I want an insite into the mind of those rating Bernard Hopkins amongst the top 5 P4P

Like most things are on this site. I only have two option facts and my opinion. Since this one is not provable, it must be opinion.

However, since Milk dud got Ko'd by a MW its a good opinion - in my opinion

 

Exactly. And other people have the opinion that Tarver was a better and more proven fighter than Lacy was, thus making Hopkins schooling of him more impressive than Calzaghe's schooling of Lacy, although not nearly as exciting (although I wouldn't neccessarily agree with those people)...

Calzaghe has since gone on to fight... Bika and Manfredo.

Hopkins has since gone on to fight... Winky Wright.

Say what you will about Wright, he's twice the fighter of either Bika or Manfredo (and yes, still at 170) and was at the time considered top 5 p4p.

 

:happy Yeah another 'great' post!

 

Hopkins wasn't dominating Tito though. Beating him and outboxing him very well, but not thrashing him like JC did to Lacy. Lacy took a lot of punishment, and its debatable as to whether he won 30 seconds of any round.

 

Hopkins certainly dominated opponents, but in a far different fashion to what JC did against Lacy. Hop simply doesn't have the punch output to ever beat someone the same way JC did that night. Really it comes down to personal opinion. Is it better to totally out box someone and almost never get hit (Hop v Tito) or unload a non stop barrage of punishment (JC v Lacy) whilst taking a couple shots in the process.

 

Judges disagrees with you, and so do I. JC won every round. And not only that, he was reduced to a punching bag from start to finish. Not only that, he beat Lacy at his own game.

 

Obviously but the point I clearly made was that JC landed far more punches then Hop did and gave Lacy far more punishment. That was what the post was referring to, and what I believe DPugilst is insinuating. As said in my other post, it comes down to what you personally believe is the greater victory.

 

Winning every round is dominating. Lacey is not in the same class as Trinidad so how can you even compare both fights.

 

Don't try and throw Bika and Manfredos at me like I am a JC nuthugger, because I am not. I respect what he did vs Lacy, and as a talented fighter than have failed to lift his career to full potential. I dislike the Bikas and Manfredos as much as anyone else.

 

Well if it's so subjectve as to what was a more impressive victory (and I agree, although I personally feel the first option is by far the more impressive), doesn't that leave us with whom beat the more impressive opponent was? In order to determine the more impressive victory...

 

I think you are exaggerating mate. Regardless, JC was clearly the under dog in the States at least for his fight with Lacy anyway. You are clutching at straws IMO. From memory a lot of posters were picking Hop to beat Tarver. Quite the opposite for JC.

 

You can say all you want about Tarver, and some may be true. But what's true as well is Lacy was more an unproven commodity then one proven. Don't you hype up Calzaghe's win over Lacy while trying to shoot down Hopkin's win over Tarver. And don't forget, Hopkins moved up 15 pounds in the process. At his advanced age and size difference speaks a lot for his ability. Also, when it comes to skill, Lacy has nothing on Tarver.

 

Exactly. At least one have understood what I meant. Thank you.

 

We are comparing how comprehensive the victories were. If you actually took the time to read my posts you would realise this. Surely you can see the difference in punishment JC handed out to Lacy then what Hop did to Tito? You couldn't be that biased...

 

Well, who really cares how great a guy looks if his comp isn't as stiff? That would be like saying, "Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. beat Grover Wiley better then his dad ever did...or looked more impressive then Taylor has ever over Hopkins. In other words, it's meaningless to compare really.