This doesn't make sense. Trinidad was bigger than Oscar, and proven at the weight, and undefeated. Oscar had already lost, was small and had looked terrible in his only MW outing against Sturm...
Trinidad. I don't think the Pavlik one should be up here. In my opinion Pavlik has a beat down coming to him, wether it was off Hopkins or not
Hmm. I don't see any fighter being able to deliver a schooling to Pavlik quite as masterfully as Hopkins did. To be honest.
I like this choice a lot. Two weight class jump, a clear underdog, and just a complete waxing of Tarver.
Maybe not as masterfully as Hopkins did, but he had one coming as soon as he faced a boxer who did'nt fade. Hopkin's win over Pavlik was slightly overrated, due to Pavlik being overrated, but because of his age/everybody against him/etc etc, it was quite an achievement and performance. I still say Trinidad was his best victory though, one hell of a beating
Tarver (jumped up two weight classes n destroyed him) Pavlik Tito (an undefeated) Glen Johnston Delahoya knockout
Jasper..... why is it dumb? are those 6 vcitories better than Joe's best 6?? would Joe have been troubled by any of those 6?
I would say Bernard Hopkins' best victory was that against Antonio Tarver. Hopkins moved up in weight and domintated the World Light Heavyweight Champion, in route to a wide unanimous decision victory. A lot of people had Bernard counted out due to his two close decision losses to Jermain Taylor, but Hopkins proved that he was a rejuvenated fighter at light heavyweight. Besides the Tarver fight, I would say his thorough domination of Felix Trinidad would be second. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who thought Hopkins would win that fight. Not only did he win, he won big! Bernard stopped Tito in the twelfth and final round and Trinidad's perfect record was perfect no more. Hopkins tied the legendary Carlos Monzon's record of 14 successful middleweight title defenses and he did it in style. If I had to pick a third greatest victory for B-Hop, it would be his dominant performance against Kelly Pavlik. Again, Bernard was labeled an old fighter who just couldn't keep up with the work rates of the younger fighters anymore. The truth is, many people unfairly judged Bernard because he wasn't able to keep up with the impressive work rate of Joe Calzaghe. There is no shame in losing to Calzaghe, who at the time was the long-reigning, undefeated World Super Middleweight Champion. Not to mention the fact that it was a very close fight. It's not like Hopkins was dominated. Kelly Pavlik, the undefeated World Middleweight Champion moved up to a 170 lb. catchweight to fight the all-time great former World Middleweight Champion, Bernard Hopkins. The rest is history. He outclassed Pavlik on his way to a unanimous decision victory. Bernard schooled a world champion fighter, who was seventeen years his junior. That is simply amazing! Bernard Hopkins has made a career out of defying the odds. He has proven time and time again that you can't count him out. He continues on at the age of 45, still rated #2 at light heavyweight and #4 pound for pound by The Ring magazine. He is truly a legend of the ring.
why do people rate Pavlik? He looked decent but was exposed against Hopkins. In a few years it will be like Calzaghe's win against Lacy, you give credit for beating someone who considered dangerous at the time but i think Pavlik's career peaked against JT and he is not gonna get any more big wins. To answer the question - Tito, a real elite fighter.
Applying that reasoning, all the other fighters mentioned in this thread constitute worthless victories. Nobody has lasted past the 10th round against Pavlik at 160.
I really believe that many people are going to say Pavlik and I'll have a difficult time disagreeing...
Pavlik was his best win. He came in at an old age and took out a young strong hard punching mu****a. Only the idiotic-so-called boxing fans will try to discredit hopkins win by saying pavlik was too green. Its just stupid.