Bernard Hopkins or Floyd Mayweather, who has a better resume?

there are more boxing fans have floyd higher in ATG ranking but bhop can be argued higher. Bhop unquestionably has the better resume and floyd's high standing now is just the product of combination of his very good H2H abilty, great skills and good resume.

 

No he does not. The fact that you have to start counting losses as pluses on Hopkins' to put him ahead of Mayweather says it all.

 

Puga is a troll with many alts. ***** gets owned by all kinds of fans yet calls all of them "*****s". fukin idiot

 

Tarver and Pascal were smaller then Hopkins?

Hatton and Marquez were the same size as Mayweather?

 

Hatton was bigger than Mayweather.
:deal

 

This content is protected

 

I should of typed most.
Hopkins best wins:
Tito (smaller)
Oscar (smaller)
Pavlik (smaller)
Winky (smaller)

Pascal was the naturally smaller man. Dawson had no business losing to Pascal who is a b level fighter, at best

?????????
Hatton was the same size. He was a natural 154 lber draining himself down to fight at lww. Mayweather at that stage of his career was going into the ring around 153-154 lbs.

The Marquez fight was nothing more than a warm up fight, no one should class that as one of Mayweather's best wins.

 

No he hasn't. His big name Wins are Tito, Hoya, Tarver, Wright, Pavlik and Pascal. For Mayweather you have Corrales, Castillo, Gatti, Judah, Hoya, Hatton, Marquez, Mosley, and Ortiz. Hopkins has Dawson coming up, but Mayweather has Cotto.

 

I don't struggle with the concept, but it doesn't make it any more acceptable in terms of evaluation. You either win or lose fights, sometimes I disagree with decisions by boxing judges, referee calls, and various circumstances that would have given the team/fighter/athlete I'm rooting for a win. I don't however fail to acknowledge the legitimate victor simply because I disagree with a call, a score, etc. By this standard, we could alter and adjust respective outcomes to be whatever we want them to be based on our subjective opinions and essentially minimize the credibility of any winner/champion. The winner won, the loser lost, and all thats in between is irrelevent in this particular conversation. We are talking about legitimate outcomes and how they impact legacy...it would be like the Raiders claiming to have won the super bowl because they got ****ed by the "tuck rule".

 

:rofl

 

No...resume is about who you beat, PBF has beaten great opponents, so because you refuse to acknowledge that doesn't make it any less true.

 

:rofl That was a good one.

 

yeah, sometimes you just gotta take one on the chin

 

I'm going to judge the outcome of a fight with my own eyes when I'm judging a fighter from my own perspective. It's all subjective assessments of skills anyway, and considering the controversy and corruption and favoritism in boxing, it would be ridiculous to try and form rankings based on outcomes you don't even consider legitimate. Everything surrounding and within a victory or loss is exactly how perceptions of fighters' legacies get formed in the first place.

 

This is just blatantly not accurate...you are talking stupid and simply refuse to acknowledge what is pretty ****ing obvious. Your lack of acknowledgement doesn't make something any more or less true, Mayweather's resume is better, per the titles won, weight class jumps, opponents defeated, as well as the defeats Hopkins has suffered. He has some great wins, and I respect Hopkins contributions, but in terms of resume PBF's is better.