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

That's fine. But the people picking Hopkins seem to be struggling to defend their choice. Take you for example, you actually think Hopkins losing to a prime Roy Jones and Joe Calzaghe improves his resume. Others are picking Hopkins because they either don't like Mayweather or because their expectations of Hopkins are lower.

 

you would someday find out that it's not the number's of loses, or the lack of it, on a fighter's resume would constitute how great or how good a fighter's resume is but on the amount of challenges that he took. all the great fighters in history had loses and that was because they fought oppositions that they were supposed to fight.

jones might be a loss on hopkins record but to lose a decision to someone as great as roy jones is on the early part of your boxing career when everyone else was stopped or severely outclassed is a testament to bhop's greatness. also you are acting like he lost convincingly to calzaghe and take note taht it was on bhop's latter part of his career where he was supposed to get beaten.

 

Sorry buddy, but losses are not a plus on your resume. I have no problem with people not holding those losses against him much. But there's no way they add to his legacy. Hopkins goes out there to win. There are no moral victories in boxing.

 

so let me get this straight, in a close fight where two fighters gave it all and it just happened that two or one of the 3 judges scored a fight for a certain fighter, then the officially losing fighter doesn't get any credit?

also in a fight where one fighter is an underdog and was expected to lose, but happened to gave the favorite adecent, tough, competitive or a close fight but still lost in the end, you would not give them any credit at all?

sorry but resume is not composed of wins alone but the entire body of a boxer's opposition.

 

Wow, this is so close. It depends on the quality of the opposition at the time. Both are ATG's and will be remembered. HMMM... still have a hard time with my decision. Personally, I said their equal.

 

They get credit for performing well, but it doesn't add to their legacy. Legacies are built on winning. I'm a big Philadelphia Eagles fan. No one gives a **** that they played a close game with the Patriots in the Super Bowl in 2004.

Again, I'd give them credit for performing well. However, I wouldn't view it as a plus to their legacy.

Yes it is. It's based on wins; more specifically, the quality of those wins. However, you've simply made up your own definition what a resume is supposed to consist of. Again, would you ever list a job on your resume that you didn't get?

 

No man, you can say what you want but I just...have proven that I know my boxing for years and years and years hahaha nobody can even try to convince me i have flaws in my boxing logic. I'm not trying to convince you, just telling you saying things like that means absolutely nothing to me, $$$$ talks and bull**** walks.

Was hatton a tougher fighter than pavlik going into the fights? if you say hatton you're either a liar or you misremember. We aren't talking hindsight, we are talking going back prior to the fight. Not even hopkins fans were thinking hopkins was going to beat pavlik, whereas everybody was pretty sure mayweather would smash hatton.

Trust me, I knew Pavlik was tailor made for Hopkins, I bet thousands of dollars of Hopkins, but I also bet thousands of dollars on pbf to beat hatton. Hopkins was a big underdog, mayweather was a big favourite. I'm saying though, if you are looking at resume, you can't say the hatton fight was a bigger win, because he was absolutely expected to win with ease after hattons performance against collazo. Pavlik, very few of us realized just how one dimensional he was. I was there, nobody expected bhop to win. even philly fans there were not believing me that hopkins would dominate.

as far as a top dog who hasnt been exposed...no its not just undefeated fighters, that actually has little to do with it. Styles make fights, as I'm sure you are well aware. And what I mean is simply, if someone fights a similar style to your style, and looks terrible, win or lose, then you have a blueprint to beat him. If he loses to a guy who fights completely unlike you, it means very little. So i'm saying, mayweather chooses opponents in an opportunistic manner, and outside of a couple of times, he does not fight the right test at the right time. That would make his resume, with the names on it, better than hopkins, or at least comparable.

Hopkins is one of the last true old school warriors who will fight the best even if their style looks like his kryptonite, even if his opponents have never faced adversity and never looked weak or vulnerable. Mayweather can definitely surpass him, mayweather has better skills, is a better athlete, but his resume right now is not comparable.

 

So your argument now is that a resume is not about the quality of opposition, or the stylistic problems they possess, but rather how the betting public views the fight? I'm sorry, but I simply can't agree with that. Mayweather would never be a 5-1 underdog against anyone below 168 lbs. like Hopkins was against a guy coming up two divisions. You're basically saying that Hopkins has a better resume because the betting public has less faith him. You can keep that argument if you want. Just think about this. Mayweather was a 3-1 underdog to Genaro Hernandez. He was 21 and hadn't beaten anyone of note going into that fight. Many people thought he simply wasn't ready. He would be around a 2-1 favorite over Pacquiao. According to your logic, the Hernandez win would be a better win than Pacquiao for Mayweather. Surely you can see the problem with that line of thinking.

Mayweather is fighting Cotto. Do either Margarito or Pacquiao fight like Mayweather? Ortiz's only real loss was to Maidana. Does Maidana fight like Mayweather? Pacquiao got two dubious decisons over Marquez. Marquez has a similar style to Mayweather. I guess Mayweather beating Pac would mean very little to you considering Mayweather would be the favorite, and considering there's a blueprint out there for Mayweather. Hell, the Pavlik win for Hopkins would rank above that win according to your logic; the logic that you claim isn't flawed.

Name me a style that would be kryptonite for Mayweather? There isn't one because he's too athletically gifted and versatile. However, according to you, his resume can never compare to Hopkins due to him being better than Hopkins.

 

your view of legacy and how it works is short-sighted. legacy is not comprised of wins alone. marquez for example has built his name more on the draw and close loss he had against pacquiao than his wins over barrera or juan diaz. morales and barrera also gained much for their epic trilogy even if they both lost to one another. there is such a thing as giving your best and having an impressive performance even if your opponent also gave his best performance and you fell short on the eyes of the judges. those efforts in taking on great challenges would improve your resume and legacy the same.

 

Many people think Marquez beat Pacquiao all 3 times, which is the only reason he gets props for those fights. No one thinks that Hopkins beat Roy that first time, and not many people think he beat Calzaghe. Those are not credits to his resume, and they do not enhance his legacy.

 

bhop is just 5 years pro when he took on jones and lost a decision when all the other opponents of jones at the time were either outclassed totally or stopped. also bhop is way past his prime when he fought calzaghe and many thinks he edged calzaghe. those fights improves bhop's legacy.

if floyd has taken on top challenges like bhop did, for example taking on martinez at 160 and lost a close decision, it would be a merit for floyd's legacy and not a demerit just because he lost to someone like martinez at MW.

 

Pavlik is inferior to Hatton. In a match up Hatton would have smached Pavilk no doubt. Your boxing logic is clearly flawed. Probably because your unabillity to digest others peoples points have stopped it from improving.

 

This is a pointless conversation. I guess Macklin should be getting in the HOF on the basis of putting up a good effort against Martinez. I'm sorry, but clear losses don't add to a fighter's legacy, and they aren't a credit to his resume. If believe otherwise, that's on you. We'll just agree to disagree.

 

pfffft give me something valid to digest then, the other guy big reg is making some good points I agree with at least, its hard to fully discuss something like this without writing pages and pages of explanation and its damn near impossible to give a full opinion on something so subjective that spans such a long period in history. Hatton would have smashed pavlik did you write that? am I reading that right?

 

I dont think I can clarify my opinions any better than BigRed already has. But since you seem to put Mayweathers win over Hatton and Hopkins win over Pavlik in relation to expectations, maybe it's just easier to look at who is pound for pound better; Hatton or Pavlik?

I think Hatton is better, but just like yourself I wont write any longer articles about it. But just short: Pavlik was completly outboxed by an old Hopkins. Hatton was by all means KO'd, but gave a prime Floyd some tough rounds.