Is Golovkin's reign better than Hopkins?

Well I think we saw a better version of Hopkins against Johnson than the starting to fade and never had to push himself GGG that fought Jacobs.

Interesting that you pick Tito over Canelo. I'd go the other way at 160 and that's not to mention Nelo's sway with the judges. That's me picking the ginger one legit.

ODLH never impressed me at MW. Losing to Sturm told me all I needed. He was simply too small and would have been taken out by Golovkin in similar fashion if they fought at the same weight Hopkins fought him.

 

Doesn't erase the success at 154. But posters like you, who do this, and there are a lot, you know you're being disingenuous with statements like that.

 

If boxing were still run like a sport, maybe Linear titles would have more meaning. But boxing's been 90% business, 10% sport for a while now. A champion can simply refuse to face a tough, but maybe unknown top contender because they can say things like, "What's he done to deserve...." or "Who he beat?!?"....that type of nonsense. And fans buy it.

It's not exactly "buying" a title fight, but being a big name gives you a spot ahead of others who have done more and surely, some who deserve a crack first.

 

What do you mean, what other advantages?

Having advantages in height and reach are very significant.

 

Who was a really good fighter than Golovkin made look ordinary? Hopkins would have feasted on Canelo.

 

Except Hopkins almost always has the reach disadvantage. lol

 

Good post here on tito. I get amazed on how many posters tend to underrate Tito as barely anything to write home about. Tito had great stamina, and power in both hands. He also knew how to use his jab and throw combinations with authority. Tito is becoming a rather underrated beast IMO.

 

Hopkins has very short arms, which is a big reason for his mauling style. 23 inch arm length is very short for his height

 

Hopkins doesn't have the work rate? You do know Hopkins holds the compubox record for most power punches landed in a middleweight fight. He landed 375 power punches vs Joppy. Hopkins also threw about a thousand punches vs Johnson. Prime and even slightly past prime Hopkins had a very high work rate.

Only when near the end of his middleweight reign did his work rate begin to drop, why are you matching a nearly 40 year old Hopkins vs prime Hagler?

 

Johnson at 160 wasnt even considered a big fight. No top 10 wins going in to that fight. Didnt carry a Ring top 10 rating himself.

He lost a good deal of legitimate UD's following it, and it'd be years before the "robbery" claims actually held up. Johnson himself said he was way too inexperienced to deal with that level of fighting, and his career backs that up.

 

How was Roy naturally bigger than Bernard?

Bernard is 6'1 with a 75" reach.

He made his debut at CW, and then had around 20 fights weighing in above MW, before then finally committing to the division in the early 90's.


Delve into Bernard's career.

It's truly fascinating.

He made incredible sacrifices to get down to MW and to remain there. He didn't dehydrate himself and then rehydrate like your average fighter. He had the discipline of a monk. Even when he didn't have fights on the horizon, he didn't bulk up. And that's because he lived a life where he literally used to measure out each unit of food that he ate, even on an average day when he wasn't in camp and he had nothing on the horizon. He missed his sister's wedding to train. When he goes out to restaurants he asks the chefs to cook his food in a specific way. He's unique. He's absolutely meticulous. I don't think any other guy could have done what he did. Do some research.


When he was at his peak at MW, he had no interest in fighting guys like Tarver, Calzaghe, Dawson and Kovalev etc, which of course he went on to fight later on in his career.

He wouldn't fight Roy at a 168 C-W in 2002. He turned down $6m and demanded $10m. He then had a year out before fighting Morrade Hakkar for around $1.3m. Then after that fight he wanted to fight JMW's.

This content is protected

He had no interest in moving up until after he'd lost to Taylor twice and he had nowhere else to go. Then he moved up. Because at that point in time, his MW legacy was secure and he was in a position where he had everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Below is a snippet from his 2008 press conference with Joe Calzaghe: (courtesy of Serge)

This content is protected

Below is another 2008 transcript with Larry Merchant, in the lead up to his fight with Joe Calzaghe: (again, courtesy of Serge)


Larry Merchant: ''You suggested that you could've moved up in weight several years ago''

Bernard Hopkins: "I could've fought 3 weight classes 4 or 5 years ago. 5 or 6 years ago I could've moved up''

Larry Merchant: ''Why didn't you?''

Bernard Hopkins: ''Well, there was more money down at the small weights and the risk was minimum to going up to fight the big boys''

"At the end of the day, if I can get a guy to a weight class where I know he's not used to or hasn't been in - why wouldn't I take that advantage or take that chance.''


His career isn't as great as what most people think it is.

Whilst you have to admire his dedication and commitment to fighting at MW for 13 years, the reality, is that it was easier to fight those guys, than what it would have been to fight the leading SMW's and LHW's of the era.

He'll go down as a MW legend, but in my opinion, he wasn't overly ambitious in his prime, and he saw an opening which he could take advantage of.

 

Roy wasn't naturally bigger.