QUOTE (Fitz @ Jul 5 2011, 10:19 PM)
I disagree, I think what he is doing at this age is special. He is 46 years old, most fighters aren't even performing at 50-60% of what Hopkins is doing a decade earlier. Most fighters become basically shot between 32-38.
You can say his opposition isn't ATG material, but I don't see other guys his age or much younger doing anything remotely close to what Hopkins is doing to this caliber of opposition. Just look at Mosley, RJJ, DLH as examples. I doubt they even do what he is doing, even if the opposition is similar to Hopkins' opponents.
His opposition has been world class fighters anyways, not just some journeyman or anything.
I am saying 'age is just a number' when you are not going to give a guy like Dawson credit for beating Hopkins. Most people rate Hopkins in the top 5 and worst top 10 p4p. This is what I meant when I say "age is just a number" when you're not going to give Dawson credit because Hopkins is old. As I am referring to this comment you made.
"At this point if Dawson did beat Hopkins my opinion is so what. The guy is 843 years old."
To me, it doesn't make sense. You're a top 10 fighter or you're not a top 10 fighter. Any other fighter that beats someone else in the top 10 would get credit, as it's a win over a very good opponent. We know Hopkins is old, we know what he is doing is special, but at the end of the day, he is top 10, so I don't see how someone doesn't get credit for beating a p4p fighter.
People did the same when Calzaghe beat him, they said....."oh, he beat an old man Hopkins". Yeah Hopkins was old, and not in his prime, but still a top 5 p4p fighter at the time.
He is my favourite fighter, but so many people are so bias it's not funny, they try to have it both ways. They want to rate Hopkins as a top 5 p4p fighter, but when he loses, it doesn't count because he is old. It just doesn't make sense to me.
I just find it so strange that people will not credit a win over a top 10 p4p fighter, and you're not the only one that has used this formula when Hopkins is involved.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but seriously, don't you find it strange? If you were to not name any names, and someone was to tell you that a win over a top 5-10 p4p fighter doesn't mean much, what would you think?
By no means, do I think Hopkins is prime and Calzaghe beat or would beat a prime Hopkins, or if Dawson were to win, doesn't mean he beats a prime Hopkins. I'm just saying the the current Hopkins is very old, but very good. A win over him is still one of the better wins you can get, as it's over a very highly rated fighter.
It just seems like if you don't think a win over him at this stage is a big deal, you probably shouldn't be rating him in the top 10-15, or anyone for that matter.
Well first I did say what Hopkins is doing at his age is
special. I guess that would speak to the accomplishment. I did say, however, I was not blown away by the performance. The accomplishment is great. The performance during said accomplishment, not so much.
Now to your other point of not giving Dawson credit for beating a top ten fighter, regardless of age, has validity. I will recant that statement as you have made an excellent point.