Apart from Roy Jones, No fighter has beaten Bernard Hopkins convincingly. Look back at the past and all the ATG have had some decisions that could have went either way, its usually the ones that have had the look in the decisions that people look more fondly upon, using Leonard for example, the close decisions that went his way, Hagler and Hearns 2, if he hadnt had the luck that day both could have went either way. His career would have been looked on alot differenlty. Ino its all ifs and buts, but im just doing this as a change from all the Haye/Klit threads How would Bernard Hopkins be viewed if he had gotten more luck on some close decisions if he had W Clazaghe SD W Taylor MD W Pascal SD On his resume
I had Bernard going 2-0-1 in those three fights, and he got dealt a 0-3. Judges in this era are far too focused on workrate rather than quality. It happens again and again (eg Alexander-Kotelnik).
No decision he's been part was badluck cause he did something wrong in my opinion in all those fights. But ya you have a point, if only if, I'd say Hopkins would be one of the greatest MW after Hagler. But so far, Hagler is untouchable, his willingness, able to fight southpaw if he wanted and his chin is history to me.
Alexander Kotelnik was horrible. The one who scored it for HBO usually does a decent job but he gave Kotelnik only 2 rounds and based that on workrate. He even gave PW the first round of the rematch...wtf?
At this very Elite level, these fighters are separated by the smallest margins its the close decesions which make the massive difference, all the greats have been on the ends of razor tight decisions, i think Hopkins has been very unlucky on some of his and history could have looked much more kindly on him, even though it still will. But like i said its all if's and buts......
I think it is also important to remember that Hopkins lost to Jones when he was 28, and then didn't lose again until he was in his forties, and even then those decisions were debatable.
Calzaghe beat him Taylor beat him also. And yes it was convincingly. This is boxing, and it works on the point system. IN BOXING Hopkins lost the second fight, clearly!
he did for his division, just like calzaghe and jones, but nobody doubts their ability. for me, it's a damn shame all three of them ruled poor divisions.
That's a fact, he had no superstars to compete with him for a decade. Great atheles, but no superstar. But still, he ruled it for many years, and it's an accomplisment for itself.
He would have still lost to Clinton Mitchell, who in turn would be getting laid 5 times a day, twice more than he probably does already.
The thing is, Hopkins is very disliked by HBO. They want him to go, and im sure he feels he was screwed over by them in some of his close fights, were people like Lampley and Merchant, as well as compubox, were used to sway the opinion of the public in those close decisions. He knows he has been getting the short end of the stick regularly, and the guys who want him out thought they had him with each close decision loss (which i feel he won all of, especially due to the fact that he was the champion in most of those fights). However, what has happened in the past couple of years and continous to happen, is something no-one could have forseen or expected. Hopkins continous to fight at the highest level, and has even seemed to put it up a notch (in terms of aggression only, everything else was basically the same otherwise) to try to avoid close decisions as he has accepted he will never get the nod in a close decision no matter what, and now he is fighting on a second wind that is allowing him to further his legacy. Watching Hopkins create his legacy in this way is the best thing about boxing for me right now. I think he will beat Pascal to become the oldest champion ever and I really look forward to seeing what he plans next after that.