debunking hopkins, his biggest wins are obver little guys...

Old news. Threads about this almost every day. And no one is going to read that big arse block of text.

 

Can't be arsed reading that.

Can someone either sumarise it in one sentence or link to a previous thread that says exactly the same thing in a more readable form?

 

Bernard Hopkins is overrated

 

Ah, I see. I have to disagree. His performance in the Jones fight was reminiscent of a young De Niro, and that's high praise indeed.

 

Pavlik, Tarver and even trinadad were HEAVY FAVORITES TO BEAT BERNARD and bernard dominated and exposed all of em. Yes trinadad was a guy coming up in weight but tarver and pavlik are not little guys

 

Among Hagler's best wins are natural ww Hearns, natural lw Duran, natural lmw Mugabi.

Among Monzon's best wins are natural ww Griffith, small ww Napoles, natural lmw Benvenuti.

They fight the best comp available. Hopkins did that, same as Monzon and Hagler.


If you look through the physical measurements/statistics of Trinidad (5'11", 72 1/2" reach, weighed in at 158 1/2lbs) and Hopkins (6'1", 75" reach, weighed in at 157lbs) on the night they fought, there is only slight advantage to Hopkins - no more than a standard size disparity between any two fighters from the same weight class, and probably less than the size advantage enjoyed by guys who use the early weigh-ins to make weights that they are noticeably big at, guys like Pavlik at mw, Paul Williams at ww, Antonio Margarito at ww, De La Hoya at sfw and lw, etc etc. By those stats, Trinidad is actually pretty big for a mw! Definitely not undersized.

Trinidad had KTFO a noticeably big (and possibly roided) Vargas for the lmw titles and annihilated Joppy, who spent his career between 160 and 168, in his last 2 fights before Hopkins.


Hopkins was a 6ft 1in guy who spent the vast vast majority of his career at 160lbs. Pavlik was his 4th big fight above 160, he had won 2 and lost 1.

Pavlik was a 6ft 2 1/2in guy who spent the vast majority of his career of his career at 160lbs. Hopkins was his 2nd big fight above 160, he had won his only 1 against top opposition at the same weight he fought Hopkins at.



Winky Wright fought the exact same way at 170lbs that he did at 160lbs. Anyone who knows Winky's style knows that weight was not a factor in that fight. Winky badly wanted that fight, he weighed in exactly on 170 he was not light, and he was beaten fair and square.


Antonio Tarver is 6ft 2in and has never fought lower than 175lbs in his entire career, he didn't even start at smw as a novice, he has been a fully-sized natural lhw from day one. Hopkins's world title career from 1995-2006 was spent at 160lbs. At aged 40 and coming off 2 losses, he jumped not one but two weight divisions and schooled the linear lhw champ who had comfortably UD'd Jones and Johnson in his last two. Tarver had 10 months between his last fight and the Hopkins fight, he weighed in a pound less than the limit, and he did not have to take the fight at that time, Hopkins was not a mandatory (as he had never fought at lhw at world title level), but he chose to take it at that time.


Add to this that Hopkins also beat in his career: 6ft 2in Segundo Mercado, future lhw champ and long-time lhw fighter Glen Johnson, 5ft 11in Antwun Echols who fought for a world title at 168, 6ft 2in Keith Holmes who fought for a world title at 168, 5ft 11in Howard Eastman who also took Arthur Abraham to points.


The perception that Hopkins preyed on smaller men is false. He fought the best available, many of whom were the same size and some who were bigger. He was a tall middleweight, that's all.

 

well Keure has done it. He has debunked Hopkins at last, in one paragraph no less. This is a major achievement for this board. Please continue to further enlighten us and expose these frauds once and for all. :verysad

 

:yep

 

Yeah that is the WRONG way to look at it. Pulling an "upset" doesn't necessarily mean you beat a prime great fighter. Trinidad was best at WW/LMW, hopkins beat him at Middle. Pavlik is best at Middle, Hopkins beat him at 170lbs....wtf???

Hopkins couldn't decisively beat Taylor in 2 tries, why not? Hopkins couldn't beat Calzaghe, why not? Wright's best weight was 154lbs, Hopkins beat him at 170lbs. Even Ornelas was oversized

 

Oops, Dinamita accidently logging in the 'Dinamita' alias there...

 

I thought the same thing about his career, which he started at LHW. But in fairness he has also had a long career and made alot of title defences, beating rival champs in Holmes, and Trinidad who was a belt holder and Joppy. But Hopkins does get alot of praise when as you say he has beaten on alot of smaller fighters

 

Let's put it this way, Hopkins wins over Wright/Pavlik/Oscar are in no way more impressive then Floyds win over JMM. Yet Hopkins stood and stared down Press row afterwards like he just conquered the Roman Empire, while Floyd didn't even get a damn interview atsch

 

Nobody had beaten taylor and I don't feel taylor beat hopkins that first fight. Calzaghe had the workrate, gameplan, handspeed and footspeed.

Pavlik like I said isn't little. I don't know how he still fights at 160. He is the same fighter as trinadad and tarver. Bernard beat them because they are all 1-2 stalking punchers. It was a style thing. It wouldn't have matter what weight those guys were. That style doesn't beat bernard.

A more accurated debunking of hopkins would be to say he never beat anyone with real handspeed (this past RJJ fight doesn't count LOL). Everyone with speed gave him problems and everyone with a 1-2 stalker style he whipped them easily.

And the favorites and underdogs part was just add more to the win. It's like everyone saying you are going to lose and then when you win they say your opponent was too small. I put that piece in because the fights are being downplayed after he beat the guys who were favored to beat him.

 

I don't put the Wright or Oscar win in a catagory of great win. Maybe great name but not great win.