Hopkins Jones Jr II is on

Sure, but both Hagler and Monzon faced better middleweight comp than Hopkins.

It would have helped their cause if they did move up in weight, but they were facing better guys at middleweight than Hopkins was, so I'm not as critical of them. I doubt either would have hesitated to take on a natural middle that got the best of them in the past though, and made ridiculous demands to price themselves out of a fight at a higher weight.

Tarver ok, even though hindsight has proven him to be quite average, I'll give Hopkins that one. As for Pavlik, well, I for one was thinking before the fight took place that Hopkins had that one on styles and the fact that Pavlik looked really ordinary to me against Taylor in the rematch with the extra pounds that had made him slower (still) only reinforced that thinking for me. Calzaghe was favourite if I remember correctly, but I did think he looked less sharp at lighteavyweight than he did at 168, didn't you?

Question for you John: do you seriously think Hopkins would have stepped up to 175 to face a Spinks, Qawi, Galindez or Conteh?

Tarver is a big step down in class from those guys.

Don't get me wrong though, if Hagler and Monzon were fighting average guys like Hopkins was on the whole at middleweight, I'd be critical of them too for not stepping up regardless of who was awaiting at the higher weights.

 

Bah who wants to see this?

 

Just to get this clear. You think that, for example, Hopkins/Pavlik wasn't that great a win because

1. Pavlik was moved up 10 pounds, where he wasn't as good a fighter; or
2. Pavlik was moved up 10 pounds, which was a ***** move by B-Hop?

 

On here recently I compared Hopkins and Calzaghes resumes by switching their opponents, Calzaghe came out on top big time.

The bottom line is Calzaghe beats Hopkins at any stage of their careers.

Anybody that creates a boxing list based on boxer A would beat boxer B would have to rank Calzaghe higher than Hopkins, see snapshot of my rankings between 50-60 :-
50] Britton
51] Olivares
52] M.Spinks
53] Calzaghe
54] Hopkins
55] Wills
56] W.Gomez
57] Foster
58] Loughran
59] LM Rodriquez
60] Villa

Hopkins is guilty as charged as a serial ducker, far far worse than Joe Calzaghe, remember Hopkins agreed to fight Calzaghe back in the day only to pull out the next day after finding out how good Calzaghe was, as regards Bernards and Joes opponents I dont think Joe could have done a lot more as he was seen as a high risk for low reward by the top American boxers as he would not have attracted the big money in his hayday and was likely to beat them, yet Bernard was high risk but also high reward with plenty of big fights available to him if he wanted them, Calzaghe wanted the big fights but could not get them {unlucky for him, but lucky for his opponents} and Hopkins did not want the big fights unless they were on his terms, including the weight, the venue and the split of the purse etc, Hopkins only agreed to fight Calzaghe at the end of their careers on home soil, when Hopkins had nothing to lose and everything to gain {a chance of taking Joes '0', Hopkins even had Adalaide Byrd as one of the judges :shock:}.

Is it possible that Bernard Hopkins is overrated on this site ?, is he really a top 30 all time fighter ?

 

They're not really cut from the same cloth. Hopkins fought a far better level of competition than Calzaghe throughout his career, although he took less chances younger he did still fight guys like Jones Jr, an unbeaten Glen Johnson and an unbeaten Felix Trinidad (albeit only technically) before and during his middleweight run. What chances did Calzaghe take later in his career exactly because I must have missed those. Hopkins meanwhile was facing unbeaten former middleweight champ Kelly Pavlik and Jones conqueror Antonio Tarver. I dont see how you can possibly compare the two.

 

About ten years too late. Hopkins will destroy Jones, but what will it prove? Just an easy pay day for B-Hop and a 'moral' victory.

 

A bit of both. There were worse fights that Hopkins could have taken, but Pavlik was not the best guy he could have been fighting, and at that weight Pavlik doesn't seem to me to be that good a fighter. I'm sure Hopkins felt likewise after the insipid rematch between Taylor and Pavlik. Mind you I don't think Pavlik is all that good at middleweight either, but at least there he has things going for him, like a pronounced punching power advantage in comparison to other guys at that weight.

 

Hopkins beat the best that was available and avoided no-one, as well as taking on stars from the lighter divisions as they moved up to challenge. He fulfilled all of his middleweight champions duties and expectations. Basically he did everything Monzon and Hagler did. They all beat the best of their day and fended off rising champions from other divisions.

There is nothing more he could have done. I can't see how anyone can criticise someone for facing the best their division and others had to offer over a very very long term. Not only that, he then moved up and took on the best 175 in the world, a guy that had whupped the Jones you talk about shortly. Comparatively Hagler and Monzon were retired at this stage.

Hagler overall reign did not involve any incredible depth of opponent, that's for sure. They were a solid but very unspectacular bunch excepting Hearns.

What natural middle are we talking about? Jones? At least Hopkins entered negotiations, we have no idea whether Hagler and Monzon would have and anything else would be speculation. We very definitely know they didn't make the move up to 175 whatever the sceanario.

Another point is that Hopkins faced Mercado and Taylor straight after he failed (well, arguably for many) against both of them so his history hardly smells of avoidance, even if Jones was on another plateau.

Tarver and Pavlik were heavy faves against Hopkins. Hopkins was the underdog. Yet he manned up and had a go. I personally don't see how this is cherry picking.

Again, remember that Hagler and Monzon were comfortably retired to their lounge rooms at this career stage while Hopkins was taking risks and fighting younger favoured fighters. It seems ironic Hopkins is on the stand.

Honestly, how could we ever know? You don't know and nor do i. This is idle speculation. Again don't forget he did this when others had fought enough. He's beyond criticism for stepping up, how could he not be? Regardless of the ATG placing of his opponents he went up and totally schooled the best 175 in the world when he himself was thought to be had it.

I applaud the guy, and give him plenty of ATG points for it. Almost all others were retired by this stage or getting flogged every second fight.

Tarver was the best 175 on earth and had just flogged Jones in a trilogy. Nothing Hopkins does seems to be good enough.

I don't buy this and nor would i have expected it from any of these three fighters. Middleweight to light heavyweight is a HUGE step and i would not be critical of anyone sticking to and dominating their own division. They can only beat the best their division has to offer and have no obligation to us about leaving their division.

Why should a fighter have to leave a division where he is 100% suited weight wise and is a genuine fighting machine like these three all were?

Yet Hopkins did (where Hagler and Monzon didn't, not that i hold it against them as explained above) and still gets criticised for it when he took on the best in the world? I'm finding this very ironic and unfair. Look at a Holmes, avoided the best in his division for the tail of his reign yet is still ranked very highly, including by myself. Granted he had no-where to go to but he deemed he deserved to fight whoever he felt like in his winding down as he'd "earned it"

Cheers mate.

 

I'm not sure I'd go that far; but I agree this is one helluva ***** move here.

 

Pacquiao-Mayweather gets **** canned and we are fed this crap instead.

****ing hell this sport tests my patience sometimes.

I can't believe people still reckon Jones poses "stylistic" problems for Hops.

In 1993 when he had lightning speed,razor sharp reflexes and ridiculous self belief then maybe but now he's gun shy,chinny,infinitely easier to hit and flat out rooted (to use an Aussie term).

For ****s sake what other fighters in boxing history have got a high profile bout like this coming off a first round knockout loss to an average fighter??

Abolutely pointless match up.It proves nothing,has no relevance and (apart from maybe a morbid one) shouldn't evoke any interest in the discerning boxing fan.

 

In a formal sense yes, not in a substantial sense though, because their level of competition was not equal.

Yes Tarver beat Jones, but let's not make more of that accomplishment than is warranted. Jones was no longer the Jones that Hopkins should have been making a fight with years before.

All the same I acknowledge it as one of Hopkins' better career achievements.

Clearly better than Hopkins' level of competition for mine.

The negotiations were pretty weak though... Didn't really appear to me that he was all to keen to make the fight happen. Do you think his negotiations were reasonable?

Fair enough, though I think the gap between Jones and those guys is quite large, and his legacy would have been on the line to a greater extent with a Jones fight.

I don't think facing Tarver was cherry picking, but as for Pavlik, he certainly was putting Pavlik outside of a place where he had shown himself to be competent. I don't think Pavlik looked that good even 4 pounds south against Taylor, did you?

They were both working harder earlier on in their careers though. Would you also say that Calzaghe was doing more than Hagler and Monzon because he fought at an older age and moved up in weight when they didn't?

Well, what we do know is that he didn't seem to keen to face Roy Jones given the price he was asking for. We also know that Jones at that stage would be roughly on the same level as Spinks, Qawi, Galindez & Conteh.

So I assume he would be reluctant. But yes, ultimately it is an assumption.

Best at the time yes, but he was far from Spinks, Qawi, Conteh and Galindez all the same. There's no question in my mind about that.

They don't owe the obligation to anyone. They owe the obligation to greatness though, especially if they are feasting on average opponents. Cleaning out a division is all well and good, but the calibre of the fighters there MATTERS when it comes to us assessing greatness, does it not? Otherwise we would just go to a statistician and see who racked up the most defences when deciding who was greater.

I have no problems with what Hopkins did in fighting Tarver. I may think less of the achievement than others do, but I'm not criticising him at all for that fight. I do think though that he got the Calzaghe, Pavlik and especially the Winky fight under circumstnaces that were favourable to him thought in order to increase his chances of winning, and so I rightfully lessen the merit of his performances in those fights. This latest fight planned with Roy is of course a huge level down from those fights in terms of lowness.

 

Maybe the extra 7 pounds favoured Hopkins over Calzaghe a little, theyre basically the same size though so I cant think it makes a lot of difference and the fight seemed to show it too, I dont think itd have gone any differently at a few pounds less or a few pounds morre.

Calzaghes ridiculously high punch output and the fact B-Hop had little to no chance of stopping him though...damn I think it was a massive risk for him too take, its a fight stylistacilly I think he has very little chance of winning. I dont think theres any 'lowness' about taking that fight whatsoever tbh.

This one, yeah. He's a middle aged man though so its not the worst thing in the world, retirement would be a more sensible option than going up in weight again and fighting somebody that will more than likely just outwork him.

And I asked on page 1 but got no responses, how do people actually see the jones-hopkins fight going? Knowing Jones is there for the taking will Hopkins actually come out aggressive?

 

At the end of the day tho, he got the job done the best he could against the best that was available. I can't fault that.

I agree Jones had declined and get quite disappointed when some try to take Jones down via the Tarver route. He didn't get found out at all, his time at the top was simply up. I'm glad we are in a similar boat on that one.

I will however add that the vast majority of criticism and downgrading of Tarver came via the Hopkins schooling and thereafter. Going into the bout with Hopkins he was very highly regarded, even if not on the level of a Spinks. Some decent scribes had pretty good expectations for him and his future.

Take out Hearns and i don't believe Haglers title opposition was that far above Hopkins. They sure weren't held in awe at the time. Some good fighters but nobody remotely approaching a Valdez even tho i think he is becoming a mite overrated at times.

I have to be honest and say i have never really been that learned on them. I'm just going on something is better than nothing. I would have to leave this topic for someone more in the know than me.

Fair call. I was just pointing the other side out which you acknowledged.

10 pounds isn't much for a guy of Pavlik's dimensions. Hopkins was 100% pure middleweight for about 13 years before seriously trying his hand at 175. Pavlik had been as high as 169 in earlier career bouts. Given both were natural middles i don't put enormous stress on the poundage.

Pavlik was pretty average in Taylor 2, but blaming it on a mere 4 pounds is very big speculation. They have off nights, may get complacent etc. It could have been a number of things.

168 to 175 is not much of a jump. Certainly nothing like 160 to 175. I give Calz credit for his good fight vs Hopkins tho, at a weight above his own even if not significantly. It gains him a some P4P value. His win the fight prior over Kessler added very significant value to him too. His win over Jones added zero of course.

TBH i find it hard to add Calz to this mix when we have 3 fighters (very long term middleweight dominators) so easily compared. I get the point but Hagler and Monzon could have moved up at any point if they so desired.

As i said, i am not 100% briefed in the negotion facts and debate unfortunately. Another point is that Jones fight was a big amount of time before Hopkins did actually move up. I'm not 100% convinced Hopkins was frightened to take on Roy.

Fine fighters. The thing is Hagler was always calling out fighters such as Benitez, Hearns and Leonard to move up and give him his payday but when Spinks turned up and openly challenged Hagler he was very very quiet.

As i said, there's no stipulation they have to move up but Hopkins did and they didn't regardless of who was the best of the day at 175. We can only speculate if Hopkins would have went up vs this one or that one.

To turn the argument on it's head, would Hagler and Monzon have gone up vs fighters they thought they might beat? If so should we be critical of them for not being game to face the pinnacle? Again, it's all speculation.

Debatable topic. I don't see that Hopkins opposition was that weak really. He had unifications, he beat greats moving up, he took on the best. The 160 ranks and below threw their best at him for a decade, a full decade. IMO he would have beaten the likes of Sibson, Antuofermo, Fully Obel, Roldan and Hamsho solidly had they been around. All three would likely beat each others opposition.

He couldn't possibly be criticised. It was a fantastic performance.

 

Fine fighters. The thing is Hagler was always calling out fighters such as Benitez, Hearns and Leonard to move up and give him his payday but when Spinks turned up and openly challenged Hagler he was very very quiet.

As i said, there's no stipulation they have to move up but Hopkins did and they didn't regardless of who was the best of the day at 175. We can only speculate if Hopkins would have went up vs this one or that one.

To turn the argument on it's head, would Hagler and Monzon have gone up vs fighters they thought they might beat? If so should we be critical of them for not being game to face the pinnacle? Again, it's all speculation.

Debatable topic. I don't see that Hopkins opposition was that weak really. He had unifications, he beat greats moving up, he took on the best. The 160 ranks and below threw their best at him for a decade, a full decade. IMO he would have beaten the likes of Sibson, Antuofermo, Fully Obel, Roldan and Hamsho solidly had they been around. All three would likely beat each others opposition obviously with a few tough fights.

He couldn't possibly be criticised. It was a fantastic performance against a highly rated fighter.

 

I hope all that came out alright, i haven't proof read and had to split it in half as it was almost double the allowable length lol