Is Hopkins currently one of the best 15 fighters in the world? If so, why?

I can only answer to the first part because, to be honest, I didn't understand the association Pac-JMM-Hops but you have to cut me some slack there since I can't really rate Nard compared to the other two - that's why I never tried to make a P4P list...

Back to the top, if Hopkins loses a wide decision or even gets stopped by Calzaghe, that would suggest that the Ring had overrated Hopkins or underrated Calzaghe... But that hasn't happened yet or has it? What would people say if Calzaghe was rated nº2 and Hopkins nº20 in the present circumstances? Maybe that Calzaghe was being overrated and Hopkins severely underrated? Thank God they are not, not yet... Or The Ring would be in very serious trouble to justify it even before the fight, let alone after the fight.

 

Tarver was overrated anyway, he avoided any young LHW challengers and held the division hostage in the senior's circuit.

 

You need to put the crack pipe down.

You seem to have some sort of agenda against Hopkins. I don't like Hopkins, i think he is a moron and Chad Dawson is my favourite fighter but i wouldn't be overly confident on Dawson winning, i think you're underrating experience and boxing skills here. To say that guys like Danny Green, Diaconu could do anything to Hopkins is quite frankly dumb.

From that list i pick Calzaghe, Dawson over Hopkins, just. I wouldn't be surprised if he pulls it out against Calzaghe.

 

There is a dissonance between what people were saying about Kessler before the fight and after the fight. If Kessler is borderline elite because he lost a 117-111, 116-112 (twice) decision in Wales, why did Hopkins fall so much in the ratings losing 115-113 scores to Taylor? Doesn't make sense because there is no common element to compare Kessler with Taylor.

Hopkins beat Winky by 117-111 ( twice), 116-112 scores which are similar to Calzaghe against Kessler. You can't say one is a slight points decision and the other was impressive, just because Winky fought 10 pounds above the weight he carried when drawing with Taylor ( 170, not 175).

Kessler's performance was good not to dismiss him in the future. Winky and Hopkins were even-matched and their performance should not been used to dismiss them altogether either.

 

Some reporters in The Ring expect Calzaghe to become Light Heavyweight Champ because he would simply triple up Hopkins output. There is a Ring issue in the end of the year 2007 that portrays Hopkins as the underdog for that fight. One thing has nothing to do with the other... Calzaghe beats Hopkins and jumps up in their P4P ratings, but nothing should happen until he gets to do so at 175 pounds and fights for their ( The Ring) title.

 

Watch film and compare these guys, Taylor's flawed all to hell, Kessler's not a totally complete fighter, but he's about 3x closer to it than Taylor is.

The difference in class between Taylor and Kessler is huge. Kessler is more accurate, has a better defence, better timing, better power, can keep a workrate for all 12 and has no stamina problem, Kessler's shot for shot handspeed is even better and he has a better jab and a MUCH better sense of distance.

Don't even start comparing Taylor to top level fighters. Hopkins took **** because Taylor is not an elite fighter, not even close, it showed Hopkins was old.

It's less impressive because Wright hadn't even been impressive at 160, much less at 170, which evidently hurt his movement and stamina.

Don't compare Winky above his natural weight of 154 to a natural, prime, elite 168 fighter. This is what I'm talking about, what are you even watching?

We dismiss them, because they both were visibly old and shot, far worse than their primes. We don't dismiss Kessler, because he still showcased many top qualities in defeat against one of the best in the world.

Big difference.

 

You should be pondering on why even continuing debating this useless, common sense lacking idiocy.

 

Exactly.

 

Then I should simply join the Ring ratings & mainstream media opposition in my stands because I should be unbiased. But usually people defend a position and some fighter/fighters who are underrated when doing so, and I would run into risk of being seen as partial toward these fighters - Calzaghe, Dawson, Kessler and others. All of this doesn't mean that I am not a fan but I will just defend myself by saying that I am a fan of Hopkins and Calzaghe. The way I reply to "aggressive analysis" posts is just a way to debate and to express myself, nothing else, no ill-intended.

I am thinking about 2008 and change will take place. Actually, the Ring wrote about Hops and Winky using these words: "... but if the Welshman is good enough to stay unbeaten against the marauding Dane, he might very well be the man to end Hopkins' incredible run. And if it's not Calzaghe, eventually it will be somebody else. Fighters like Hopkins don't retire until somebody beats the crap out of them, and that has yet to happen..." Hopefully you will look into my posts and I will continue looking into yours, and God ( Mijares) will look for both of us.