Sick of Hopkins' fans ignorance.

1st of all lets dispell the myth about the supposed greatness of hopkins resume, take away the smoke and the mirrors and this is what your left with from hopkins 7 best wins, with 4 of them being from when he made his opponent fight way above what their best weight was.





trinidad
prime weight = welterweight (147)
fought hopkins at middleweight

This content is protected

trinidads record at middleweight or above from hopkins onwards = 2 wins / 3 defeats

winky wright
prime weight - light middleweight (154)
fought hopkins at -

This content is protected

in 57 fights, the hopkins fight was the only fight that wright had weighed over 160 lbs (a full 10lbs difference)

de la hoya
prime weight - welterweight (140lbs)
fought hopkins at - middleweight

This content is protected

de la hoya only fought twice in his career at middleweight out of 45 fights -1 win / 1 loss - the win was a very debatable decision over eurobum felix sturm

pavlik
prime weight - middleweight (160 lbs)
fought hopkins at -

This content is protected

in 34 fights pavlik had only fought 2 minnions at the beginning of his career at 169. all pavliks fights since hopkins have been at the 160 limit.

tarver
prime weight 175
great 2 weight jump from hopkins and his best win despite tarver being a b-level fighter and going 3 wins / 3 losses from hopkins onwards.

johnson
prime weight -super mid / light heavy (162 to 175)
fought hopkins at - middleweight (160)
johnsons record at 160 + from hopkins onwards - 19 wins / 14 defeats / 2 draws
the defeats have come against people of the level of ottke, woods, shieka, gonzales, harmon, branco, vanderpool, Kiwanuka, sosa

Pascal
prime weight 168-175
fought hopkins at 175
needed 2 attempts to beat a carl froch victim but must be given huge credit because of his age.




next you throw in the fact that calzaghe beat hopkins sandwiched inbetween hopkins supposedly best performances of tarver, wright, pavlik, pascal.

take into account that for the hopkins fight, calzaghe
- fought at light heavy for the 1st time
- fought in hopkins back yard
- had hopkins brother joe cortez referee the fight and do everything in his power to try and even up the fight

despite all this, joe calzaghe with extreme brittle hands defeated hopkins.



now we here you hopkins fans scream "that wasn't hopkins prime", well it was certainly the point of hopkins career where he was getting his best results. was hopkins prime when he was beating robert allan 3 times and beating hakkar and calling every welterweight on the planet to fight him?



so we then answer the question of why the 2 hopkins and calzaghe didn't fight each other whilst in their supposed primes in 2002

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

now it wouldn't be fair for me not to give hopkins some credit because he is a very clever man, extremely astute tactically and defensively, he knows how to disrupt an opponents rhythm and he knows to neutralise an opponents strengths. he's also very good at calling out fighters he knows he can expose tactically and calling out fighters he will have big weight and strength advantages over.


the bottom line in all this for me though, is that bernard hopkins was not good enough to win 8 of his fights (5 defeats, 2 draws, 1 disgracefull no contest). there is a clear blueprint there of how to beat hopkins.

on the other hand, there is no blueprint to beat calzaghe, sure fighters can cause calzaghe problems but there is a versatility in him, a common trate in great fighters where he can adapt to the man he is fighting and find a way to win, the charachter to stare adversity in the face and walk through it by adapting his gameplan to that of his opponent.

for hopkins there will always be a blueprint of how to beat him but for calzaghe there never will be. on top of that there will always be that head to head victory over a version of hopkins that is far better than any hopkins fan on here will be prepared to admit, as well as the 8 fights hopkins wasn't good enough to win.

 

Hopkins has a great resume easily top 5 of the last 20 years. After Whitaker, Pacquaio, Jones and Holyfield.

 

This is an exhibition of revisionism.

I agree Hopkins at times looks for the smart business moves (eg Pascal) when selecting opponents but who doesnt. At the end of the day, his whole body of work is nothing short of impressive. He's fought pretty much everyone.

If he didn't fight Trinidad, people would be saying ''Oh, he moved up to LH when Tito was in devastating form, undefeated and held a middleweight belt''

But you know this.

 

Hops does nothing for me ****. I admire his ability, but I don't rush to watch his fights.

But I have noticed a common theme amongst you Brittards. Acting like know it all ****s, dismissing any reply made to you, ignore legitimate replys, and post as many smiley's as possible. All you childish assholes post alike. And for some reason, you guys thrive on acting like spoiled children. Very odd.:think

 

All that typing and really no point here. We all saw Hopkins refuse to fight a prime Super Star Roy Jones Jr, for 60/40 in Jones Jr's favor. So what the hell makes Calzaghe fans think Hopkins would fight a lesser fighter like Calzaghe for the smaller portion?

 

It's all they have to cling to. ****ed up thing is, these Joe C fanatics diss any 'smaller' opponent of Hops but don't mind Joe C challenging a guys a division below. The Joe C fanboys are as consistent as dog ****, and about as useful.

 

His point was that he turned down MORE money to face Jones. The split is irrelevent in that instance.

 

Are you worried about that fans would say he ducked Lacy? Why you guys worry so much about what fans say is ridiculous.

As for your 'glass house' comment, I make my posts about the sport as well as toss insults as the usual idiots who don't have the ability to contribute, and resort to cheerleading. No surprise you agree with them. All the Floyd fanatics hate me too. :roll:

 

Don't forget coked up for extra energy and stamina, not mention numbed up for punch resistance. Oh and don't forget criminally early stoppages in his favor numerous times.

 

I've always enjoyed Joe C's fights more then Hops. Props to him for his longevity, but he fights too methodically for my taste. However, challenging a guy in the division below? I'd day that's actually kinda weak. Taking into consideration how many times Hops has weighed under 160 for his MW fights.

Hops had no obligation to face Calzaghe. No more then Joe C had to face DM or RJJ (prime) at 175. I'm aware Hops initially did agree, but still, there was no obligation to face him.

 

Agreed according to who?

There are several problems with this whole argument.

What do we have a transcript of?

Where is Hopkins's signature stating he will take 50/50?

The word of known liars and swindlers, Don King, Frank Waren etc. all of a sudden become infallible truth to boost the Calzaghe fan boy argument?

Honestly, if I was Hopkins, I wouldn't have agreed to 50/50 either. Hopkins was higher on the boxing totem pole.

It has been a while since I have read articles pertaining to the claims either way as this was quite a while ago, but I do recall, something about it not really being 50/50, and that is why Hopkins didn't agree back then. I mean either way all hearsay, unless there is an actual transcript.

 

That is laughable. When they fought Calzaghe hardly touched Hopkins. Had they fought back in 2002, when Hopkins didn't have the thyroid problem, i.e. no gassing, what happened in the first round, would have happened repeatedly throughout the fight, until Calzaghe was KO'd. All the hard punches of the fight were landed by Hopkins. Calzaghe tasted canvas but was also buckled by Hopkins punches at least 4 times, while Calzaghe's best action of the night came as he hammer fisted Hopkins in the nuts then got behind Hopkins and ground his croch onto Hopkins arse, for some of that Welsh style man play.