Was Bernard Hopkins still elite in his forties ? Vote !

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by cuchulain, Sep 10, 2017.


Was Bernard Hopkins an elite boxer in his forties ?

  1. Yes, of course he was elite in his forties.

    74.5%
  2. No. No boxer is elite in his forties

    25.5%
  1. cuchulain

    cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

    36,348
    11,383
    Jan 6, 2007
    Bernard turned 40 in 2005.

    In 2006 he was ranked #5 pound for pound by Ring Magazine for the year.

    In each of 2007, 2008 and 2009, he was ranked #4 pound for pound by Ring Magazine.

    During that period, he defeated Antonio Tarver to become linear LHWt champion.

    In addition he defeated the reigning undefeated middleweight champion, Kelly Pavlik by a near shut-out UD.

    Would these accomplishment qualify him as being an elite boxer in his forties ?

    Please vote in the poll.
     
  2. escudo

    escudo Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,298
    4,629
    May 13, 2014
    He absolutely was elite into his 40's. Not athletically perhaps but he intellectually grew into getting by solely on excellent gameplans and technical perfection. He thought moves ahead of younger men and soundly decisioned Jean Pascal in the second fight to win the championship. He looked elite that night.
     
  3. Brixton Bomber

    Brixton Bomber Obsessed with Boxing banned Full Member

    21,934
    6,105
    Sep 21, 2013
    /thread.

    He took some great scalps in his 40's. So yes, he was elite.
     
    Hookandjab likes this.
  4. zadfrak

    zadfrak Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,512
    3,109
    Feb 17, 2008
    Do not think so. Just real good & benefited from a weak division and a multiple title world of boxing. He certainly negotiated the waters he took but lets not call him a face anyone anytime and anyplace type guy either.
     
  5. Brixton Bomber

    Brixton Bomber Obsessed with Boxing banned Full Member

    21,934
    6,105
    Sep 21, 2013
    I think his 10 year undefeated run @ MW is vastly overrated.

    I think his achievement over the age of 40 are better than that.
     
  6. escudo

    escudo Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,298
    4,629
    May 13, 2014
    He fought a straight killer in Kovalev at 49 and made the final bell. He stopped 3 undefeated fighters in the 4 fights leading up to it. He did better than many other top light heavyweights of the day.
     
    bodhi likes this.
  7. zadfrak

    zadfrak Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,512
    3,109
    Feb 17, 2008
    Well I don't think all that much of Kovalev. Maybe you do. Not me.
    The reason the other guys were undefeated is because of the same thing---not stellar competition and with multiple belts, they were not fighting the best fighters available. Or, being a road warrior either.
     
  8. Brixton Bomber

    Brixton Bomber Obsessed with Boxing banned Full Member

    21,934
    6,105
    Sep 21, 2013
    He only made the final bell because Kovalev didn't put his foot down.

    When 'Nard stuck his tongue out at Kovalev, Kovalev BATTERED him all around the ring. Every inch of it.

    Now imagine if Kovalev would have done that a few rounds prior? 'Nard would have got stopped.
     
  9. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,139
    13,094
    Jan 4, 2008
    He faced Kovalev when he was 50. You think that was an overly cautious move?
     
    Brixton Bomber likes this.
  10. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,139
    13,094
    Jan 4, 2008
    Ok. What more dangerous opponent out there was there to face?
     
  11. zadfrak

    zadfrak Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,512
    3,109
    Feb 17, 2008
    Hardly shark infested waters. The lh division has been poor for quite some time now. He wasn't a 40 year old going thru Foster/Galindez/Saad/Spinks type guys. Like when they were 26 or 29. Can you imagine those guys getting a 40 year old as an opponent back then? His stiffest competition was guys like Tarver & Kovalev.

    I like what Archie Moore was doing in his 40's a heckuva lot more & facing the level of competition he faced at that age. I don't think much of the competition Hopkins faced & think his results are a direct result of that.

    So I think real good. But not elite. Maybe we have different opinions on what the term elite means. But there is no lh I would call elite in recent times, not just a Bernard Hopkins.
     
    Flash24 and SHADAPBLAD like this.
  12. klompton2

    klompton2 Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    10,974
    5,432
    Feb 10, 2013
    People go on about Archie Moore in his 40s but if you look at his record past 40 and read about his career youd see it wasnt very impressive. Moore took very few chances past turning 40 and as a result he was forced into the ring several times or faced being stripped. Such was the case when he fought Tony Anthony among others. Eventually he was stripped due to refusing to fight the top guys. His fights with Durelle were legendary but Durelle was a journeyman who shouldnt have even gotten a shot at the title. Likewise Yolande Pompey and Guilio Rinaldi were undeserving as well. Moore was picking around the periphery at this time of his career. His draw against Pastrano, which is his most impressive later result was controversial. You can pick Moore's later career to pieces and I think Hopkins compares very favorably.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2017
  13. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,139
    13,094
    Jan 4, 2008
    You said, and I quote, "but lets not call him a face anyone anytime and anyplace type guy either." So what better fighters than Tarver, Dawson and Kovalev were there for him to face?

    I do agree that he isn't among the elite LHWs ever, but definitely among the best of his era. So elite of his era, yes, elite of all time, no.

    And saying he avoided the best is just BS. Facing a monster like Kovalev when you're months shy of 50 is bravery and self-confidence bordering on stupidity. Exaggerated caution it is not.
     
  14. surfinghb

    surfinghb Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,626
    17,905
    Aug 26, 2017
    I don't think some are giving B Hop his due. He was VERY relevant in his 40's.. A lot were saying Pavlik was the next best thing at 34-0 when B Hop whooped his ass at 43 years old and a 4-1 underdog ...
     
    Rumsfeld, Bokaj and Brixton Bomber like this.
  15. Sugar 88

    Sugar 88 Woke Moralist-In-Chief

    27,259
    18,341
    Feb 4, 2012
    A lot of people don't want to admit that he was elite in his 40s as it doesn't suit an anti-Calzaghe agenda.

    It's a real shame the Prince of Wales didn't start inflicting all the butthurt a lot earlier than he did.
     
    Brixton Bomber likes this.