If You Knock Bernard Hopkins For His Biggest Wins at 160lbs being Against Welters..

[acb]

Why not mention that Hagglers wins fighting amonst the fab 4 were against fighters who started in smaller weight classes also? SRL and Hearns met at 147lbs and Durans best years were at 135lbs? I do realize that Hearns and Duran fit the weight better in the long run due to the frame of Hearns and fighting ability of Duran, but Im a little tired of this being the calling card for the Bernard haters out there.

His longevity at 160lbs and his recent accomplishments outside of 160lbs should AT least have him in the same conversation as Haggler, unlike what many here would tell you.

Look at his biggest wins. Winky, Tarver, Trinidad, and DLH. Imagine if he adds Calzaghe. :hey

[acb]

an undefeated Glen Johnson who was never stopped b4 is a pretty good win

Indeed, as is Echols twice. :yep

[Amsterdam]

Why not mention that Hagglers wins fighting amonst the fab 4 were against fighters who started in smaller weight classes also? SRL and Hearns met at 147lbs and Durans best years were at 135lbs? I do realize that Hearns and Duran fit the weight better in the long run due to the frame of Hearns and fighting ability of Duran, but Im a little tired of this being the calling card for the Bernard haters out there.

His longevity at 160lbs and his recent accomplishments outside of 160lbs should AT least have him in the same conversation as Haggler, unlike what many here would tell you.

Look at his biggest wins. Winky, Tarver, Trinidad, and DLH. Imagine if he adds Calzaghe. :hey

If he beat Calzaghe at this point, after Calzaghe comes off of annihilating his "heir to the throne" at SMW in Kessler, then Hopkins is a top 5 ATG without a doubt, that would be absolutley phenominal.

[acb]

If he beat Calzaghe at this point, after Calzaghe comes off of annihilating his "heir to the throne" at SMW in Kessler, then Hopkins is a top 5 ATG without a doubt, that would be absolutley phenominal.

It would! And imagine if he stepped away from the game after beating Calzaghe and never fought again.

[Silver]

some of monzon big wins came vs. welters like napoles and griffith.

[acb]

1. Learn how to spell Hagler first, so you dont sound like a 4th grade Hopkins ball licker.

2. His longevity at 160 was mostly defending the worthless IBF belt. And about 4 wins over Robert "The Loser" Allen.

I dont know what is stupider, your first comment or your second. Guess I will just go with both. :yep

For you to hate Bernard this much, based on the fact that he is a business parter of DLH, means you have problems. Post about it in the lounge, they give good advice there sometimes. :deal

By the way Hagggler was a great fighter but I have Bernard right up there with him.

[Amsterdam]

It would! And imagine if he stepped away from the game after beating Calzaghe and never fought again.

Well, it would be one of the finest careers ever ACB, Calzaghe will blow Kessler out of the water, which will cement him as the undefeated, greatest SMW fighter of all time...

Even though Joe's 35, he'd still be ranked as the best current and the best all time at 168, so a Bernard win there makes him a top 5 ATG in my opinion, it'd be really hard to top a crazy resume like that.

Though, I think he'd struggle to win even a few rounds against Joe at this point, but prime/prime it'd be a real toss up in 12 rounder, but Hopkins would clearly win or stop Joe late in a 15...

[acb]

I wonder which lapdoggie jumps faster to fetch Oscar a fresh cup of coffee at the GBP meetings, Bernard or Sugar?

Barrera. He is smaller and moves quicker. Bernard is getting old and Sugar always gets coffee for his wife first. :hey

[Zakman]

Exactly. If people criticize Hopkins for getting wins against fighters moving up, they HAVE to apply that same critique to Hagler, and particularly Monzon - who not only beat guys moving up, but beat them when they were past their best.

[PeterNielsen70]

I give him credit for beating Trinidad and De La Hoya, even if they were the same size Hopkins would have beat them both because he is simply better skilled. But alot of the time people give De La Hoya an excuse for being a smaller fighter and getting KO'd, those same fans turn around and won't give the same excuse to Trinidad. They come up with scientific excuses on how Oscar was smaller and Tito was not which is pure bull shit. We either give Hopkins credit for both or discredit both, and I choose to give him credit for being better than both of those guy's.:hi:

I'll give him credit for being bigger than both. It was also primarily his physical strengh that awarded him the victory in last nights wrestling match. :bbb

[acb]

I'll give him credit for being bigger than both. It was also primarily his physical strengh that awarded him the victory in last nights wrestling match. :bbb

See this is bullshit. So basically you give him no credit for his wins against ODH, Trinidad, or Wright.

Was it his physical strength that gave him his win against Tarver also? :hey

[enquirer]

All haglers smaller fighter were true p4p atgs and all of them won the middle title and two won titles at lt heavy....oscar was past his prime and crap at middle.....Tito was ok but technically limited at middle......Hearns,leonard and duran were all relatively young and live contendors at middle.....
Monzon oppposition against smaller guys were once again both true atgs,one who won the middle title and the other who was a much better welter than oscar or tito and a p4p atg.....(napoles and griffith.)
Also b-hop is/was genuinely bigger than de la hoya and trinidad as we have the day before weigh in and the fact bernard is big enough to be a lt heavy.....We cant say that about hagler nor monzon really....
Duran,hearns and leonard fought at higher weights than marvins 160 ,de la hoya and trinidad will never be successful above 160,and in fact were not that successful at 160,especially de la hoya...

[kg0208]

Oh, I penalize Hagler for it as well....to a certain degree, same as Hopkins. Especially for Duran, who was no where near his prime fighting weight.

The difference is this....Hopkins started his first fight at 175. Hagler did not. No big deal, but I think Hopkins was a bigger MW than even Hagler.

Trinidad started at 140 (briefly I believe) and came up to as far as 160. DLH started at 135, went down to 130, came up to 160 for 2 fights at his highest, and to most people lost both fights.

With Haglers opponents, Duran fits the DLH pattern. He is simply a better fighter than DLH and therefore Haglers win rates higher.

Hearns started closer to Trinidad's weight. He is also a better fighter than Trinidad. On top of this, Hearns went all the way to LHW to win titles. He was a huge WW. He was bigger than Trinidad. More credit there as well.

I don't judge them differently....they both have big wins over smaller fighters. But my arguments have been in judging Hopkins vs Jones. And Jones beat men BIGGER than himself for most of his big wins.

[quintonjacksonfan]

Don't forget Hopkins lost to the two best middlewight he fought Jones and
Taylor. He clearly lost to Taylor get over it

[warchild]

Agree.

Hagler....Hearns(147, 154), Duran(135, 147, 154), Mugabi(154)

Monzon....Napoles(147)

Hopkins....Trinidad(147, 154, 160), Brown(147, 154), Oscar(130, 135, 140, 147, 154), Wright(154)

Part of becoming a great champion is taking on all challengers, no matter were they come from.

[KO Boxing]

I agree somewhat.

Thomas Hearns ended up winning a light-heavy belt. Sugar Ray Leonard ended up winning a Super middleweight belt. And even Duran won a middleweight belt, and is arguably a top 5 all time fighter.

Out of all Hopkins "smaller" guys, none of them could hold the extra weight properly (barring possibly Trinidad), hence why none of them have won a title at middleweight or above (barring Trinidad against Joppy; and if you wanna count Dela Hoya-Sturm).

I also think fighting Wright at 170 isn't the same accomplishment as if he fought Wright at 160.

And of course the other fact that Duran, Leonard and Hearns are Top 20 all time p4p fighters, where Dela Hoya, Trinidad and Wright are not.

Hopkins is certainly up there with Hagler, however. Although Hagler did win the undisputed title in his first title win, and made 14 defences of that undisputed title. Whereas Hopkins won the vacated IBF middleweight title (that he lost to Roy Jones earlier) from a nobody and made a few non-descript title defences for a number of years.

Hagler's the greatest middleweight of all time for me.

[Thread Stealer]

Hagler fought a better slew of middleweights on the road to the title than Hopkins, which is the main reason why I'd probably rank him a little higher on an all-time middleweight list than Hopkins.

Hopkins jumped two divisions though, to beat the Ring light-heavyweight champion in Milkdud.

I really wouldn't argue too much with either guy being ranked above the other, it's just that I don't think either should be considered greater by a real wide margin.

[Toopretty]

I rank Roy and James toney higher than calzaghe for all time 168 guys...thats just me...

[Jinx]

Indeed, as is Echols twice. :yep

and that was during a time when Echols was the biggest puncher in the division...Joppy and Holmes decided cheerfully not to mention Echols' name...i think we know what would've happened...

[teetop]

What gets me about nard is that he clinched and held all fight and gets praised by these idiot posters on here. Whereas hatton does it for 4 rounds against urango and he's dubbed mini-ruiz. Fuck hopkins!
He'll get his ass handed to him by calzaghe.

[Zakman]

Don't forget Hopkins lost to the two best middlewight he fought Jones and
Taylor. He clearly lost to Taylor get over it

Hopkins did NOT "clearly" lose to that HBO-hype job Taylor. He "lost" two VERY debatable decisions, and has since proven what a joke those two GIFTS for Taylor were. :nod

[JMotrain]

Hopkins did NOT "clearly" lose to that HBO-hype job Taylor. He "lost" two VERY debatable decisions, and has since proven what a joke those two GIFTS for Taylor were. :nod
Yeah I thought the first fight was a draw and the second fight Bhop edged Taylor. You can make an argument for Taylor losing to Cory Stinks, and BHop just beat the FAR better JMW in Winky Wright. Stinks vs. Bhop when Bhop was 26 years old, that would be a massacre :yep

[istmeno]

Hagler fought a better slew of middleweights on the road to the title than Hopkins, which is the main reason why I'd probably rank him a little higher on an all-time middleweight list than Hopkins.

Hopkins jumped two divisions though, to beat the Ring light-heavyweight champion in Milkdud.

I really wouldn't argue too much with either guy being ranked above the other, it's just that I don't think either should be considered greater by a real wide margin.

mix in the fact that hagler cleared out a very good middleweight division long before he fought the smaller fighters who were all atg fighters.

being objective rate haglers best wins, against hopkins best. at 160 and you will see why marvelous is rightfully viewed in a better light.

scypion, minter antofuermo, hamsho x2, briscoe. give me 5 hopkins fights against decent competiton without using the smaller fighters.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Exactly. If people criticize Hopkins for getting wins against fighters moving up, they HAVE to apply that same critique to Hagler, and particularly Monzon - who not only beat guys moving up, but beat them when they were past their best.


The Napoles win is hardly ever mentioned as a top win for Monzon becuase he didn't do anything at middleweight. The likes of Griffith and Benvenuti proved themselves at 160 time and time again, unlike Oscar and Felix. No comparison.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Hopkins did NOT "clearly" lose to that HBO-hype job Taylor. He "lost" two VERY debatable decisions, and has since proven what a joke those two GIFTS for Taylor were. :nod


What, by wanting to face Taylor again? Only an idiot thinks the second fight was a gift. And Hopkins hardly set the world alight in the first contest.

[Illmatic]

Haglers untouchable on this board. According to everyone Mugabi is an all time great, Leonard lost by 7 rounds, and Duran was prime when Hagler beat him.

[BobbyFalk]

People will ALWAYS have this argument
My opinion is- fighters fight FIGHTERS. regardless of weight

Hagler wanted to fight the best in/around his weight, which includes 147-168, etc.. same with Hopkins
you gotta fight everyone..
the best available-
true, Bernard defended that IBF belt 20 times, but he fought some pretty good fighters in there- 20 times without a loss against SOLID fighters, period:

WILLIAM JOPPY
GLEN JOHNSON
FELIX TRINIDAD
ANTWAN ECHOLS twice
SYD VANDERPOOL
FELIX TRINIDAD
HOWARD EASTMAN
OSCAR DE LA HOYA
SEGUNDO MERCADO

that's a pretty good list of solid fighters he defended against
He also beat Tarver and Wright later on in his career, and has a chance to beat RJJ and Calzaghe still.
I've never understood the argument about fighting blown-up welterweights, junior middleweights, etc..

[kg0208]

Haglers untouchable on this board. According to everyone Mugabi is an all time great, Leonard lost by 7 rounds, and Duran was prime when Hagler beat him.

I don't recall anyone saying these things. No one is untouchable on this board....not even SRR.

[enquirer]

Hagler would have easily beaten de la hoya,trinidad,johnson and winky,probably tarver as well.....Do you think b-hop would easily beat hearns,duran and leonard????? I think that answers who has the better opposition and who is the better boxer....

[Lupe]

Hagler would have easily beaten de la hoya,trinidad,johnson and winky,probably tarver as well.....Do you think b-hop would easily beat hearns,duran and leonard????? I think that answers who has the better opposition and who is the better boxer....

Exactly what I said on the other thread.

[TheGreat]

Taylor gets alot of shit for fighting smaller guys so it's only fair.

[acb]

Hagler would have easily beaten de la hoya,trinidad,johnson and winky,probably tarver as well.....Do you think b-hop would easily beat hearns,duran and leonard????? I think that answers who has the better opposition and who is the better boxer....

Yes I favor a 160lb Bernard over a 160lb Duran. :yep

And um, Hagler didnt beat Leonard, remember? Not easily, not at all.

[Sonny Carson]

You can't knock Hopkins for his biggest wins being against Trinidad and De La Hoya. You can't knock Hagler's biggest wins being Duran and Hearns(shoulda been Leonard). You can't knock Monzon's biggest wins being against Napoles and Griffith. Those guy's were all great fighter's. You can however knock Jermain Taylor for fighting Ouma and Spinks.

[Morrissey]

bump.

i am bored. Just keep browsing old threads hehe..

[jc]

All long reigning champ would have beaten guys moving up at some point in their career, it not unusual at all. And you cant blame Hop or Hag for fighting lighter guy when you consider who those lighter guys were. Tito was a middleweight champ himself as was DLH although contraversially and they were biggest names at the time,,,Hopkins - Tito was for the unified undisputed title and DLH is the biggest name in boxing.

In fact I would say every champion who reigned for a reasonable amount of time has defended against a guy who has fought at a lower weight division.

Im struggling to think of one that didint... :huh

[Jack]

I often bring up Hagler's comparison, and you are failig to see the big picture.

The light weight guys opkins fought achieved absolutely nothing at the weight Hopkins fought them at. We're talking, combined, the best win the lot have is a mockery of a decision over Sturm and a win over Joppy by Trinidad. That list of opponents achieved nothing at the weight they faced Hopkins at. Undeniable fact.

However, the people Monzon and Hagler faced actually proved themselves to be capabale fighters at middleweight. Not only were they better fighters in the smaller divisions, but they also proved themselves at middleweight level.

Hopkins and Monzon beat smaller guys who proved themselves at middlweight. Hopkins didn't. Therefore, you cannot act like people are hypocrites as there is an obvious difference in the two cases.

[jc]

Well the Sturm fight may have been contraversial but Tito was a legit WBA champ, beating Joppy who was a very good middleweight, he went on to be ranked number 2 a long time before Hopkins beat him, very underestimated fighter.

Hopkins problem was that he didnt have a glamourous middleweight division, where he was so much better than everybody else. This is a problem with a lot of long reigning Champs, Marciano, Ali, Louis, tyson all knocked over guys who fought at light heavyweight.

All long reigning champs have fought guys naturally smaller than them. In fact I think they have to to make the most amount of money.

Lets not forget Hopkins has gone onto win the world title at 175...

[Vantage_West]

can i just mention haglers size.

he wasnt a big man most of his opponant were taller than him and were atg already even if they were 13 pounds below. anyways most of these guys won titles at higher wiegths after.

hearns went to supermiddle and light heavy
ray leonard fought at supermiddlewieght and fought a natural light heavy
duran beat iran barkley and was stationed at middlewieght till his 50's

none of hopkins opponants can do that none could get over the middlewieght barrior.

also i would like to mention what a speed bump the middlewieght division is. people can be succesful from around super-feather to jnr-middle but middlewieghts natural hieght is 6ft while jnr middles are 5'10....thats a big difference it is very hard to campiegn at that wiegth from welter to jnr middle.

[jc]

none of hopkins opponants can do that none could get over the middlewieght barrior.

.

Glen Johnson went on to fight a 168 title and won the 175lb championship, Vanderpool, Echols all competed at 168 aswel, and Tarver was reigning Ring Chanp at light heavy when Hopkins beat him.

he is also in line to face the reigning super middleweight champ in Calzaghe in a defence of his light heavyweight title, well, in theory anyway.

[SgrRyLeonard]

If Trinidad was the naturally smaller man, why was he favored to beat Hopkins? Too many people are saying that AFTER the fact.

[Vantage_West]

Glen Johnson went on to fight a 168 title and won the 175lb championship, Vanderpool, Echols all competed at 168 aswel, and Tarver was reigning Ring Chanp at light heavy when Hopkins beat him.

he is also in line to face the reigning super middleweight champ in Calzaghe in a defence of his light heavyweight title, well, in theory anyway.i phrased it wrong
i was saying tito oscar and winky wouldnt of been as competative at these higher wieghts.

comparing them to haglers top 2 of leonard, hearns and duran

[KhanB]

Okay, i'll admit Hearns had a right to be feared at MW cuz he knocked out
Duran like that, but what had Leonard done to be considered at legit MW
contender when he fought Hagler? And Trinidad was at least as legit when
he fought Hopkins as Mugabi was when he went up to 160 to fight Hagler.
A lot of people were shocked at how great Tito looked when he knocked
out Joppy like that and actually started to look past Hopkins and prepare
for a Jones fight. Also, Hopkins has also fought more bigger men than Hagler
like Johnson, Vanderpool, Echols 2X, and Tarver.

[klion22]

Everyone moves up in weight as they age. I can understand the DLH win as being discredited as that was not his natural weight. Besides, everyone knew DLH had no shot. DLH just did it for the money as he did it for the money against PBF.

But if a guy is moving up in weight naturally and the champ beats him, that should not be discredited. It's when a guy goes out of his way to jump in weight that you have to take with a grain of salt. So that's why i think Tito and Tarver are huge wins while Wright and DLH wins are a bit less credible. If not credible, a lot less impressive than Tito and Tarver.

[klion22]

If Trinidad was the naturally smaller man, why was he favored to beat Hopkins? Too many people are saying that AFTER the fact.

It's because they lack objectivity and can't see both sides of the story. If i'm not mistaken, Tito was like a 4:1 favorite.

[klion22]

You can't knock Hopkins for his biggest wins being against Trinidad and De La Hoya. You can't knock Hagler's biggest wins being Duran and Hearns(shoulda been Leonard). You can't knock Monzon's biggest wins being against Napoles and Griffith. Those guy's were all great fighter's. You can however knock Jermain Taylor for fighting Ouma and Spinks.

Exactly!

The difference with Ouma and Spinks was that they jumped up in weight just for this fight and then moved back down. In those instances, it's harder to give Taylor for those wins because he didn't fight those guys at their best weight.

But the other instances, the guys naturally filled out and the weight they fought at was their natural weight. People talk as if everyone stays at the same weight class their whole careers.

[jc]

i phrased it wrong
i was saying tito oscar and winky wouldnt of been as competative at these higher wieghts.

comparing them to haglers top 2 of leonard, hearns and duran

Hop still cant be slagged off because of his comp as he did fight the best guy at the time. There was not a bigger fight in the middleweight division when both the Tito and DLH fights took place.

They may not be as good a Leonard, Hearns etc but youve got to beat whats in front of you.

[dodong]

Most of the people that have been discounting BHops big wins anyway are Calzaghe's groupies with their out in the open agenda. Tear down Hopkins record so as to make it look like their hero's record is comparable.

Bottom line, Hopkins resume can stand on it's own. Calzaghe's resume needs to be propped up masseurs to massage the truth.