Why is BHOP so highly rated?

Well said.

 

Jimmie, I got your back here.

Okay, those bums you mentioned (pay attention while I show your lack of knowledge on this)...I am sure you went and looked up their names on boxrec and once you didnt notice a name, you copy/pasted. But let me educate you young one.

1- Eastman - When Hop fought him, he was 40-1-0 with 34KOs. He was a VERY big MW with huge power. And Hop pretty much shut him out. His losses are against Joppy, Hopkins, Abraham and Miranda....hardly anything to be embarrassed by.

2- Allen - Another big MW. #1 contender/mandatory opponent a couple of times (in other words, Hop doesnt fight him, he loses his belt and any chance at the record he was seeking). Not a great fighter...a decent one. But name ONE fighter who doesnt have a few decent fighters on his resume (and then tell me if they were mandatories or tune ups??? BIG DIFFERENCE).

3- Daniels - Another mandatory. Good skills, nothing great.

4- Holmes - Keith Holmes is a BUM??? First I heard of this. He was the former WBC champ. And he was part of the MW tourament to with Joppy, Hop and Tito...in other words, Hop beats Holmes, he fights Tito.

5- Echols - Echols is a bum too? Is he an ATG, noooo. Is he a very big puncher...HELL YES. Hops fights with Echols were great.

6- Lipsey - Wow you really dont know much do you? Lipsey was 25 and 0 with 20 KOs. He was billed as the NEXT BIG THING. He was even picked by some to beat Bernard. Hop destroyed him and made him retire.

7- Frank - yeah Ill give ya that one.

So out of those, ONLY Frank and Daniels (and maybe Allen) you could consider a BUM. And again, WHAT WORLD DO YOU LIVE IN THAT NO FIGHTER HAS ANY BUMS ON HIS RESUME????

 

i love hopkins and i think he is atg material but i still think winky is going to whoop his ass next month....

Hopkins age will catch up with him against winky !

 

You know, I love Hop and Im a fan of Winky's...but seriously, how many consecutive fights are people going to pick against him using the "age will catch up with him" train of thought.

Not a knock on what ya said, just more of a "how long can this guy defy age?".

No idea how any boxing fan could not appreciate the greatness of Hopkins (again, not you joitio...just a question in general)???

:huh

 

You know, my first impulse was to flame this to high heaven, but there is some, hell, quite a bit of decent criticism here. Tarver was a weight drained zombie, De La Hoya was a tortilla stuffed zombie, his punch output has dropped in recent years... all valid points.

My "worship" of the old man is based mainly on the things you find "brutal." Hopkins is one of the few fighters in recent years who displays the kind of craftsmanship and dedication that go back to boxing's heyday. His defense, footwork, and conditioning are always impeccable. He knows every psychological trick in the book. He's the definition of a complete fighter.

There's no question that his style, which was already cautious, has suffered as he's aged. Yeah he's a geriatric wonder just to be still fighting world class competition, but he obviously can't step on the gas like he used to. If he could, the hype golem named Jermain Taylor would have been Echolsed and sent back to bagging groceries in Little Rock.

Bottom line, when you watch Hopkins, you know that in his prime (1999-2001) he would be competitive in any era of middleweights. Sure he'd be in extremely tough with Hagler, Monzon, etc., but you can't say those wouldn't have been classic fights. If it makes me crazy to be a fan of that caliber of fighter, hey, so be it.

 

What he did to Tito is enough for me.

 

It was for me as well til he owned Tarver

 

Because he's a real class act. That and his excellent record.

How would it not affect your view on him?

 

He didnt lose to Taylor except in the eyes of incompetant or corrupt judges we all have our own opinion which they are
:bbb :bbb