Paul Berlenbach vs. B-Hop

[dempseyfire]

Klomp, you are picking apart Strib and Berlenbach's Ws (and seem to love to bash any 1920s era fighter not named Greb), but why no similar treatment of Bernard? That was one of the original points of the thread. From a historical standpoint, Hopkins's light heavyweight resume is pure crap in terms of calibre of opposition. I can't see any other era in which he would be winning the title in his late 40s.

[klompton]

Im not picking them apart Im just laying out why they arent the supermen you seem to think they are.

[Ambling Alp II]

Klomp, you are picking apart Strib and Berlenbach's Ws (and seem to love to bash any 1920s era fighter not named Greb), but why no similar treatment of Bernard? That was one of the original points of the thread. From a historical standpoint, Hopkins's light heavyweight resume is pure crap in terms of calibre of opposition. I can't see any other era in which he would be winning the title in his late 40s.

My thoughts exactly. He and seyna are nitpicking his opponents career (which you can do with anyone) and keep ignoring Hopkins lack of quality wins. Over and over they keep doing this. They keep ducking the major point is that Berlanbach's best wins were much more impressive than Hopkins.

[klompton]

Actually, again, im not. im pointing out that berlenbachs best wins were not that great. youd know that if you did some research on the era instead if just picking glossy names off his record.

[Senya13]

What does this have to do with Hopkins, anyway? I didn't even mention him. You could choose any other light heavyweight for this matchup, my thoughts about Stribling not being an ATG wouldn't change.

[Ambling Alp II]

What does it have to do with Hopkins? Seriously? We have been talking about this since the thread is titled"Berlanbach vs Hopkins". A point that I (and others)have made is that Berlanbach's opponents were far superior to Hopkin's. From there, Berlanbach's best wins have been blown off.

If you want to, you can't pick apart anyone's record. It's not that difficult. However, if you take a balanced approach and look at the whole of someone's career, you can tell if a win over him is a big deal or not.

However, if you just to nitpick someone's record, it's pretty easy and you can do it with anyone. I will give you an example:

This just in: Sugar Ray Robinson must not have been that good. Look at the best fighters that he beat: LaMotta, Gavilan,Angott, Fullmer, Basilio etc. It turns out that they all lost to other fighters. Therefore Robinson's wins over them don't mean much. Also, just ignore all of LaMotta's Gavilan's Angotts, Fullmer, Basilio's big wins or just make excuses for their opponents.

[klompton]

What does it have to do with Hopkins? Seriously? We have been talking about this since the thread is titled"Berlanbach vs Hopkins". A point that I (and others)have made is that Berlanbach's opponents were far superior to Hopkin's. From there, Berlanbach's best wins have been blown off.

If you want to, you can't pick apart anyone's record. It's not that difficult. However, if you take a balanced approach and look at the whole of someone's career, you can tell if a win over him is a big deal or not.

However, if you just to nitpick someone's record, it's pretty easy and you can do it with anyone. I will give you an example:

This just in: Sugar Ray Robinson must not have been that good. Look at the best fighters that he beat: LaMotta, Gavilan,Angott, Fullmer, Basilio etc. It turns out that they all lost to other fighters. Therefore Robinson's wins over them don't mean much. Also, just ignore all of LaMotta's Gavilan's Angotts, Fullmer, Basilio's big wins or just make excuses for their opponents.

And this is a silly comment because you it shows just how ignorant you are of the era. Berlenbach's resume is pretty thin by the standards of that day and today. He has some recognizable names on his record, which is what you keep trying to attach your argument to, but when you actually educate yourself on the circumstances of those fights you realize that even those wins arent that great. As I said, when it boils down to your best win being against Young Stribling it really says a lot about the lack of depth to your resume. To say that resume is FAR superior to Hopkins shows a complete lack of knowledge of the context which is all important to this argument. As I said you are simply looking at a record and picking out names you recognize. There is more to Berlenbach's record than just names.

[Senya13]

Once again, what does my post about Young Stribling have to do with either Hopkins or Berlenbach? Just because this thread is about their matchup, doesn't mean you can use Hopkins as an argument that Young Stribling is an ATG, these two things are not connected anyhow.

[Chuck1052]

Paul Berlenbach was a world-class fighter for only about three or four years before going downhill very quickly while Bernard Hopkins has been one for about twenty. It may be that Berlenbach could beat Hopkins in a bout, but does that make him better? Jermain Taylor beat Hopkins twice, but he is another fighter who was world-class for a few years.
So many great fighters faced inferior opponents who gave them fits, but that was often due to bad matchups, much like Muhammad Ali vs. Ken Norton.

- Chuck Johnston

[klompton]

yes, and this is the point. the guys who did beat hopkins (and i dont consider taylo one of them) fought nothing like berlenbach.

[klompton]

You are talking about light heavyweights today who weigh a good twenty pounds more than Berlenbach. Berlenbach wasnt even a big light heavyweight by the standards of his era. In fact he moved up to light heavyweight, much like Delaney, because the path to a championship was much easier at that weight. For most of his prime he was easily weighing in the mid to high 160s and low 170s. In his last fight, at 32 years old he weighed 171. He was also three or four inches shorter than Hopkins so comparing Berlenbach to the guys Hopkins is fighting now (at nearly 50 years old) who would have been heavyweights in that era is poor comparison. Furthermore, when Berlenbach actually stepped up his competition and was fighting real, live contenders and champions take a look at just how paralyzing Paralyzing Paul was. Not very. Short of Slattery, who had just been sparked by a welterweight, what top contenders or champions did he knock out? Hes not going to be bringing anything to the table that Hopkins hasnt seen and he isnt going to have any discernable advantages in size, or strength over Hopkins particularly not compared to the big guys a past it Hopkins is supposedly having trouble with today. The bottom line is that the guys Hopkins has faced that fought most like Berlenbach Hopkins has defeated. The guys Berlenbach faced who fought most like Hopkins beat Berlenbach. I think most on here know Ive got a lot more respect for the fighters of the 10s and 20s than most but this is one of those matchups that would be poison to Berlenbach and thats not based on preference its based on a ton of research into Berlenbach and having seen all of Hopkins available fights. I dont think any version of Berlenbach beats the worst version of Hopkins (which we are seeing now). Prime vs prime its about the easiest pick I can think of. Hopkins would win the fight going away. Id bet everything I own it and would sleep like a baby the night before the fight. Thats how confident I am that Berlenbach would be beaten.

[Ambling Alp II]

Whatever.