Talk:Bernard Hopkins

Neutrality?

Why is the neutrality of this article disputed?

Someone put at the end of the article in October 2007 that hopkins was going to fight calzaghe before he had even beaten kessler this statement stayed on for weeks before someone finally corrected it leading me to really question the validity of wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.22.4 (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

For one, read the "Return in 2007" section on his fight with Winky Wright. It's laughably biased. --S.Reemas, 8/10/07

Yeah , so ? All that is true Reemas , so whats the problem ? Name 1 thing that wasn't true.

Stop deleting the Sugar Ray Robinson reference. It's sourced and true.

Please include some context as to the nature of the Sugar Ray statement, or else it should be deleted. The statement as written is clearly biased in favor of the success of Hopkins and can be seen as disparaging to Robinson. The statement may be irrelevant when considering the circumstances of the two fights. Robinson fought a better quality fighter (opinion perhaps, but Mxim is a hall of famer, a future designation that looks unlikely for Tarver). Also, had Robinson's fight in 1952 been a 12 round fight like today, he would have won the decision, having been ahead on the judges' score cards according to the ESPN article provided as a source for this statement. As it was, Robinson lost the TKO after the 13th round. This statement would also be better seved when framed in the context that Robinson was supposedly Hopkins' hero as a young man. As written, it merely serves to inflate the accomplishments of Hopkins to the detriment of Robinson. A cursory examination of the statement as written may lead the reader to erroneously assume this makes Hopkins a superior boxer to Robinson, which is a laughable notion. Robinson fought in an era in which boxing was far more popular and attracted far more talent. Without the context of the rules of the sport in both eras, this comparison is invalid. It's like saying Jamal Lewis managed to gain 2000 yards in a season, succeeding where the great Jim Brown failed, without including the caveat that Brown's career straddled the eras of 12 and 14 game seasons, and he never played a 16 game season.(Irv Stantz (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

Article is completely biased, especially in the first section regarding Roy Jones. Needs editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.89.130 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopkins vs Taylor

Who deleted the statement that Hopkins bunched his punches into the last four rounds? I saw the fight, and that's exactly what happened. It's misleading to quote the total punch counts (which favour Hopkins) without mentioning this. Hopkins obviously did more overall than Taylor, but boxing rounds are scored in isolation and while Hopkins won the last few rounds easily, Taylor won most of the early rounds barely. Either way, with no knockdowns or anyone being badly hurt, these rounds are scored 10-9 to the winner. I'm a big Hopkins fan and I was disappointed when he lost, but I scored the fight to Taylor by a point and the decision was probably fair.

As an aside, it was Hopkins age that caused him to have to save everything till late. He would have easily beaten Taylor if he still had the stamina and workrate he had back in '01. Holymolytree2 21:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Light Heavyweight

Start this discussion over again. east.718 at 01:32, 10/19/2007
The following is an archived demonstration of incivility. Please do not modify it.
Why are tools adding that Hopkins won the light heavyweight title against Tarver?? Erdei is still the linear world champion. & Holymolytree2 is correct about Hopkins-Taylor. Edit: Seems like the same Hopkins nuthugger is try to revise Hopkins-Taylor & keeps laughably adding the Sugar Ray Robinson reference. You're one to talk. At least the Robinson reference is sourced. You continue to revert edits without reason and insist that Erdei is the "world" light heavyweight champion. There is a case to be made for that designation but there is certainly no consensus on this. Your continuing reversions to push your own agenda without trying to come to consensus with other editors isn't keeping with Wikipedia policy.MKil 20:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)MKil Nonsense. Sourced from where? Yours or his ass? If you want consensus ask any historian who has a clue. http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/lheavy.htm The featherweight world champions list needs updating also. I fully recognize that some historians hold this view. It's not a universally held view, however. You'll find few (if any) in the media who support this view. You are pushing your POV here, along with being fairly rude. If you'd actually discuss this in a rational way, you might find that everything you touch isn't reverted and locked.MKil 20:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)MKil LOL. MOST historians follow the traditional lineage. WTF would the media know? They probably believe The Ring. The only person who reverts is YOU, who then goes whining to the clueless admins to get the pages locked. If you can prove your assertions, why don't you actually try to come to a consensus about it and discuss it? Instead, you call names and revert without reason. And that's why you get blocked. The idea that your views are the only correct ones and that everyone else is an idiot isn't the Wiki way.MKil 21:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)MKil I see the same [person] is back typing biased garbage. Keep it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.184.174 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC) What ever you say Tonto . Roy Jones was the legitimate Light Heavyweight Champ . That's why Hopkins is now . The lineal title is gone . When a guy like Hill or Erdie wins a lineal title and gives up all there belts so they can make crappy WBO mandatories they get stripped so forget it . Bert sugar is a boxing historian. his article is sourced on Hopkins succeeding where Robinson had failed so get over it . LOL.....NONSENSE. Another who hasn't a clue what he's on about. You dont even know who was stripped of what or why. Or when the fuck the title was unified. Not to mention it was Jones who defended his paper titles via crappy mandatories himself. Bert Sugar's a boxing joke also....he picked DLH to beat Hopkins for christ's sake. Jones was the recognized champion and that's that . He had all the belts . Your guy did everything possible to avoid unification . He dropped his title and fought bums . Jones fought all the mandatories in the WBA, WBC, and IBF. Your guy was fighting club fighters. What are you saying exactly? Jones was never the Champion? And you have the nerve to call someone else a moron? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.156.157 (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC) More nonsense. The belts mean NOTHING, though the best fighters unified their belts anyways. Jones was nothing more than a title holder & a paper champion. Re-read the link I posted. No one "dropped" their belts either. Do you know anything?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.202.151 (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Please, Roy was the real champ. That Lineal title is bogus. You think if there was 1 champion he would have been able to fight club fighters and tomato cans for as long as Erdie did ? No, he would have been stripped like I said. That goes for Dariusz Michalczewski too . None of these guys had to fight any lineal #1 contenders so you can throw that belt in the toilet. That's common sense moron. Get a clue. Joe Calzaghe is a paper champion, Pacquio is a paper champion, ect... Get with the program. - Even if the Linear title was bogus, how was freakin Jones the real champion??? Because he boxed on hbo & The Ring named him their shitty champion? LOL. What #1 contenders did HE fight? Maske, Hill & Michalczewski DID fight #1 contenders - they fought each other & unified, you twat. Then Jones came along & collected his paper titles. & Calzaghe will be undisputed champ by december, though you'll probably name the next american 168lber that comes along as your 'real champ'. Jones was the real Champion because he unified all but 1 of the belts . The, WBO title that no one even cares about.Everybody knows this. In fact the WBO isn't even included in unification. Are you psychic? Calzaghe may unify but right now he's a paper champion like you said right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.156.157 (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Now you're contradicting your own logic. Dariusz Michalczewski technically unified all FOUR belts, defeating the wbo, then world & wba/ibf champion, then the rightful wbc title holder after Jones relinquished it [1]. Get it through your thick skull....Jones was given back a belt which was no longer his (& was vacant when he won it), then picked up another 2 paper titles which belonged to Michalczewski. Obviously you cannot understand simple facts which differ to what you believe. What a turnip you are. & the WBO is as legit as the other 3. Jones = paper champion.Anthony Robbins 12:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived demonstration of incivility. Please do not modify it.

Linear 175 lb. championship

I've done a little research on this and it does appear to be contentious. Bert Sugar claims that Hopkins won the "light heavyweight championship" (he doesn't mention lineage). USA Today reports that Hopkins was vying to take the linear strap from Tarver. Martin Mulcahey lambasts HBO for attempting to whitewash DM's real claim to the linear championship, and The Sun Herald also reports that DM was the linear champion (James Jones, 6/1/1999, page D1), both of which would mean Erdei is the "real" champ now. I'm going to write a little thing on this in a while and hopefully solve the dispute over at List of light heavyweight boxing champions at the same time. east.718 at 13:44, 10/25/2007

It's a complicated issue. Hopkins is definitely recognized by some as the LH champ. Others don't recognize this claim. I think it should certainly be noted in the article that The Ring and many others have Hopkins as champion.

A good perspective on these issues is this article: http://www.doghouseboxing.com/Duran/Coyote_082907.htm.

Good luck in trying to sort this out.MKil 16:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)MKil

The more I think about it, the more I believe that this isn't even a dispute that should be had here... why do we even need to mention that Hopkins won the linear championship—and if he didn't, the circumstances surrounding it? east.718 at 17:47, 10/25/2007

The issue isn't really about the "linear" title. It's about the assertion that Hopkins won the light heavyweight title. Ring magazine and many others recognize him as LH champ. The sanctioning bodies recognize others. Some people recognize Erdei as the only legitimate champion. It's a confused issue. However, there is a credible case to be made that Hopkins is a light heavyweight champion. To remove references to that like certain people advocate in order to advance the agenda that Erdei is the only legitimate champion is to push a certain opinion.

I agree, however, that this is not the place to hash out the differences between a sanctioning body champion, the Ring champion, and the linear champion.MKil 17:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)MKil

Erdei can't be recognized even if he did have claim to a lineal title. Everyone he faced since gaining this title has been horrible. He would have been stripped for fighting second rate competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xman52 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, if you win a championship the only legitimate ways to lose it is in the ring or to relinquish it. I think Erdei has a claim to the linear title, but I also think it's mythical and as such if it is mentioned it needs to be put in context.MKil 18:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)MKil

I disagree. If we where in the days of 1 title you absolutely could not hold on to it by fighting sub par competition exclusively.At light heavyweight, the last 3 lineal champions have done that. This is why this title is not regarded well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.156.157 (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Xman52 hasn't a clue what he's on about. No logic, just a biased noob opinion.Anthony Robbins 09:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Really? Do you have an opinion of your own? The lineal title is mythical and meaningless. Get over it. Roy Jones was the light heavyweight champ and you know it.

---

Wrong yet again, noob.

P.S. told you Calzaghe would win. SUCK ON THAT.Anthony Robbins 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

---

WOW! You had a 50-50 chance of being right and you were. Imagine that. Anyway, Saying Roy Jones JR was never the light heavyweight champ is insane. Nobody agrees with that and you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xman52 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

---

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/lheavy.htm

Read the list of champs yet again. Keep repeating your nonsense all you like. Facts are facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Robbins (talk • contribs) 19:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

---

If the two of you continue to abuse talk pages to make personal attacks, I'll be forced to hand out blocks. east.718 at 22:07, 11/10/2007

---

Here are some links proving Roy Jones was unified, undisputed champion.http://boxing.about.com/library/weekly/aa060699.htm http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:13320 http://www.boxingtimes.com/analyses/1999/990605jones_johnson.html http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DD1239F935A35755C0A96F958260 Not only was Jones undisputed light heavyweight champ he was also the pound 4 pound king. The guys you list are just WBO belt holders that have no legitimate claim to the undisputed title. I have also added another source and reference to the light heavyweight section of this article. I would like it to be locked from vandalism . I also would like the guy below me to be banned for personal attacks.Xman52 (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Man you are seriously fucking retarded. Did you write those shitty articles yourself?-- Anthony Robbins (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I also was about to add a third source before the page was locked.[2]

{{editprotected}} Here is what I believe the light heavyweight section of this article should look like complete with 3 sources proving that Bernard Hopkins won the legitimate light heavyweight title and succeeded where Sugar Ray Robinson had failed.

N Edit declined. Unclear what edit is requested. Apparently no consensus here. Sandstein (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Light Heavyweight

On June 10, 2006, Hopkins defeated The Ring Magazine Light Heavyweight champion and Roy Jones Jr. conqueror Antonio Tarver in a completely one-sided fight by a unanimous decision to win Tarver's Light Heavyweight Title. Hopkins knocked Tarver down in Round 5. Hopkins played to the crowd (made up mostly of Hopkins fans) throughout the fight including one moment, in round 10, where Hopkins turned his back to Tarver, raised his arms, and then turned back around and ran after Tarver, hitting him with a flurry of punches before the bell rang. Hopkins stated after the fight that he was "done."[3] All three judges had him winning the bout 118-109.Hopkins became the first middleweight in history to jump to the light heavyweight division and capture the title in 1 fight. He succeeded where the great Sugar Ray Robinson had failed.[4] [5] [6]

I can also get more sources if needed.

I will posts links to the other 2 articles because the refrence #'s don't seem to be working http://www.hbo.com/boxing/events/2006/0610_tarver_hopkins/columns/postfight_sugar.html http://www.hbo.com/boxing/events/2006/0610_tarver_hopkins/columns/fighterstory_hopkins.html

I believe these 3 sources plus the 4 links I posted above (from reputable sources) proving Roy Jones was the unified, undisputed light heavyweight champion when Tarver beat him are more then enough proof for my claim and again would like an edit.

Here are some links proving Roy Jones was unified, undisputed champion.http://boxing.about.com/library/weekly/aa060699.htm http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:13320 http://www.boxingtimes.com/analyses/1999/990605jones_johnson.html http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DD1239F935A35755C0A96F958260 Xman52 (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

---

And I could counter all your crappy sources with accurate facts from boxrec & historians alike, but you'd still prove too dumb to understand. Your sources are worthless. You fail, and the page is permanently locked without your added garbage.-- Anthony Robbins (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

---

My sources are accurate facts from boxrec & historians alike.Xman52 (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

---

The problem is that neither one of you is telling the full story. Yes, as Xman52 points out, most in America (including Ring magazine and HBO) recognize Roy Jones (and Tarver, who defeated him, and Hopkins, who defeated Tarver) as the universal light heavyweight champion. Hopkins does have a claim to the LH title as the champion recognized by Ring magazine.

However, Erdei has a claim, too (as Anthony Robbins points out). Michalczewski briefly held the WBO, IBF, and WBA belts in the mid-1990s and thus some see him as having the claim as being the "linear" champion (and thus Gonzalez and then Erdei obtaining that title).

It just depends on your perspective. However, to say that Hopkins is the only LH champ is wrong, just as it is wrong to say that Erdei is the true LH champ. Stating that Hopkins is LH champion (since he is recognized by Ring magazine as such) makes sense to me. To say that he's the only champ at LH or is the "linear" champion is inaccurate, though.

Another problem here is that Xman52 continues to insert language that denigrates Hopkins' opponents, is replete with grammatical and punctuation errors, and pushes his opinion.

Just my .02.MKil (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)MKil

---

You can't unify the title without the WBC. You can unify without the WBO. Roy Jones unified the title in 1998 against Reggie Johnson (WBA/WBC/IBF) and that's a fact. Simple as that. If Mkil thinks I'm denigrating Hopkins opponents then he doesn't understand what he's reading. I suggest you go back and read it again more carefully. . Regardless, I have 4 sources stating that Bernard Hopkins won the light heavyweight title and accomplished what Sugar Ray Robinson could not. That is what this is about. How much more proof do I need? 4 sources from Boxing Historians, Famous boxing writers, and even ESPN boxing isn't enough for you people?Xman52 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

---

"You can't unify the title without the WBC. You can unify without the WBO." - Nonsense. They are 4 belts.

"Roy Jones unified the title in 1998 against Reggie Johnson (WBA/WBC/IBF) and that's a fact. Simple as that." - More nonsense. DM, & Rocchigiani were the rightful holders of those belts. And DM was linear champion.

Your sources are shit....a tv channel & 2-bit websites which know nothing. LOL! No noted historians either. And as I've already said, the Maske-Hill winner was recognised as champ, then DM beat Hill & technically the champions of all 4 belts anyways, and didn't lose until Gonzalez beat him. It's simple. Only a retard would struggle with this. Jones doesn't even enter the fuckin equation.

Hopkins is a shitty magazine's champion. Nothing more. One with the audacity to try to pick & choose the "world" champions to suit their own stupid biased opinions.81.153.132.34 (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

& here's a few sources for you.

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/fw033099.htm

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:S1_M6wQpPYIJ:www.doghouseboxing.com/Duran/Coyote_082907.htm+erdei+linear+champion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=uk

http://www.maxboxing.com/Mulcahey/mulcahey0429a03.asp

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:9os5chTtKuwJ:tigerboxing.com/articles/index.php%3Faid%3D1001245163+linear+champion,+Dariusz+Michalczewski&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=18&gl=uk

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:SZ9ogdtlTU8J:www.doghouseboxing.com/Zurita/Zurita062404.htm+dariusz+linear+champion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:Vmqs27xJqqkJ:www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/0001-pollack2.html+erdei+linear+champion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=uk

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:wty4cT_WnoUJ:www.boxingscene.com/%3Fm%3Dshow%26id%3D10516+erdei+linear+champion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=uk

http://www.secondsout.com/USA/news.cfm?ccs=229&cs=19706

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:vKzNYWytZoEJ:www.secondsout.com/usa/lusal.cfm%3Fccs%3D473%26cs%3D16982+linear+light+heavyweight+champion+gonzalez&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=uk

Now fuck off.

---

Your wrong. The fight between Virgil hill and Michalczewski in 1997 was not a full unification.http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:11742. because the WBC was not involved. The fight in 1998 between Roy Jones and Reggie Johnson was a unification as you can see here http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:13320. Your sources are nothing more then ridiculous websites. My sources include Burt Sugar, Ron Borges, And Dan Raphael. Three of the most respected journalists in the sport. Not to mention BOXREC, the official record keeping website in the sport. Your sources don't come close to the credibility of mine. Roy Jones unified the title's, whipped Virgil Hill, whipped the guy that beat Michalczewski, and was the recognized, unified Light heavyweight champion. That's all referenced officially from respected sources. And as far as that bum Zsolt Erdei that you claim is the real champion. How can that be when he hasn't fought 1 decent fighter since he got that lightly regarded WBO title?Xman52 (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Again, both Hopkins and Erdei have separate claims to be the legitimate ligh heavyweight champion. It's a matter of opinion as to who is the legit champ. Wiki is not a place to push your opinion. It's a place to note facts. Saying that Bernard Hopkins is the light heavyweight champion (as recognized by Ring magazine) is legitimate. Saying that Erdei is the WBO champion is legitimate.MKil (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)MKil

---

Christ, xman52 is the most stupid poster online. He hasn't a clue what he's on about. AGAIN, Hill-Michalczewski was for the Linear World championship AND 3 of the 4 belts. Jones-Johnson happened later for 3 paper titles which rightfully belonged to neither of them. You dont even understand how the linear/undisputed championship is determined. How the fuck are my sources ridiculous websites?? MaxBoxing, SecondsOut??? Cyber Boxing Zone is the reference for historians, and where they fucking post. It's YOUR references which are ridiculous. Shitty no-name sites & Sugar, Borges & Raphael, who know facts yet understand nothing. Your only references are the fucking CORRUPT alphabet titles, crappy douchebag "writers" & a laughably biased TV channel.

I don't know how many times simple facts needed to be explained to this fucking retard.

& just to let you know, Jones wasn't even the wbc champion from March 98 onwards, you twat;

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:12432

You keep saying Jones unified titles....well even ignoring the linear championship, Michalczewski legitimately unfied all 4 belts, Jones unified 3 bogus paper titles which weren't his - two were still Michalczewski's, the other was Rocchigiani's. Your arguement hasn't a leg to stand on.

---

The simple fact is Jones unified the title's. (WBC/WBA/IBF). The belts that matter. In a REAL unification fight. He knocked out Hill and beat the hell out of the guy who beat Michalczewski. The only paper title in this equation is the meaningless WBO title that those 2 have/hold. My sources have 10x the credibility of your flunkie writers that no one ever heard off. Michalczewski never had the WBC title and neither did hill as you claim. Roy legitimately unified the titles. IT'S RIGHT HERE: http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:13320 ? Michalczewski DID NOT. SEE? http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:11742 ???? The WBA even stripped him off his title because the WBO is such a joke. Just like it is now.Xman52 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Just how many sticks of dynamite would need to go off inside your thick head before you get it? Trying to dismiss the WBO is piss weak. It's been on par with the other 3 for years. Check the record of wbo champions in unification fights.

This is the last time I'm explaining it, so read carefully. When Jones-Johnson happened there was ALREADY an undisputed linear champion - Michalczewski. Jones & Johnson's belts meant NOTHING....PAPER titles. As well as being linear champion, Michalczewski & was the RIGHTFUL HOLDER of the WBA/IBF belts anyways. He never lost them in the ring. He was stripped under bogus politics. Your sources are still SHIT. You haven't heard of any of the sources I posted because you're a noob whos only knowledge is from hbo & The Ring, who have ZERO credibility on this issue.

Jones had only won a "vacant interim" wbc belt, champion Tiozzo relinquished the wbc belt, Jones was declared wbc holder then relinquished it. Rocchigiani won it then Jones decides he wants it back so the wbc illegally stripped Rocchigiani. Michalczewski then defeated the rightful holder.

Re-read the fucking link;

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:12432

My main source is the Linear championship policy which goes back over 100 years. A policy you, being so dumb, don't even understand. HBO are a joke....whenever Jones faced his hand picked opponents defending his bogus belts on their broadcasts, hbo would even mention the legit champion - Michalczewski.

---

OK, So HBO is a joke to you. Burt Sugar, Dan Rapeal and ESPN are a joke to you. Roy Jones was a paper champion to you but this bum Zsolt Erdei is the legitimate champion? The guy who's never fought, let alone beat a decent fighter besides Gonzales, who Jones totally shut out. That makes allot of sense. Regardless. Bernard Hopkins won a light heavyweight title and that's the bottom line. He was the first Middleweight in history to jump to the light heavyweight division and win A title in 1 fight. Something Ray Robinson failed to do. That's a fact and should be included in this biography. Erdei and the lineal title is a JOKE. What good is the stupid title if none of these guys have to defend it against decent competition? You can't hide behind a lame WBO title fighting nobodies and tomato cans and expect to be considered champion. Erdei is a disgrace and so was Michalczewski. That's why Jones embarrassed the guy who beat him. Xman52 (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please change the Light heavyweight section to read

Light Heavyweight

On June 10, 2006, Hopkins defeated The Ring Magazine Light Heavyweight champion and Roy Jones Jr. conqueror Antonio Tarver in a completely one-sided fight by a unanimous decision to win Tarver's Light Heavyweight Title. Hopkins knocked Tarver down in Round 5. Hopkins played to the crowd (made up mostly of Hopkins fans) throughout the fight including one moment, in round 10, where Hopkins turned his back to Tarver, raised his arms, and then turned back around and ran after Tarver, hitting him with a flurry of punches before the bell rang. Hopkins stated after the fight that he was "done."[7] All three judges had him winning the bout 118-109.Hopkins became the first middleweight in history to jump to the light heavyweight division and capture a title in 1 fight. He succeeded where the great Sugar Ray Robinson had failed.[8] [9] [10]

I changed the word "the" to read: Hopkins became the first middleweight in history to jump to the light heavyweight division and win "A" title in 1 fight. I've also included three references to verify it. Xman52 (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Since the page is protected because of an edit war, it isn't appropriate for entire sections to be replaced like this before the dispute is settled and the page is unprotected. Once there is agreement here, you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I don't want to replace the entire section . That section I copied is already there except for the last line I added which is true. One guy who is repeatedly banned and is banned right now disagrees and is vandalizing it. I sourced the statement from 3 places and it is easily verifiable so I would like an edit. Xman52 (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Ignore his silly requests. He thinks the Linear title is a joke & bogus yet is under the illusion that a crappy magazine's belt actually means something.

The strangest thing about this noob is that the only reference to his claim of Jones being the real champion is the alphabet titles, yet he claims Hopkins is the real champion now despite Hopkins holding none of the belts.

The Robinson comparison is a completely pointless & irrelevent statement. The title Hopkins picked up was an unofficial meaningless magazine's title.Anthony Robbins (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Hopkins picked up the titles that where unified rightfully by Jones. Tarver won them from Jones and Hopkins won them from Tarver. Roy Jones unified the official titles whether you like it or not. You actually6 believe that Erdei is the real champion. Ha, ha, ha. That guy is the biggest bum going. He never fought 1 decent opponent his whole career except a guy Jones beat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xman52 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Using your incredibly simple logic, Hopkins can't be the champion because he DIDN'T pick up any of the belts. You're now resorting to making rubbish up saying that he did. Jones unified meaningless paper titles, and they sure as hell didn't end up in Hopkins' possesion.

You know nothing about boxing history & its politics. You're just a simple minded idiot who's wasting people's time. Wikipedia should ban you & lock these pages for good.Anthony Robbins (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

---

That's why all the respected boxing writer agree with me and only a bunch of no names agree with you right?Xman52 (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Since this page is locked I'll go spend my time at the Joe Calzaghe page making sure no one claims he's the undisputed champion . I also need to make sure everybody knows his first 20 defenses where of a bogus WBO title that barley even counts. That page needs some serious NPOV.Xman52 (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you know NOTHING about boxing and less about wikipedia NPOV rules. WBO bogus? Thats pov. And also innacurate. The WBO belt champs at super middleweight has been of consistently high calibre, which cannot be said of any of the other belts over the same period. All its champions at that weight have been class fighters. Unless of course you think Tommy Hearns was a bum. Or perhaps Chris Eubank? Or maybe Steve Collins? Or is it just Joe Calzaghe you hate? All of those guys hold wins over people that won supposedly more pretigeous titles. The WBO super middleweight title has been a premier belt in the division since Ottke got a couple of shocking decisions over Reid and Brewer, who were then both beaten by Calzaghe. You seem to be in a minority of one thinking that Calzaghe is not an undisputed champ, perhaps holding 4 or the 5 major belts at that weight and being linear champ on the other isnt quite enough? By your reckoning there hasnt been an undisputed champ at any weight since about 1980. Even RJJ didnt have all the belts did he? You may also like to know that in his first 20 defenses of the WBO belt he also won and defended the IBF and Ring belts. Not to mention beating class acts like Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Veit (twice), Brewer, Mitchell and Lacy along the way. Don't you think its a bit silly of you to claim linear titles for Hopkins but to ignore the same and stronger claim from Calzaghe who, unlike Hopkins has had more than one fight at the weight he claims to be champion of and has actually defended at the championship weight in 18 months? --LiamE (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Joe Calzaghe is nothing but a Euro-bum LiamE. Xman52 (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Got a cite for that?? --LiamE (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Grow up. Fucking Americans with there stuck-up attitudes.

---

LOL...the sad fuck has added the Robinson reference yet again.

Racism

should we not add the controversial comments made by him regarding calzaghe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myself0101 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

what crimes did he commit, it is very vague . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.152.150 (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does it seem like whoever has edit permission of this page works for Hopkins? He is racist and even when he lost the page is skewed to his bitching. Fuck this bitch.

Racist con!! Lacy, Hopkins down, bring on more Yanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.11.13 (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose that the "Racism controversies" section needs to be renamed to "Statements on race" as the current wording presumes that Hopkins is in fact racist, which is pretty inappropriate given that he's Black, or are we trying to say that Wikipedia articles should be biased and give credence to such ridiculous ideas as reverse racism, which itself is an outgrowth of the privileged positions of Whites in American society. I attempted to change the header once already but it was reverted by Sea Cow with some weird allegation that "Statements on race" fails to adhere to Wikipedia's style guide. My impression, especially given the grossly biased statements on race in this talk page, is that my change was reverted due to Sea Cow's own opinions on racism. I can see no argument for "Racism controversies" being more neutral or more stylistically acceptable than "Statements on race". I'm making my edit again, and I would hope that it is not simply reverted without detailed explanations on this public talk page about what specifically the problem is with my change. Joshisanonymous (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Boxing record

Anyone notice how it says on his boxing record next to Kelly Pavlik - 49-5-1, while at the top of the page in the small profile bit it says he has 50-5-1...

Racism

If Calzaghe had said similar things about Hopkins i.e. "I'd never lose to a black boy", it would feature prominently on his page. Hopkins is a racist, and people deserve to know. Racism against whites is every bit as serious as other forms of racism. Leave it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.77.211 (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Photograph

Is it not possible to find a usable picture of Hopkins in lieu of what's currently there? The man is a huge name in the sport that he participates in, God knows how many photographs have been taken of him. I don't know how to add one myself and I don't know the conditions for which they can be entered into the article or I would do it myself - I'm sure somebody can. 64.253.217.55 (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sentence

Sentenced to 18 years and served 55 months for armed robbery and there is no mention of it on this page. Interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.46.25 (talk • contribs)

You have overlooked the Background section. Materialscientist (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bernard Hopkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-article/2375/still-waiting-bernard-hopkins-grow-old/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://latinosportslegends.com/2001/Trinidad_Hopkins_riot_in_PR-071201.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110107/sp_afp/boxusacanlightheavyhopkinspascal
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526023814/http://offthebench.nbcsports.com:80/2010/11/19/bernard-hopkins-wonders-why-pacquiao-hasnt-fought-any-top-notch-black-fighters/ to http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2010/11/19/bernard-hopkins-wonders-why-pacquiao-hasnt-fought-any-top-notch-black-fighters
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150322032649/http://www.boxing.com:80/b_hops_claim_racist.html to http://www.boxing.com/b_hops_claim_racist.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hopkins vs. Smith / result type

Any debate on the result type should be hashed out here. Sources contradicting BoxRec by calling it a TKO:

• "Bernard Hopkins falls out of the ring to a TKO in loss to Joe Smith Jr."
• "Joe Smith Blasts Bernard Hopkins Right Out of The Ring, TKO Win!"
• "Bernard Hopkins beaten by TKO in final fight of career"
• "Joe Smith Jr scores TKO"
• "Bernard Hopkins TKO'd"
• "Hopkins lost by technical knockout"
• "Joe Smith Jr. scores bizarre TKO victory"

Plus all throughout the aftermath of the HBO broadcast, it was referred to as a TKO. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking over the CSAC's rules, nowhere does it state explicitly as to whether a fighter knocked out of the ring from a legal punch should be declared TKO'ed or KO'ed. Therefore, the WP:RS above should take precedence. Also, could a bot or something be used to archive the decade-old discussions above, and deal with these stray <ref> tags at the bottom of the page? It's very distracting. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I would also add that Boxrec too had it listed as a TKO before it was changed to a KO listing for some reason. However, I would like to know why we're not including the note specifying that he succumbed to a 20 second count-out outside the ring. TKO or not, it is an irregular and noteworthy detail that should be included, in my opinion. DA1 (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The Notes section, per MOS:BOXING/RECORD, is crowded enough as it is without all the myriad reasons for a TKO/KO/RTD being listed out. Whether it's injuries; cuts; a fighter quitting; a fighter's corner pulling them out; or even an out-of-ring count, a legal stoppage is still a routine fight-ending event, whereas a TD/DQ/NC are unusual fight-ending circumstances that need individual explanation. I maintain that Hopkins' unceremonious exit from the ring due to legal punches is better explained in prose. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Per this edit, I would point out that the referee himself (via the announcer), and the multitude of sources above, all state the result as a TKO. That's enough sources supporting the result—I don't see how we can go against that. However, just for fun, it would be interesting to analyse a selection of athletic commission rulebooks to see how they handle it. The CSAC rules above do not specify whether to call a TKO/KO in the case of an out-of-ring count, nor does the NYSAC, and I couldn't find anything rule-related from the Nevada SAC. Maybe the sanctioning bodies have something about it? User:Pacphobia brings up a good point in that, in a literal sense, Hopkins failed to beat the count of twenty. However, are out-of-ring counts considered the same as a downed fighter having to beat a ten-count inside the ring? That's where it gets blurry. Maybe these days a TKO is simply how it's done. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Also checked the ABC rules. Again, no mention of whether a TKO or KO should be called following a count of twenty. What this is looking like is that the final decision is up to the referee—in Hopkins' case, Jack Reiss himself deemed it a TKO. Doesn't get more simpler than that. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

After the fight it shows the referee's body cam calling a time out during the count so it might not be a count out as the officials were asking Hopkins if he could continue and he said he could walk but not move on it. So that's why the referee called it a TKO as the announcer says Hopkins sustained an injury when he fell out the ring due to a legal punch. When they mentioned Joe Louis last fight it was a TKO as the referee didn't even begin a count. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Good catch—I saw that time-out signal from the ref cam too (HBO broadcast). That explanation makes a lot of sense, in that Hopkins was deemed too injured to continue (which is universal grounds for a TKO) rather than being "knocked out for the count". Can we bring up any recent or historic examples of an out-of-ring fighter being counted out for twenty, and legit KO'ed (not just injured)? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The first Hasim Rahman vs. Oleg Maskaev fight you can hear the referee counting and it was a KO. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

True, and a good example. Unlike Hopkins, who was conscious and yapping about his foot, Rahman didn't appear to have an obvious injury was just knocked out in every sense of the word. Also, 1999 compared to today is a long time in boxing. Rules change, so maybe what would be considered a KO back then would be ruled a TKO now. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Dreamstate please don't be obstructive over results you don't like. How many of those newspaper writers understand boxing? Boxrec overrides those sources. You are blocking insightful edits for being made--75.66.124.118 (talk) 06:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

How am I being "obstructive over results [I] don't like" when there are numerous sources overriding BoxRec, including the referee himself, and BoxRec has proven itself to not always be WP:RS. All this discussion, and me providing refs left right and centre—even digging up material from athletic commissions themselves—and you simply change it "because BoxRec says so"; as if they're the only authoritative source on boxing. Not a good look. And accusations of me alone "blocking" anything aren't going to fly—that's why I opened up this topic, to discuss the discrepancy. I'm clearly not the only editor with an issue on this. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I know this discussion is almost 3 years old but I saw that it was changed to KO again. This is actually the correct result as California always rules it a KO even if a result is a blatant TKO. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bernard Hopkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206033110/http://www.nypost.com/seven/07212007/sports/hopkins__wright_brawl_at_weigh_in_sports_george_willis.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/07212007/sports/hopkins__wright_brawl_at_weigh_in_sports_george_willis.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2010/11/19/bernard-hopkins-wonders-why-pacquiao-hasnt-fought-any-top-notch-black-fighters
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxing.com/b_hops_claim_racist.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Third person

Someone keeps adding this third person/illeism thing as if it's something significant and relevant to his career, but the sources they've provided are tabloid trash: [11], [12]. Conversely, I found an OK source from 2001 and another from 2007, but how is that relevant to a successful thirty-year boxing career? Hopkins was known for his boxing, not some silly tidbit about his mannerisms. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)