Guys like Glen Johnson, Holmes, Echols, Vanderpool etc are not blown up WW and neither did they have 10 losses on their records, they were legit, credible MW contenders. And Hopkins dominated them all. De La Hoya granted, that was just a big pay day and easy fight for Hopkins. But Trinidad was a legit threat and big favourate to beat Hopkins and actually weighed slightly more than Hopkins in their fight, something which people overlook. So you admit then that Calzaghe had fought no one of real note and that his fights with Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins were a step up from who he had been fighting for the previouds 10 years? But Calzaghe certainly didn't dominate Hopkins, it was a 50/50 fight that could have gone either way on the cards. As I said, after 12 years without losing Hopkins was in his 40's at this point, oh, and he wasn't the one who got dropped by the decrepid corpse of RJJ.
Johnson, ten losses Echols, beaten by lesser fighters Holmes, laughable Vanderpool, same again. Sorry but the fighters Hopkins fought in that 12 year stretch were not as tough as the challenges he took after Jermain Taylor. His ATG status has come in the last 6 years of his career, not the first 15
Johnson is only seen as a good win because he beat Jones Jr and was a tough challenger for many fighters. When was he ever anything more than a B class guy who had a big name on his career and a bunch of very close fights against title holders, with a few wins (Tarver) Take the RJJ win away from him and what does he really have as a career? A whole bunch of losses to guys who weren't special with a few good wins mixed in, a good upper class journeyman but never more than a gate keeper. If he's in your Top 5, you have issues in my view.
Johnson was unbeaten when he fought Hopkins and Hopkins is the only person to stop him and beat him in that manner. Holmes was coming of the back of stopping Robert McCracken and is just as credible as Kessler is on Calzaghe's resume. You are somewhat right though about the last 6 years of Hopkins career conforming his status, as the fact Hopkins at this age can still compete, and even beat, the like of Calzaghe, Taylor, Pavlik and Pascal shows why he is great (whilst they are just good).
Undefeated at the time he fought Hopkins because he hadn't fought any live challengers up until that stage, look at what happened post Hopkins. He lost to a bunch of substandard talent while mixing it in with wins against OK talent. The last 6 years defines Hopkins as an ATG because he beat the guys he wasn't meant to bet, rather than the 12 years where he dominated everyone he should have beat. This idea that "Oh, he's great for his age" is a discredit for Hopkins. At 46, Hopkins is better, more conditioned and has more stamina than most 25 year olds in boxing. He's more "prime" at 46 himself than he was at 30. Fact.
Dear godatsch. No point taking this any further with you I guess. I suggest you actually watch some Hopkins fights.
A thing that is indisputably the case. Just incase someone didn't actually know what it is, Mental ******ation isn't funny
Agreed. Hopkins is technically better than he was in his prime, hes a seasoned vet. However its easy to look good against someone who gasses in the second half of the fight. If hopkins brain at 46 was transplanted into his 25 year old self the that would be something, **** the daleks get david tennant on this **** immediately :smoke
Talent/skill/ability at their peaks: Jones Hopkins Calzaghe Legacy/achievements: Hopkins/Jones Calzaghe edit: this notion that Hopkins is somehow better technically or tactically now than he was in his prime is nonsense. His physical prime may have been at younger years, but he was at the absolute peak of his powers in ever aspect in his early-mid 30's, from about '97-'03. He was every bit the technical and tactical wonder he is now, and a much better fighter physically. G. Johnson-Joppy are his prime years.