[Previous entry: "TROY WEAVER DESTROYED BY GREG WRIGHT IN 1ST ROUND"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Thursday Night Boxing in September at Mohegan Sun"]
09/19/2004 Archived Entry: "Putting Hopkins - De La Hoya Win in Perspective"
Putting Hopkins - De La Hoya Win in Perspective
By GorDoom
Fans are gonna go a little overboard on Hopkins. Remember Hagler used to be accused of fighting smaller guys? & he got evicerated by the fans for it. In fact people are still doing it.
Hopkins' two signature victories are over welterweights, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Before y'all go crazy about Hop keep that in mind.
The only truly significant middleweight he has fought is Roy - & he lost that one. So before the blah blah about how he's the greatest middle since Robinson, also keep that in mind.
This is not meant to dis Hopkins. He's had a terrific career, but a lot of fans, especially the younger ones tend to go overboard about modern fighters.
& last night if it hadn't been Oscar & Hop in there with all the attendant tension that a mega fight brings - it flat out wasn't even close to a great fight or even a particularly good one. Hop showed too much respect & was pretty tentative against a blown up welter.
Bottom line on Hop is that in many ways his reign parallels Virgil Hill's. Yes they both set records for defenses but it was against some of the most moribund challengers a light heavy or middle champ has ever defended against.
So before the hype fest rolls on, true aficionado's should keep some perspective on the reality of Hop's career. With that said it is still quite a feat to have 19 succesful defenses but it definitely wasn't against a who's who of the middleweight division.
Replies: 9 Comments on this article
I'VE WATCHED EVERY GREAT FIGHTERFROM THE EARLY FIFTIES TILL NOW.NONE OF THE FIGHTERS FROM THIS ERAARE AS GOOD THEY WERE IN THE FIFTIES. I THINK MOST OF TODAYS FIGHTERS WOULD GET BLOWN OUT EASILY. VERY FEW WOULD PUT UP A GOOD FIGHT. THEY JUST AREN'T TOUGHENOUGH OR SKILLED ENOUGH.
Posted by MARCANTRAY@AOL.COM">RAY MOLLICA @ 09/23/2004 05:39 PM EST
Hopkins was to big and too strong for Oscar. Sure Oscar was doing OK but I felt Hopkins was fighting well within himself. Hopkins has got to be rated as a all time middle weight great. I would have him beating Greb, Zale, Graziano, La Motta, Tiger, Hagler! yes Hagler. Monzon, Cerdan, Robinson (at his best) would be even fights. I rated Joppy and Holmes before Hopkins destroyed them and they were proper middleweights.
Posted by Kevin @ 09/21/2004 04:20 PM EST
Those that can do! Those who can't, sit on the sidelines and become critics. No sport is perfect, and we all can find issues and/or negatives in any undertaking. Bernard hopkins did not succumb to the users, the shady promoters, or the fast money. I respect the fact that Mr. Hopkins did it his way, persevered, and is now set to gain the proper respect he deserves, and reap the fruits of his labors. How dare anyone who tries to cheapen his accomplishment, and the legacy he's establishing. I feel that Mr. De La Hoya was, and still is a great champion, which in my opinion makes Bernard Hopkins win all the sweeter. If all you haters are so upset, go out, join a gym, get your fat, flabby butts in shape and see what its like in the ring! I've boxed, as an amateur, for a period, during my lifetime. I've also participating in many other sports, that require a high level of conditioning. I can honestly say that a true professional boxer is one of the most highly conditioned athlete, period!
Posted by reesepanther@earthlink.net">Reggie Reese @ 09/21/2004 04:05 AM EST
Boring fight. From my view a very contrived fight. From my view a very poorly choreographed fight. Some would say right up until the end a very close fight. I would say close to what.
The final punch from my view, an egg if put on the point of contact would have survived the punch even if the fierce,menacing, awe inspiring Oscar could not.
Oscar could not even win an oscar with that pathetic performance.
Most of you Boxing dolts out there bought it hook line and sinker, I almost bought it (not). What clinched it for me ( my doubt I mean) was the scene of Oscar some 10 minutes after the fight, walking to his dressing room. He in full camera held his side and grimaced. It was such a poorly acted grimace, given merely to uphold the fallacy of the deadly body shot that did him in him.
Poor Oscar. My heart almost went out to you, until I contemplated the millions you had just bilked all of us out of.
Why you may ask did he take a dive?What's was in it for him? I have several theories. It really does not matter why, to me. All I can say is that Durans no mas was far more genuine than Oscars phony act.
Duran for some reason also took a dive but his machismo led him to throw it in the faces of all that pushed him too his dive. Oscar should have asked Roberto for advice on this.
Which leads me to my final point. All of you boxing fans out there cannot for one minute admit that there is such a thing as a dive. Oh we all, you say "know it happens" but we rarely will affix it to any concrete fight such as the one we viewed Saturday night. I meant to say "so called fight".
Yes I was rooting for Oscar but when considering all of the possible obstacles I was ready to live with his defeat. If he had been pummeled post to post, thrashed from stem to stern ( I almost said Sturm)I would have graciously said good job Bernard, brave effort Oscar.
This fight has left a bad taste in my mouth especially when considering the lack of serious critique and the ready willingness to accept that horrific liver shot that turned Oscar from the Golden boy to the Bronze boy.
Posted by salignac2@yahoo.com">Nick @ 09/20/2004 12:05 AM EST
Gordoom, you are correct. Balanced/fair!! Aloha!!
Posted by bernien@interpac.net">Curtis Narimatsu @ 09/19/2004 05:19 PM EST
Hopkins didn't have a real significant size advantage over Trinidad and De la Hoya, and Hagler sure as hell wasn't bigger than Hearns. Last night's fight was a dissapointment as far as action, but it featured the two best pure boxers in the sport. Hopkins could give anybody trouble, with his excellent defense, boundless stamina, and all around craftiness. That jab hurts, and the right comes out of nowhere. Hopkins might not have beaten Hagler or Hearns, but he's right up there.
Posted by Josh @ 09/19/2004 03:31 PM EST
Amazing that you go out of your way to challenge this aspect of Hopkins' record and yet we have to sit through lecture after lecture about how we just don't understand (CBZ poster boy) Jack Dempsey's greatness. I'm not sure if it's "ironic", but it's something along those lines.
Not only does he have the pitiful distinction of having successfully defended his title a paltry five times during a reign that spanned from 1919 to 1926, but looky, looky here: three out of those five fighters- Carpentier, Miske, and Gibbons- have dubious heavyweight credentials at best (Nat Fleischer refused to rank Gibbons- the biggest of the three- as anything other than a light heavyweight). Interesting, no? I've just accounted for three out of five successful title defenses!
This is not to impugn the skill of those three fighters (a reckoning of them is for another time), but add onto this the crude Firpo and Bill Brennan, and it's a little annoying to see Hopkins' record criticized in this way.
I'm putting Trinidad and De La Hoya against any two of Dempsey's conquests (and you can add in Willard), and I'm not feeling embarrassed in the slightest. Someday, when I have time, there's a Cox and Jorgensen article out there I intend to stand on its ear. For now, I will use your comment to reiterate what I have always said about Jack Dempsey- no matter what men like Roger Kahn (who needs knee pads and a moment to breath when he talks about Dempsey) say- WE WILL NEVER KNOW HOW GREAT DEMPSEY WAS- thanks to those who milked him like a cash cow (and quite a cash cow he was) and protected him far too carefully.
Posted by jon mirsky @ 09/19/2004 03:16 PM EST
Funny thing is I suspect that your comments would've been woefully different if DeLaHoya had won...How he beat one of the alltime greats at a higher weight class, how wonderfully he outboxed the great champion. The truth is all Hopkins has done is beat every one that was put in front of him. Roy Jones has made a career of fighting stiffs and making the fights very boring. yet he is held as a alltime hall of famer. until "Hop" gets knocked out with one shot like roy jones did, lets give props where props are due. as for the golden boy he quit on the canvas just like tyson. He QUIT just like he did against Trinidad only this time he knew he couldn't run again. 6 titles in 6 weight classes?-how titles did he take away from A dominant Champion? The only fighter he beat convincingly was Vargas and that was after Tito had already exposed him. The list of Champions he has avoided is more imposing than the list of fighters he has beaten. Everytime oscar fought a tough opponent he has lost and the ones he beat were bad judging calls.
Posted by DownTown SanAntonio @ 09/19/2004 03:02 PM EST
Thanks GorDoom, for such accurate words, it's funny last night after seeing Hearns at ring side I couldn't help (after a couple of rounds)thinking what Tommy would have done to either of them and ofcourse after that I went through the list from Greb and back to the "hit-man" again, Verdict Hopkins NO all-time great... sorry.
Posted by jimglen @ 09/19/2004 02:12 PM EST
