Bernard Hopkins: One of the Greatest EVER!

Head to head, I also see Hopkins winning, which helps aside from the resume.

 

First you said achievements.

Achievements are different from wins. His achievements are ahead of Monzon's by leaps and bounds.

Plus, I already disproved your weak resume bull****. Stop the hate...its getting annoying.

 

Why question his tactics? I care who wins, not really how they do it. Obviously Hopkins would have to make it rough, as there's arguably no one in the history of the sport who could move like Roy did. Hopkins wouldn't outspeed, so why would he try to fight on the outside rather than take it inside and rough Roy up big time?

 

Hearns and Leonard both still have trouble with Winky. Hearns would be trying to blast him out, and it wouldn't be happening. Against Leonard, Hearns ran out of steam and was knocked out. Against Hagler, he ran out of steam in three rounds and was knocked out. He wouldn't be blasting out the solid Wright, either.

Leonard would have the best chance because he knew how to do what needed to be done to win, in terms of throwing fast, smart combinations. Still, Wright would be bigger and could move in on Leonard. Leonard doesn't win this easy, either.

 

I think it's more a matter of how you like the fighter, at this point. I think Hopkins could have figured Hagler out, but obviously it would not be easy for either man.

 

I never said Hagler beat Leonard. Most people think he did however, but that has no strength to it.

Unlike Hopkins competition, both hearns and Duran were successful at a higher weight.

De La Hoya was outboxed by Sturm and deserved to lose, and Trinidad was outboxed by Wright.

However, Hearns was the best fighter at 175lbs a decade after his prime, after beating undefeated Virgil Hill. Duran was one of the best middleweights in the world after beating the legitimate title holder, iran Barkley.

Ther eis a big difference in saying "Hagler beat a lightweight and a welter" and "Hopkins beat two welters". Hagler beat two men who proved themselves at higher weights, which is something not one of Hopkins smaller opponents have ever done.

 

Maybe not the firepower to put him away, but enough to start whitewashing the rounds if Hearns gets tired out from hitting Winky's guard.

 

What do you mean "owned"? Since when is beating a bunch of ****ing nobodies an achievment? Monzon beat more class, therefore achieved more.

 

So you wouldn't say a massive win is an achievement? Douglas beating Tysn wasn't an achievement? They are the same thing, just different terminology.

You didn't disaporve a ****ing thing. I challenged your opinion and you haven't replied, because you know I'm right. Don't try to even make out that you have proved me wrong. I disagree with you for ****s sake!

 

To the peopel talking about the smaller opponents - Who would win?

Out of Duran, Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya, Trinidad and Wright, the best three are the first three.

My favourite 3 boxers from those 6 would be Duran, De La Hoya and Wright, so I am not biased. However, the small fighters Hagler fought were much better.

 

Napoles is simply better than anyone Hopkins fought by quite a way. I would say Emile Griffith was too. Benvenuti is close, but I think he'd give Hopkins a harder fight than anyone else did, during his all important reign.

 

Also, let's add another factor into the equation, give Bernard 15 rounders like the others had, he'd have finished Taylor off twice, would have beaten Wright tonight even wider, probably would have stopped him 14th or 15th.

Then how does his resume look?:yep

If Duran/Hagler were a 12, Hagler would have lost a close fight.