I think people are looking back on Hopkins long and rightly lauded reign with some slightly rose tinted spectacles. It's not like his MW run is full of legendary victories over fellow HOFers is it? And he did have off nights like Robert Allen 1. The likes of Howard Eastman put up a decent fight so to rule out a GGG win completely seems a bit like spite. Great match up though, I've always thought Nard was a great talent so it tells you how much I rate GGG that I'd struggle to pick a winner here.
2001 Hopkins had a pretty good left hand, both with the jab and hook - something that he got away from, especially in recent years. I think Hopkins jab was faster, and that he had faster feet. Golovkin does have a very good jab, and like Hopkins from '01, he utilizes it far more often in certain match-ups than in others. But Hopkins jab was once very good. [yt]ygfqXj9pvGA[/yt]
My praise of GGG jab was not at Hopkins jabs expense, believe me I'm old enough to remember Hopkins I haven't seen GGG get fully tested as a pro and haven't seen am footage so I don't know what the entire tool box looks like If he were to have fought Ward wed have a better picture
I have to admit his middleweight run is rather unremarkable. He fought in a weak era, the fact Tito was able to move up and crush Joppy is a testament to the lack of depth of the division at the time. You basically had Hopkins who was by far the best and then everyone else a level or 2 below him, but King made sure Hopkins could never unify until his cash cow came up and Hopkins was deemed to be at an age to be ready to be taken. Hopkins legacy was cemented when he moved up which is why Hopkins would have to be favoured. I suspect Golovkin's legacy will also be cemented when he moves up as there is really no defining fight at middleweight for him. Beating Cotto or Canelo while a good win isn't enough. I could see Golovkin sweeping aside the best at super middle and becoming a 2 weight champion and then he could be seen as a more competitive fight opponent in a hypothetical against Hopkins.
Agreed, I just think we have to see him tested so he can show us the full package The guy has 300 am fights and plenty of skills but most seem to think he is a power puncher and little else Kind of just needs the right opponent to prove it against
No. Tito has no pedigree at MW. One fight before Bernard. He beat a past-best Joppy, probably with illegally wrapped hands. And after BHop, he was shut out 12 -0 by Winky. Tito was only slightly more of a factor at MW than Oscar, and both their accomplishments at MW combined amount to very little. Tito was not BHop's best MW win, and that's a good thing, if you're a Bernard fan.
Hopkins 160 reign is one of the most overrated resumes currently banded about. His 2 best wins came against a blown up 130 fighter and a blown up welterweight.
Understandable. I don't necessarily buy into the idea that any one is unbeatable or perfect, even the fighters I'm huge fans of. The better the fighter, the tougher the out, but there's always a point where another really good/great fighter just brings the wrong attributes to the table. For me, I drew up the qualities it would take for me to favor anyone over a 160 Roy, and GGG checked off the most I've seen in any middleweight I've seen since Roy was active there himself. It's not about perfection, or who has the best resume, but the right blend of attributes, style, and skills at the weight to play the foil for a H2H. It's not a 10/10 thing, but I do think GGG could pull off winning a trilogy. I've posted in other threads longer versions spelling out why point by point so I won't repeat it here for brevity. Hopkins at his best, on the other hand, brings alot of spoiling and smothering, controlling distance abilities that I feel could frustrate Golovkin and disrupt his rhythm. I don't think any of these are easy fights even if I favor one guy over the other. It's just the nature of it. Nobody beats everyone ever, even the special talents.