Bernard Hopkins: One of the Greatest EVER!

Agreed.

I firmly believe Hopkins is top 20 pound for pound, all time. Take a look at him in his prime, I see him giving serious trouble to any fighter in history, with the ability to win against anyone.

Tonight Hopkins essentially demonstrated that he will do anything to win. At an advanced age, he showed that he is willing to make it rough, push and pull, throw tricky counters, and make you work your limits to defeat him. He was 42 years old in that ring tonight, guys, remember that.

 

He is certainly an all time legendary great....he's slowing down, but he can still fight

 

WOW, cant believe how biased some people are sometimes....

Trinidad was a CLEAR favorite and had proven he belonged at MW by destroying Joppy like noone had or has since....even worse than Hop did.

De La Hoya was too small for MW, I will agree....but Hopkins outboxed him also before stopping him. Something NOONE thought was even possible.

Wright held his own and showed he can hold the weight well. He was also the #3 p4p fighter alive....**** the weight class.

Tarver was the champ at LHW. Hopkins jumped 2 weightclasses in 1 fight to do it.....and at the age he did it in.....simply amazing.

Yet you fail to mention Glen Johnson (undefeated at the time....beat worse than Tito was), Joppy, Eastman, Holmes, Vanderpool, etc....I could keep going.

This "Hopkins has a weak resume" garbage is so easily disproven....go away.

:hi:

The man is an ATG and one of the best of this generation (very arguably THE best actaully).

 

That's a joke. No justification for him to be close to Hagler? People insult Hopkins for fighting "smaller guys", but neglect the fact that Duran was at his best at Lightweight, Hearns at Welterweight, Leonard at Welterweight.

No, Hopkins is greater than Hagler.

As for Moore, I have Moore number one at Light Heavyweight, so I can't put Hopkins over him at that weight.

 

Age is just a number. You saw tonight that Hopkins has aged much better than Winky has done.

And if it was relevant, surely this makes George Foreman the greatest heavyweight of all-time? How about Henry armstrong? He was shot when he was a young fighter, so he must not get into the 100 greatest of all-time?

Nonsense.

Age is just a number. Some fighters age quickly, others, like Hopkins and Foreman, can stay around for years after what should be their primes.

And Robinson was a natural welterweight. Hopkins started his career at 175lbs, and had to train excessively to cut down to 160lbs. Robinson not doing anything at light heavy, is a ridiculous point. He was 30lbs above his natural weight.

Michael Spinks > Bernard Hopkins by a long way.

 

Great post.

I'm glad that you bring up Glen Johnson, as people often forget that Johnson was undefeated, and has proven himself as a very tough fighter. Hopkins walked on him.

Insulting Hopkins' resume is a joke.

 

I hope you aren't serious. He hasn't achieved 1/10th of what Monzon did.

 

Yep, I don't see Monzon factoring into the argument, and I see Hopkins ahead of Hagler.

 

War B-Hop!!!

 

Hopkins has achieved less than 10% of what Monzon did? You're not being realistic, so it's a waste to argue, really.

 

Hagler did not fight the best competition..smaller guys moved up to fight him..hagler was the better fighter and hopkins is more dirty and crusty type..but an ATG b/c his wins were over some of the better guys of our time. Hopkins not #1 at 160 I put him #2-3 him and monzon are a toss up... That can be debated for years......keeps us posters on our toes..lol