BoxRec

I've heard some say that Bernard may be one of the great LHW's.

I thought I was hallucinating, but no....it was said.

What do YOU think?

BoxBuzz wrote:I've heard some say that Bernard may be one of the great LHW's.

I thought I was hallucinating, but no....it was said.

What do YOU think?

I suppose that will all depend on whether he can win tomorrow night or not.

I know that answer is ridiculous unto itself, but at age fifty going against a presumably superior opponent in almost every regard, nearly thirty years his junior--- says volumes. Very few people I've seen are giving BHop much of a chance in this, saying he'll either be kayoed or he'll foul himself out or he will quit on his stool.

For me, win or lose, Hopkins will be our generation's Archie Moore because of what's accomplished over such a long period of time. I don't know if I can name a more consistent fighter than him, in my life time. He's fought the highest level of opposition, over the longest period of time, of any fighter in the passed thirty years. He's easily one of the top 10 middleweight greats, he's easily one of the pound for pound greats--- but as far as his legacy at 175, I just don't know. If he beats Kovalev tomorrow night, then we will have to say all-around he was the best 175 pounder in the world and probably the second best LHW of the passed thirty years--- the first being Jones; though I will argue the point that legacy wise, I hold higher to a greater regard than I do Roy.

I guess back in the day the weigh in times make Hopkins a Light-heavy.

Nobody is ever really going to trounce Hopkins because of the way he fights. I can't see him beating these two gents but I see him making it close.

As crafty as Bhop is, he gets KOd by these two guys. He doesn't win one in five vs either man IMO.

HomicideHenry wrote:I suppose that will all depend on whether he can win tomorrow night or not.
I know that answer is ridiculous unto itself

It is. Consider all of Hopkins' achievement in boxing - all those fights against tough opposition - all those World Titles that he won and lost... His legacy will come down to much, much more than his fight last weekend against Kovalev.

As a matter of fact, that fight will probably just be a footnote in boxing history when future boxing fans look back at him and his distinguished record.

HomicideHenry wrote:but at age fifty going against a presumably superior opponent in almost every regard, nearly thirty years his junior--- says volumes.

It does indeed. And it would be better if we had more fighters like him - and I mean fighters who deliberately seek out the toughest opponents, not guys continuing to fight in their 40s.

I have a lot of respect for Hopkins, but he really has two options vs a prime Moore and Charles . . .stink it out and survive, or try to win and get knocked out.

I think more inquisitively minded fans of the future will struggle to find any value in his long middleweight reign. He sprung some surprises at light-heavy and thrived with his toughness, fitness, shameless spoiling, and a bag of old-fashioned tricks that was boosted by the technical rot of the modern fighter's technique.

Everything B-Hop does was commonplace in the era of Charles and Moore. I don't see what he can do to surprise or frustrate ring geniuses. At best he loses a very wide decision. At best.

Tuan_Jim wrote:I think more inquisitively minded fans of the future will struggle to find any value in his long middleweight reign.

In my view that is a tremendously unfair statement. If we are to focus in and just consider Bernard's Middleweight career, then I don't see how you can rate it as anything other than "highly successful". And I would stand by that assessment regardless of any criteria that you are judging it on.

Let's say we look at his World Middleweight Title(s) reign from April 1995 to July 2005, that encompasses at TEN YEAR period in which he never lost or drew a single fight. Additionally defeating the likes of; Glen Johnson, Simon Brown, Keith Holmes, Felix Trinidad & Oscar De La Hoya consistently is definitely something in which boxing fans should be in awe of.

But for me, his greatest achievement was seeking out and unifying all four of the World Titles, that is something special when you consider all the great fighters of the past thirty years - and that NONE of them have ever done it. Not Floyd Mayweather, nor Manny Pacquaio, nor De La Hoya himself, nor Pernell Whitaker, nor Sugar Ray Leonard.

It's something to his credit, that no-one can ever taken away from him.

Eh, title unification is as much about boxing politics as wanting to fight the best. Title unifications in this day and age in and of itself to me doesn't mean much.

That all said, Hopkins middleweight reign wasn't devoid of solid wins . . .Trinidad, Johnson, Jackson, Eastman etc. were decent victories. But historically, it's incredibly paltry. Many non-champions like Joey Archer have middleweight resumes that frankly sh^& all over Bernard's . . .heck, Bernard would maybe even concede as much.

Just an observation... But Hagler probably fought better contenders on his way up than he did in his title reign.

Ezzard wrote:Just an observation... But Hagler probably fought better contenders on his way up than he did in his title reign.

I would tend to disagree agree with that, Mr Ezzard. Theoretically when a boxer becomes World Champion, he reaches the top level on his weight division and should be fighting other boxers up there. I do recognize what Mr Demseyfire said;

dempseyfire wrote:Eh, title unification is as much about boxing politics as wanting to fight the best.

Boxing does suffer from the politics in the sport, but I do feel that the only way to squeeze it out of the sport is for top guys to meet top guys. And I'd say it's a s safe bet that Bernard did that.

Hop and Hagler both took on the best they could. They turned over all the stones. No criticism from me.

But Hagler defended almost entirely against limited MWs or boxers moving up. Lee, Scypion, Sibson, Obelmejias x2, Hamsho x2... all good but but Watts, Briscoe, Finnegan x2, Monroe x3, Hart, Colbert... Marvin really had to earn that title shot (those title shots).

Crease wrote:Let's say we look at his World Middleweight Title(s) reign from April 1995 to July 2005, that encompasses at TEN YEAR period in which he never lost or drew a single fight. Additionally defeating the likes of; Glen Johnson, Simon Brown, Keith Holmes, Felix Trinidad & Oscar De La Hoya consistently is definitely something in which boxing fans should be in awe of.

But for me, his greatest achievement was seeking out and unifying all four of the World Titles, that is something special when you consider all the great fighters of the past thirty years - and that NONE of them have ever done it. Not Floyd Mayweather, nor Manny Pacquaio, nor De La Hoya himself, nor Pernell Whitaker, nor Sugar Ray Leonard.

Strange spin on Hopkins as a middle. Johnson was a good win in hindsight, but the Jamaican was far from the well-rounded fighter he became years later at light-heavy. Brown and Oscar DLH were fattened welterweights with no business being in a middleweight title fight - you honestly regard those as big wins? Really? Trinidad was his best result because Tito had shrugged off Joppy's shots - a bonafide middle - and annihilated him with a major show of power. A good win and one Hopkins was at the time expected to lose.

The fact is 1995-2001 Hopkins was just another titlist. You can't (or shouldn't) retroactively crown him the undisputed champion simply because it is convenient or bolsters your case. He wasn't the king of the division, nor was he regarded as such. Those of us watching him at the time actually wondered whether he was ever going to fight somebody. He seemed disinclined to pursue the other champs, or a rematch with Roy Jones, or anybody. And remember, he was thrust into that 2001 unification by King/HBO as feed for Felix Trinidad. He wasn't expected to win.

So yes he was a champion for a long time, in a very weak division - while his natural rivals were off in search of proper challenges. Roy Jones, without going into the frustration of his career choices, was at least bashing light-heavyweights! To use Hopkins' inclusion of the WBO belt in his collection as some sort of icing on the cake really makes me wonder how much you know about this era. Leonard was fading by the time the WBO were created, and their titles were irrelevant while Whitaker was at his peak. Why on earth would Sweet Pea care about it? It's no surprise the great fighters of "the past 30 years" haven't unified with the WBO, when the WBO hasn't even existed 30 years.

Hopkins' middleweight reign is NO better than Calzaghe's supermiddleweight WBO reign. At all.

Crease wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:I suppose that will all depend on whether he can win tomorrow night or not.
I know that answer is ridiculous unto itself

It is. Consider all of Hopkins' achievement in boxing - all those fights against tough opposition - all those World Titles that he won and lost... His legacy will come down to much, much more than his fight last weekend against Kovalev.

As a matter of fact, that fight will probably just be a footnote in boxing history when future boxing fans look back at him and his distinguished record.

HomicideHenry wrote:but at age fifty going against a presumably superior opponent in almost every regard, nearly thirty years his junior--- says volumes.

It does indeed. And it would be better if we had more fighters like him - and I mean fighters who deliberately seek out the toughest opponents, not guys continuing to fight in their 40s.

The question was, where does he fit among the ATG's at LHW? Not his overall legacy.

I said, justly, that it depends on what he would of accomplished against Kovalev (had he won). Because, one will say he didn't really accomplish much at LHW other than being the oldest person to win a title. Which that is a great feat that may never be broken. Because of what happened, losing every round the way that he did, is either a tesament to Hopkins toughness and defense--- or its an indictment on Kovalev to being more hyped than he actually is worth.

For Hopkins to regain some sort of merit or status among the ATG's at the weight, he would have to defeat someone else of equal worth and ability--- GGG, Ward--- or he could bypass LHW altogether and go Cruiserweight and try and pick up another title and elevate his status all the more.

Tomasino wrote:As crafty as Bhop is, he gets KOd by these two guys. He doesn't win one in five vs either man IMO.

I'd bet that Hopkins loses but I'd bet more that he doesn't get stopped .

Riddick Blowe wrote:Hopkins' middleweight reign is NO better than Calzaghe's supermiddleweight WBO reign. At all.

Othro wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:Hopkins' middleweight reign is NO better than Calzaghe's supermiddleweight WBO reign. At all.

Convince me otherwise then, buddy. This is going to be fun.

Nah, I'll start.

Kessler, Brewer, Reid, Lacy, Mitchell, Bika, and some gimmees.

Johnson, Echols, Holmes, Trinidad, Joppy, Eastman, and some gimmees.

No better whatsoever.

RB...

When I read it I thought that's ridiculous. I checked the records and there's not that much in it. I still think Hopkins takes it but the margin isn't what I thought it would be.

Ezzard wrote:RB...

When I read it I thought that's ridiculous. I checked the records and there's not that much in it. I still think Hopkins takes it but the margin isn't what I thought it would be.

Kessler as Calzaghe's best win in that reign was much more of a threat to Joe than a blown-up Trinidad was to Hopkins, which is arguably Bernard's best win at middle. OK, it's kind of a retrospective view given Tito was the favourite going in, but it turned out as one-sided as Calzaghe/Lacy.

The rest of the guys they beat, aside from the dodos they beat (William Bo James, Carl the Squirrel, Morrade Hakkar, Tocker Pud, Will McIntyre etc etc) were just random solid ABC titlists. Reid, Echols, Holmes, Brewer, Mitchell, Joppy. There's little to choose between any of them. Absolutely no reason to value Hopkins' reign higher, yet so many people do for some odd reason.

I think they key is that Hop managed to pick up all the belts. Joe had a go at it later on.

Ezzard wrote:Joe had a go at it later on.

Yep, he picked up another belt when he beat Lacy and a third when he beat Kessler. Just like Hop did when he beat Holmes and Tito. Counting a win for the WBO bauble over a bloated Oscar who had lost to Felix Sturm in his previous fight doesn't cut it for me.

DLH fight was a really just a carnival. Trinidad...to this day I don't see why people thought he was going to win. But so many did that it can't be totally ignored.

Ezzard wrote:I think they key is that Hop managed to pick up all the belts. Joe had a go at it later on.

Agreed Joe did extremely well toward the end of his career when he moved up in weight and beat Hopkins & Jones Jr. But in my view, there's still a case of the "Joe missed the bus and played it safe" factor still going on when I assess his career.