Talk:Bernard Hopkins

message: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hopkins vs Taylor 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Light Heavyweight 

message: 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." 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.  
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Racism

message: 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)
thread_title: Racism

message: 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)
thread_title: Photograph

message: 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)
thread_title: Sentence

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hopkins vs. Smith / result type 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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: , . 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)
thread_title:  Third person