I just don't get the whole Hopkins is a pure legend thing

He managed to beat top tier contenders(at the time) during his reign.
Pulled quite a few upsets: Tarver, Trinidad, Pascal, Cloud, Pavlik. You can discredit those victories as much as you want but he kept pulling one upset after another.
And when it comes to ducking, the only name i hear is Toney. Why is that only one name is brought up? For example, if you look at Floyd, the list is freaking endless!

In his 40´s he was still able to compete with the elite and occasionally he beat them and set quite a few records.
Ffs, i remember when this entire forum was all about Hopkins ducking Dawson and then again the rematch....

28 years as a pro.

 

That's ok. Others also think he is overrated. To be fair though, many scored the Taylor fights to Hopkins. Some even scored the Calzaghe fight a draw or to BH. I think he had a damn good career. Not sure about the legend thing. Time will tell.

 

Its his back story coupled with the long illustrious career. People quickly forget about the man who came from nothing, learnt to box in Prison and used boxing as an avenue to succeed in life.

The name Bernard Hopkins for me is more so associated with a 50 year old who still has the skills to school the majority of young contenders and champs.

I always got the feeling Bhop has immense respect for boxing and it's past champions too. His middleweight reign was legendary in itself, let alone what he achieved at light heavyweight and becoming the oldest champion in history.

 

Love him or loathe him he is a legend of boxing

 

He's a legend, no way around it.
You can have your questions about a lot of things about him and his style on later age, but he has accomplished a lot. Set a couple of records that are hard to break, and has a couple of great names on his record.

Maybe his defense and age records will be broken within a couple of years (defense one very possibly), but what he's done still warrants him to be called among the boxing elite.

 

Give the man his respect for goodness sake. You do not have a career that long with that much success if you are sub par or less than an A-level fighter

 

Wladimir K. would have to win a belt in 6 years from now
Alvarez in 21 years
Pacquiao in 9
Golovkin in 13
Lomachenko in 19

Just to add a little perspective.

 

Or RJJ getting a shot at a vacant CW strap against a pushover 2.5 years from now.
Today you don't have to be a top fighter to get one of the belts. Just a name and a powerful promoter.

 

Very true so, but will anyone stick around and be actually able to do it? To fight for a belt at 49? That´s ridiculous, even if it is just one of the "five pieces of four"(WBA has two belts...).

 

It is what it is. Of course not anyone will still be good enough at that age, but some of the bigger old names might be (probably chemically enhanced). Just being at the right place at the right time for one of them might be enough. And it's not like B-Hop won his belts from guys that should have had them at the time, both coming of quite disgraceful robbery "wins".

Not saying someone will do it, but it's quite possible.

 

Joppy, Johnson, Tito, Pavlik, Tarver, Winky, Echols, JDJ, Pascal, Cloud, Oscar..

Pushed Calzaghe close. Arguably beat Taylor at 40. Chased Roy all over the ring giving him one of his most competitive nights...

He is a bonafide HOF ATG for sure. He had longevity & dominated a division also. Problem is he was a dirty fighter with no real class. Mostly lacked any sort of sportsmanship or humility.

 

Legendary indeed, a legend of it's own. Hopkins got Hopped outta the ring and got KOOTR - Knocked Out Of The Ring

 

Who didn't lose to Jones Jr wide in his prime, Toney as well got horribly schooled, many past legends would have lost to the phenom that was prime RJJ.

How did he duck Toney, they never fought in the same division at the same time when both were rated. Sure he dropped out of a fight where he was jumping up 3 divisions because his purse had been reduced by King by a third, despite having a signed contract for the amount agreed. Sure the fight didn't happen due to Hopkins decision but how many other fighters have jumped 3 divisions to fight a champion and future HOF fighter.

Yes he lost to Taylor twice but they were close fights and the decisions disputed and Hopkins was in his 40's. How many past legends would of lost in their 40's to a prime top contender? Many of them I'd guess, but most would have been long retired and hung up the gloves at 40 instead of taking on their top contender. Look at Wlad now, he's in a similar situation and Joshua is the favourite going in.

Once again he was way past his best against Dawson. Going in people were saying he was going to duck Dawson as he was all wrong style wise for a 47 year old Hopkins. I mean at 47 he should have been retired a decade ago not facing a top fighter in his division while defending his title. The fact at that age he was still relevant is amazing.

 

He is a living legend, well and truly.
- Started boxing in his 20's.
- Came from a 'thug life' and was in prison. Turned his life around going into boxing.
- Anyone can go into boxing but he became one of the best and greatest Middleweights of all time.
- 25 title defenses coming from such an odd background.
- Lost to Roy Jones Jr? Who cares? Roy Jones Jr is the very best ever.
- Managed to be an elite up until virtually 50 years old.
- Beat a long string of 'good' opponents.
- A true ambassador for the sport today.