[daprofessor]

[/size]


I don't agree that it was Floyd's fault that Pacquaio didn't take the 40 million offered to him, he (Manny) was the one who got KTFO for far less.

Back on topic though, let me break it down nice and simple like this:

Floyd is the best concerning boxing skills, Hopkins is second concerning skills (When he's not gunshy his offensive abilities are nearly as great as Floyd's and I'd say defensively that Hopkins may be even better at this point). Mayweather's career early into his start already solidified his HOF status but let's not forget that he will be looked at for ducking the following fighters by many (although I do not agree with it):

Casamayor, Frietas, Margarito and Pacquiao.

Hopkins has faced tough opposition but he will be accused of ducking the following (again, I don't always agree):

Jones rematch (earlier than it happened), and Toney.

BHop has the longest MW reign behind him and as many defenses, that achievement alone solidified his HOF status and everything he's done or is doing now is no more than an extra cherry on top of an already great career.

[size="5"]IMO, it is a tie based on BHop's longevity, age and still fighting the top level opposition all along while having moved up from MW puts him on par with Mayweather, couple that with his equally as good offensive ability and his better defensively abilities (ask me and I'll elaborate why) then it becomes more clear why they're on the same level.

i don't think there's any shame in any of bhops losses...aside from the acting job with dawson in the first match. they're all respectable. as for him not fighting jones or toney...both had moved on to much higher weights so i can't call those ducks. even with his losses....i'm kind of leaning towards bhops because in all honesty, he dared to be great on more than one occasion and actually defied the odds. when was the last time anyone thought floyd was going to lose a bout? i think they both have masterfully picked and chose their opposition especially later in their careers. bhop often took on much bigger challenges imo.

[mgrover]

What about someone like Vitali? Sure he hasn't had the best of competition but you can't realistically do much about that, he's taken on all comers and I always thought he deserved a Lennox Lewis rematch rather than Lewis's blatant to duck him

[pimpfighterROQ]

Bringing up Vitali and Wladimir Klitschko is another story here. I mean B-Hop, as great as he is, he's just way too dirty and way too boring for me. Mayweather is undefeated, pound for pound but fighting the best of the best in his class and the long lay offs from fight to fight is something to be argued about. The Klitschkos on the other hand fought everyone, hell they're forced to fight mandatories now since no one is rising up worthy enough of beating them.

[daprofessor]

What about someone like Vitali? Sure he hasn't had the best of competition but you can't realistically do much about that, he's taken on all comers and I always thought he deserved a Lennox Lewis rematch rather than Lewis's blatant to duck him

it's the same reason i can't label roy the best of his era...the real competition wasn't available. i know it's not klits fault...but it beez that way sometimes.

[BrutUalBK]

i don't think there's any shame in any of bhops losses...aside from the acting job with dawson in the first match. they're all respectable. as for him not fighting jones or toney...both had moved on to much higher weights so i can't call those ducks. even with his losses....i'm kind of leaning towards bhops because in all honesty, he dared to be great on more than one occasion and actually defied the odds. when was the last time anyone thought floyd was going to lose a bout? i think they both have masterfully picked and chose their opposition especially later in their careers. bhop often took on much bigger challenges imo.

Like I said, I don't agree with what some will say regarding BHop ducking or even Floyd for that matter but the truth of the matter is that some will still say it. You're right, there is absolutely no shame in any of BHop's losses, personally I thought he won the first fight with Taylor and he beat Calzaghe but when you stack enemies against you (especially the way he did in the Joe C fight) then you cannot expect to get the nod when there is a close contest and you're the most hated.

Hop's challenges are bigger than Floyd's especially when you factor in the age differences of him vs his opponents, so on that note another edge was given to Nard. Personally, I believe he still could've fought Toney or Jones regardless of either man moving up, remember Hopkins started as a LHW.

[BrutUalBK]

Bringing up Vitali and Wladimir Klitschko is another story here. I mean B-Hop, as great as he is, he's just way too dirty and way too boring for me. Mayweather is undefeated, pound for pound but fighting the best of the best in his class and the long lay offs from fight to fight is something to be argued about. The Klitschkos on the other hand fought everyone, hell they're forced to fight mandatories now since no one is rising up worthy enough of beating them.

I get so tired of hearing this too boring crap, his fights with Pascal were exciting, his bout with KP was exciting, with Felix exciting, both his bouts with Echols were scorchers, he dominated Joppy in a one-sided whuppin. I could go on and on listing Hopkins' fights where he wasn't boring but just to be objective I will list what I thought was his boring fights even though it still takes two to tango:

1st fight with Taylor (some may say their 2nd fight was no barn-burner either, Hakkar, he ran the entire fight>>>literally, Eastman, the last bout with Allen but he was playing it safe trying to get the DLH fight but honestly that is about it. If you have more or thought more of his fights were boring then that can easily be argued depending on whether or not you favor Boxing (the art of hitting without getting hit) vs Brawling (fighting, bleeding with little regard for defense and applying the true boxing trade).

Some people favor Brawlers and those that do will not like Hopkins, he is a technician on defense and offense and picks and choses wisely when to attack and when to defend. I can respect either, the Boxer or the Brawler but in order to truly appreciate a fighter like Hopkins you have to really know what a true Master Boxer is (and that is Hopkins).

I wouldn't even bother mentioning Vitali or Vlad, all they fought and beat is mostly the next Bum of the Month Club or fighters that were past their best though they have dominated the division they still don't warrant being considered or even mentioned in the same breath as Hopkins and Floyd.

[mrchitown]

It's between Hopkins and Mayweather. Though I tend to lean towards Bernard

[The Original MrF...]

Hopkins.

he's done more after 40 than Mayweather has done his whole career. He's taken on the top guys in and around his weightclass. Win or lose, at least he gave us those fights and he was always competetive.

[checkleft]

To me guys like bhop an mayweather are obvious choices but I will always lean toward the guys who had to do it the hard way and couldn't pick and choose opponents. Guys like marquez and Martinez (no secret I'm a big Martinez fan). I just love how they didn't let their losses/robberies get in their way of getting to the top and not only to get there but to win fights against the odds against judges/promoters against top competition. But I guess you can call those more along the lines of peoples champs or underdogs

[mgrover]

See every time I'd like to give it to Hopkins, I just think PPV king, while Hopkins has struggled in this department.

As much as I love Martinez I just can't give it to him in all fairness he hasn't done enough in my eyes, starting out late hurt him but if he keeps on going till late which I really can't see him doing due to his style maybe.

Ward doesn't belong in this era, he's just getting started.

This post has been edited by mgrover: Feb 13 2013, 05:27 AM