Hopkins 5 best opponents

First topic message reminder :

List Hopkins 5 best opponents, not wins. Then note which of those he won and lost.

My 5

1. a) Roy Jones Jr. LOST
b) Joe Calzaghe LOST
3. Felix Trinidad. WON
4. Jermain Taylor. LOST
5. Antoinio Tarver. WON

Top 25 ATG stuff there...

HumanWindmill wrote:And Calzaghe would be considered greater if his resumé sported a Jones Junior who wasn't about to draw his old age pension.

Not with L KO1 next to it...

HumanWindmill wrote:

Green Giant wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Green Giant wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote: ATG status is dependant on what a fighter does, as opposed to what he does not do.

Sorry cant agree with this, if a fighter loses and he is in no way a shell of himself he should be judged for it. how this affects his legacy depends on the manner of the loss and who he fought.

Jack Johnson, ATG, was sparked by a lightheavy on the way up.

Jack Dempsey, ATG, was sparked by Jim Flynn in one round on the way up.

Joe Louis, ATG, was sparked by past - his - best Max Schmeling on the way up.

Henry Armstrong, ATG, had a very chequered career early on.

Sugar Ray Robinson, ATG, played ' pass the parcel ' with the middleweight crown during the fifties.

And they would be even greater if they didnt lose those fights.

And Calzaghe would be considered greater if his resumé sported a Jones Junior who wasn't about to draw his old age pension.

whats that got to do with anything?

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:And Calzaghe would be considered greater if his resumé sported a Jones Junior who wasn't about to draw his old age pension.

Not with L KO1 next to it...

Ha !

You do have a point, mate.

Green Giant wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Green Giant wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Green Giant wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote: ATG status is dependant on what a fighter does, as opposed to what he does not do.

Sorry cant agree with this, if a fighter loses and he is in no way a shell of himself he should be judged for it. how this affects his legacy depends on the manner of the loss and who he fought.

Jack Johnson, ATG, was sparked by a lightheavy on the way up.

Jack Dempsey, ATG, was sparked by Jim Flynn in one round on the way up.

Joe Louis, ATG, was sparked by past - his - best Max Schmeling on the way up.

Henry Armstrong, ATG, had a very chequered career early on.

Sugar Ray Robinson, ATG, played ' pass the parcel ' with the middleweight crown during the fifties.

And they would be even greater if they didnt lose those fights.

And Calzaghe would be considered greater if his resumé sported a Jones Junior who wasn't about to draw his old age pension.

whats that got to do with anything?

It has to do with my fundamental point that ATG status is secured by what a fighter does, as opposed to what he does not do.

Would have been a fascinating fight, with Jones winning a decision 116-112 / 117-111, I'd say.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Green Giant wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Green Giant wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Green Giant wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote: ATG status is dependant on what a fighter does, as opposed to what he does not do.

Sorry cant agree with this, if a fighter loses and he is in no way a shell of himself he should be judged for it. how this affects his legacy depends on the manner of the loss and who he fought.

Jack Johnson, ATG, was sparked by a lightheavy on the way up.

Jack Dempsey, ATG, was sparked by Jim Flynn in one round on the way up.

Joe Louis, ATG, was sparked by past - his - best Max Schmeling on the way up.

Henry Armstrong, ATG, had a very chequered career early on.

Sugar Ray Robinson, ATG, played ' pass the parcel ' with the middleweight crown during the fifties.

And they would be even greater if they didnt lose those fights.

And Calzaghe would be considered greater if his resumé sported a Jones Junior who wasn't about to draw his old age pension.

whats that got to do with anything?

It has to do with my fundamental point that ATG status is secured by what a fighter does, as opposed to what he does not do.

No it doesnt Hopkins will be judged and demoted for his losses to Taylor and Joe. A win over pascal shouldnt put him the top 25. Calzaghe status has nothing to do with this thread. his the worse excample to bring into it and was only done as a cheap attempt to discredit me instead of my argument.

I think Calzaghe would have knocked Jones out personally. Quick enough to tag that glass chin.

Green Giant wrote:Calzaghe status has nothing to do with this thread. his the worse excample to bring into it and was only done as a cheap attempt to discredit me instead of my argument.

I'm guessing that you are not blessed with the ability to read minds, in which case I urge you to refrain from presuming to know why I mentioned Calzaghe. Max Schmeling had nothing to do with the thread, either, but you didn't complain when I cited him as an example.

In boxing parlance my mentioning Calzaghe is perfectly valid in support of my initial point, and is in no way a ' cheap attempt to discredit ' you.

I am sure you are richly capable of doing so without my assistance.

With all due respect GG if you write a thread completely lacking in context that paints a completely one sided portrait of a fighter you can only expect to draw some flak, people such as myself as I did with Duran have proven how easy it is to undertake a similar exercise with other great fighters to make them look less than stellar, does my 1-4 demonstration with Duran prove he is rubbish, of course not because it is devoid of context, such as age, weight, how close the fights chosen were etc, as is yours.

Would also add an exercise like this is totally based on your opinion of a fighters best opponents, think most all would have to agree De La Hoya is one of Hopkins best five opponents, and so is potentially Johnson but these are excluded, I assume because one is not a natural middle and the other was pretty inexperienced but this is unfair as it applies context to exclude these whereas none appears to have been applied to decide who is added.

rowley wrote:With all due respect GG if you write a thread completely lacking in context that paints a completely one sided portrait of a fighter you can only expect to draw some flak, people such as myself as I did with Duran have proven how easy it is to undertake a similar exercise with other great fighters to make them look less than stellar, does my 1-4 demonstration with Duran prove he is rubbish, of course not because it is devoid of context, such as age, weight, how close the fights chosen were etc, as is yours.

Would also add an exercise like this is totally based on your opinion of a fighters best opponents, think most all would have to agree De La Hoya is one of Hopkins best five opponents, and so is potentially Johnson but these are excluded, I assume because one is not a natural middle and the other was pretty inexperienced but this is unfair as it applies context to exclude these whereas none appears to have been applied to decide who is added.

At no point in this thread has anyone posted their own Hopkins list to show disagreement. de la Hoya started at super featherweight and didnt belong at middlewieght. would you chose Oscar over Taylor at middleweight?

Your right context means everything but no one has defended Hopkins losses at all. Everyone has just posted silly lists and when ive discredited them they go on about joe calzaghe and some ridiculous notion that losses dont harm legacies.

rowley wrote:With all due respect GG if you write a thread completely lacking in context that paints a completely one sided portrait of a fighter you can only expect to draw some flak, people such as myself as I did with Duran have proven how easy it is to undertake a similar exercise with other great fighters to make them look less than stellar, does my 1-4 demonstration with Duran prove he is rubbish, of course not because it is devoid of context, such as age, weight, how close the fights chosen were etc, as is yours.

Would also add an exercise like this is totally based on your opinion of a fighters best opponents, think most all would have to agree De La Hoya is one of Hopkins best five opponents, and so is potentially Johnson but these are excluded, I assume because one is not a natural middle and the other was pretty inexperienced but this is unfair as it applies context to exclude these whereas none appears to have been applied to decide who is added.

Rowley, I think it is possible to simplify things with hopkins as he has had such a long 'prime'. In all fairness to Jolly he has probably listed Hopkins's 5 toughest tests.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Green Giant wrote:Calzaghe status has nothing to do with this thread. his the worse excample to bring into it and was only done as a cheap attempt to discredit me instead of my argument.

I'm guessing that you are not blessed with the ability to read minds, in which case I urge you to refrain from presuming to know why I mentioned Calzaghe. Max Schmeling had nothing to do with the thread, either, but you didn't complain when I cited him as an example.

In boxing parlance my mentioning Calzaghe is perfectly valid in support of my initial point, and is in no way a ' cheap attempt to discredit ' you.

I am sure you are richly capable of doing so without my assistance.

you used Max to show Louis is great despite losing to him.

Calzaghe not fighting a prime Jones has nothing to do with Hopkins greatness.

You know why you brought him up.

Green Giant wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Green Giant wrote:Calzaghe status has nothing to do with this thread. his the worse excample to bring into it and was only done as a cheap attempt to discredit me instead of my argument.

I'm guessing that you are not blessed with the ability to read minds, in which case I urge you to refrain from presuming to know why I mentioned Calzaghe. Max Schmeling had nothing to do with the thread, either, but you didn't complain when I cited him as an example.

In boxing parlance my mentioning Calzaghe is perfectly valid in support of my initial point, and is in no way a ' cheap attempt to discredit ' you.

I am sure you are richly capable of doing so without my assistance.

you used Max to show Louis is great despite losing to him.

Calzaghe not fighting a prime Jones has nothing to do with Hopkins greatness.

You know why you brought him up.

Yes, I do know why I brought him up, GG. He was a very good example to cite in support of my point. Were you less inclined to jump to conclusions, you might have asked my opinion of Calzaghe, and been surprised to know that I rate him greatest supermid of the lot.

Of course, losses damage legacies. However, I stand by my argument that such losses are minimized if the fighter in question has achieved a great deal on the positive side of his ledger.

To avoid irritating you, allow me to substitute Ottke for Calzaghe. Does his lossless record entitle him to a berth above Hopkins when we assess our ATG lists ?

Well it is all fairly subjective would argue that at the time he fought them nobody considered Taylor a harder fight than Pascal, Taylor was an unbeaten but largely unproven challenger, is on the subsequent result that makes it look a tough fight, whereas in Padscal he was facing a young champion who whatever his merits had just beaten Dawson to establish himself as the man at 175, couple that with the fact BHop was facing him at 45+ surely that was considered the tougher test before the event.

Genuinely think it is a list lacking context with some seriously questionable choices of opponents in there chosen to portray Bernard in as bad a light as possible, which it has been proven you can do with pretty much any fighter. And just to prove the point here is Sam Langfords top five.

Johnson - Loss
Ketchel - No Decision - considered to lose in most papers
Walcott - Draw
Gans - Win
Wills - Loss

Hopkins has done more in defeat than Calzaghe did in his whole career. The RJJ fight is the only one where he was comprehensively beaten. There are question marks and debates to be had about his other losses.

Both Taylor fights were close as was the Calzaghe fight. In both I think he did a lot of the cleaner work only to be outworked. So out of you're 5 mentioned fights he loses one clearly. You're article is pointless and offers no substance. Surprised you didnt bring up Clinton Mitchell in you're attempt to discredit BHop.