johnson, or Tarver.

Also, Greb's greatness has a lot to due with the wins over Tunney and Loughran and Rosenbloom and all the other amazing acheivements above 160lbs, which can't be considered when ranking them at the weight.

One more thing... saying he was really a lightheavyweight is idiotic. The man made the limit and very often came under 160lbs for around 14 years. If he couldn't make it with ease, he would have moved up or looked weight drained during the fights.

 

very well said...i'd probably agree with that...

i wold have loved him and roy jones to have had a rematch though...

 

some great posts from you on this thread cobra... :good