Bernard Hopkins vs Floyd Mayweather

[BKM-2010]

In what world does Hopkins have better wins than Mayweather?

Certainly not in this world.

-Trinidad
-De La Hoya
-Tarver
-Pavlik
-Pascal
-Johnson

Some of these are ATG wins and I believe some of his losses should have been wins(Taylor & Calzaghe). And then you got Hopkins as
-Oldest champion ever
-Record holding MW title defenses
-Some of the best underdog wins ever

Mayweather has great wins and accomplishments too, just not as good to me. Though I'm open to change my mind as I do believe it's close.

[kiDynamite92]

Hopkins no doubt! Floyd is a great fighter. Out of all the active fighters in this decade, i'd say he goes down at number 5.

1. Evander Holyfield
2. Roy Jones
3. Bernard Hopkins
4. Manny Pacquaio
5. Floyd Mayweather

[IronDanHamza]

-Trinidad
-De La Hoya
-Tarver
-Pavlik
-Pascal
-Johnson

Some of these are ATG wins and I believe some of his losses should have been wins(Taylor & Calzaghe). And then you got Hopkins as
-Oldest champion ever
-Record holding MW title defenses
-Some of the best underdog wins ever

Mayweather has great wins and accomplishments too, just not as good to me. Though I'm open to change my mind as I do believe it's close.

I don't see how Oscar, Pavlik, Pascal are great wins.

[rocky_balboa23]

I go with Bhop. undisputed middleweight champ for more than 10 years. 20 plus title defense. defining wins over Trinidad, Dela Hoya, Pavlik, Tarver, Pascal.

Floyd's defining wins are only against Corrales and Hatton imo.

[BKM-2010]

I don't see how Oscar, Pavlik, Pascal are great wins.

Oscar for putting him away with one shot in his prime. Pavlik and Pascal were young, dangerous fighters especially Pavlik who was unbeaten champ at the time and the favorite. Hopkins completely schooled both, but what made it great was Hopkins' age. You must have a personal grudge towards BHop.

[IronDanHamza]

Oscar for putting him away with one shot in his prime. Pavlik and Pascal were young, dangerous fighters especially Pavlik who was unbeaten champ at the time and the favorite. Hopkins completely schooled both, but what made it great was Hopkins' age. You must have a personal grudge towards BHop.

Oh boy, "I must have a personal grudge" why does this rubbish always come out everytime someone doesn't praise a fighter to the high heavens?

De La Hoya "taken out" which I suspect was a dive. And even so, that's Oscar at 160 a weight he's obviously not made for, should have been 0-1 there with his robbery win over Sturm. Don't see how that's great.

He fought Pavlik at 170 lbs, a weight in which he hadn't and still hasn't been proven. Good win but hardly great.

Jean Pascal is a dead average fighter. Beating himself definitely isn't a great feat.

Trinidad was a great win, doesn't need explaining.

Tarver was very good as Hopkins moved up in weight to fight the #1 guy at LHW.

The others, not so much.

[BKM-2010]

Oh boy, "I must have a personal grudge" why does this rubbish always come out everytime someone doesn't praise a fighter to the high heavens?

I'll tell you what's rubbish. The kind of silly chaps who claim a fighter took a dive without having any sort of evidence to back up that claim. Just by that comment alone you've completely lost all credibility, and it does not surprise me considering you're a regular from the NSB section.

De La Hoya "taken out" which I suspect was a dive. And even so, that's Oscar at 160 a weight he's obviously not made for, should have been 0-1 there with his robbery win over Sturm. Don't see how that's great.

He fought Pavlik at 170 lbs, a weight in which he hadn't and still hasn't been proven. Good win but hardly great.

Jean Pascal is a dead average fighter. Beating himself definitely isn't a great feat.

Trinidad was a great win, doesn't need explaining.

Tarver was very good as Hopkins moved up in weight to fight the #1 guy at LHW.

It seems you're hung up on the size issue like most Hopkins haters, and this is hilarious considering you're debating for Mayweather's side who has his own history of weight issues with his opponents.

You have very low intellect when it comes to boxing, a very black and white way of thinking which is prevelant in the low IO NSB section. Pavlik was completely outboxed and schooled and unlike you I remember all of the specifics of the fight at that time. Which is that a lot of people thought Hopkins was old and coming off a loss against Calzaghe where he didn't look good and they were favoring Pavlik. After the fight, Hopkins was staring down the likes of YOU at ringside.

Pascal was for the world light heavyweight title and again, things like Hopkins' age, a history making event and Pascal having dangerous power(dropped Hopkins twice in the first fight etc) made it a great win.

Why don't you stick to the topic and tell me why Mayweather has better wins than Hopkins? Or is discrediting Hopkins the only thing you're interested in in this thread?

[LacedUp]

-Trinidad
-De La Hoya
-Tarver
-Pavlik
-Pascal
-Johnson

Some of these are ATG wins and I believe some of his losses should have been wins(Taylor & Calzaghe). And then you got Hopkins as
-Oldest champion ever
-Record holding MW title defenses
-Some of the best underdog wins ever

Mayweather has great wins and accomplishments too, just not as good to me. Though I'm open to change my mind as I do believe it's close.

Honestly, no they are not. At all actually.

Tarver and Tito are top level wins. but Pavlik was fought not 1 but 2 weight classes higher than Pavlik's weight. ODLH is not a middleweight and never performed well in the couple of fights he had there. Johnson was good, but certainly nowhere near a top win and Pascal was also good but mainly because Hopkins was old and managed to achieve it.

There's no denying Hopkins is great.

But Mayweather fought a higher number of ATGs/HOFamers, #1 contenders and has won more titles in more weightclasses than Hopkins has.

Hopkins was very lucky to be in the middleweight division when he was I'm sure we can all agree on that. What was once a great division with the likes of Roy Jones jr, Toney, McCallum, Kulumbay, Eubank, Benn, Mcclellan, Watson, Graham, Nunn etc was completely void of talent by the time Hopkins set in . He might have a lot of middleweight wins, but it's void really, because he only really has 2-3 really good wins at MW.

Seriously, if you didn't have boxrec by your side I doubt most people could tell me 5 wins of his at MW and tell me something about those 5 fighters. Because they were all bad. Almost.

Best underdog wins ever? Against who exactly? Hopkins lost against the best guys he fought. He lost convincingly too. Has losses and bad performances vs Jones jr, Pascal, Dawson et al. He did win against tito and tarver though, credit where it's due.

I believe Calzaghe won that fight, but I can respect anyone's opinion on that fight, however fact is he lost.

Jermain Taylor lost both fights clearly imo. But Taylor was really nothing special himself.

Now, Floyd's resume consists of guys who were world champions before and after he fought them. I believe he fought and beat something like 19 world current/former/future champions in his career. And Floyd is old too. 38 or something, people forget that.

There's simply no comparison between their two resumes.

[IronDanHamza]

I'll tell you what's rubbish. The kind of silly chaps who claim a fighter took a dive without having any sort of evidence to back up that claim. Just by that comment alone you've completely lost all credibility, and it does not surprise me considering you're a regular from the NSB section.



It seems you're hung up on the size issue like most Hopkins haters, and this is hilarious considering you're debating for Mayweather's side who has his own history of weight issues with his opponents.

You have very low intellect when it comes to boxing, a very black and white way of thinking which is prevelant in the low IO NSB section. Pavlik was completely outboxed and schooled and unlike you I remember all of the specifics of the fight at that time. Which is that a lot of people thought Hopkins was old and coming off a loss against Calzaghe where he didn't look good and they were favoring Pavlik. After the fight, Hopkins was staring down the likes of YOU at ringside.

Pascal was for the world light heavyweight title and again, things like Hopkins' age, a history making event and Pascal having dangerous power(dropped Hopkins twice in the first fight etc) made it a great win.

Why don't you stick to the topic and tell me why Mayweather has better wins than Hopkins? Or is discrediting Hopkins the only thing you're interested in in this thread?

Well that's something that's been speculated heavily, the dive.

Regular in NSB I only post in NSB because there's no traffic in here. I signed up to this site to exclusively post in this section and did so for a long time.

I'm not "hung up" on size on stating facts. Pavlik at 170 is unproven as is Oscar at 160. Pascal is just outright not great, average at best. I don't see how these are great wins.

You don't need to refresh my memory, I know Pavlik was heavily favoured witht the bookies and fans. Not me, though. So no he wasn't staring "ME" down.

This is the topic. Are you Female? Why are you so upset?

[jas]

bkm dont bother bud - irondamhamza and lacedup are known fl0mos and will jump on anybody who says hopkins is greater