my pick is bernard hopkins to win by knockout

I would definetly pick b-hop to win.

Ray Leonard would do what Jones did to him. Not only is it a bad matchup for Hopkins, Ray Leonard is an all time great with the physical and mental skills needed to defeat the Executioner en route to a Unanimous Decision win.

Sugar Ray would get a close decision.

my pick is bernard hopkins to win by knockout

Knock-out? No.

Could he have beaten Ray? Yeah, he could have; but I don't think he would have. Ray's style would have frustrated Hopkins just like it did Hagler. Ray was a "showy" fighter with incredibly fast hands, while Hopkins is anything but "showy". In fact, Bernard can put thousands of people to sleep with some of his performances. Now, granted, Bernard is a rough customer and would have been going after Leonard with murderous intentions; but so did a lot of other fighters. The only man to ever really outbox Ray was Tommy Hearns and Hopkins's style doesn't even remotely resemble Tommy's, nor does his physique, which put Ray at a disadvantage physically.

This fight would actually be a relatively dull one with moments of flash. Think Jones Jr.-Hopkins, Leonard-Duran III.....this fight is somewhere in between. Leonard was just fast enough to outspeed Hopkins....score and get out, score and get out, flurry to close the round and steal it if there's any doubt as to who won it.

Leonard was just too slick for B-Hop.

Sugar Ray by decision.

Leonard by fairly easy decision. If Jermaine Taylor can beat Hopkins then Leonard would do it no problem. He might have to come through a few sticky patches but I would take SRL on point 116-112

leonard could beat Hagler because Hagler fought a stupid fight, chasing leonard aroudn the ring, trying to box him in an orthodox stance.

Hopkins never did anything stupid inside a ring.

Hopkins UD

leonard could beat Hagler because Hagler fought a stupid fight, chasing leonard aroudn the ring, trying to box him in an orthodox stance.

Hopkins never did anything stupid inside a ring.

Hopkins UD

True about Hopkins never doing anything stupid; but I can't see him getting a decision over Leonard.

True about Hopkins never doing anything stupid; but I can't see him getting a decision over Leonard.

well think about the fact that Leonard did not show much at 160. he beat hagler, but hagler fell for each single trap leonard set for him. at the negotiation table and in the ring.

now, can you imagine the paranoid, stubborn hopkins giving away all those points on the contract? i cant, the guy blew up many fights during negotiations, so leonard would not be able to impose gloves, ring and rounds on him.

now imagine in the ring...
leonard does not want to mix it up with hop for obvious reason. He has to keep some distance between the two of them and he will not have the power to keep hopkins honest.
Now if someone is trying to be on the outside, you (hop) can try to beat him to the punch (a no no against leonard) or you have get closer. this is where hagler made a huge mistake: he just chased srl in some kind of macho rage that the 70s hagler would have never produced (but the one who went toe to toe with hearns and mugabi clearly would have), instead of patiently cutting off the ring.

Hopkins would not make this mistake, and he would never ever fight leonard's fight (do you remember hagler trying to box with leonard from orthodox? i cant even imagine hopkins doing something so tactically stupid)

I love the fact that people are bringing up hopkins's losses to taylor. Do i really have to bring up leonard's embrassing performances at 160 and up. He looked like shit in every fight from 1988 and onwards.

SRL UD, he'd do a Jones on B-Hop, too quick even at middle :boxing:

Bernard hopkins has to be the smartest guy in all of boxing. He knew oscar wasn't shit at 160, he knew tarver was weight drained and now he knows winky will be completely blown up at 170. This hopkins is a very wise con artist, he will outsmart ray leonard and make leonard either fight on short notice or make sure the guy is weight drained.

B-hop knows what would have happened if he had to fight toney back in 2002/2003. He knows what would happen if he had to fight roy back in 2002, what can i say the man is a genious.

well think about the fact that Leonard did not show much at 160. he beat hagler, but hagler fell for each single trap leonard set for him. at the negotiation table and in the ring.

now, can you imagine the paranoid, stubborn hopkins giving away all those points on the contract? i cant, the guy blew up many fights during negotiations, so leonard would not be able to impose gloves, ring and rounds on him.

now imagine in the ring...
leonard does not want to mix it up with hop for obvious reason. He has to keep some distance between the two of them and he will not have the power to keep hopkins honest.
Now if someone is trying to be on the outside, you (hop) can try to beat him to the punch (a no no against leonard) or you have get closer. this is where hagler made a huge mistake: he just chased srl in some kind of macho rage that the 70s hagler would have never produced (but the one who went toe to toe with hearns and mugabi clearly would have), instead of patiently cutting off the ring.

Hopkins would not make this mistake, and he would never ever fight leonard's fight (do you remember hagler trying to box with leonard from orthodox? i cant even imagine hopkins doing something so tactically stupid)

LOL!!!! Good point. This fight never would have happened. I want to retract my prediction. :D


Seriously, you do make very excellent points concerning Hopkins being mentally strong and not falling for Ray's traps. Still, not to be obstinate; but I just can't see Hopkins beating Leonard, provided Ray was in any kind of shape. He did have some pop in his punches, perhaps just enough to keep Hopkins honest; but not much more. Speed, to me, is the main difference, for it was more speed than power from Jones that sealed the deal, IMO, though Roy is much more powerful than Leonard could ever hope of being at 160.

I just think it's more of a bad style match-up for Hopkins than it is for Leonard. Great points on your part though...I can see what you're saying. ;)

What version of Leonard are we actually talking about?

The Leonard who beat Hagler was an inactive fighter who had been retired for over 5 years (except for a brief return to fight Kevin Howard) was fighting for the first time at that bodyweight and had slowed considerably since his prime. Watch Leonard against Hagler and compare it to his fights against Benitez, Duran, Hearns or Kalule and you will see how much speed Leonard had lost by being inactive.

Since this is a fantasy fight I would take the version of Leonard where he would have been in 1983-85 if he hadn't have retired due to his retina problems. Still with the same physical gifts but now combined with the ring experience, generalship and confidence after beating Benitez, Duran, Hearns and yes Hagler who I believe Leonard would have defeated had they fought during that time frame.

Unfortunately, we never saw Leonard's prime.

What version of Leonard are we actually talking about?

The Leonard who beat Hagler was an inactive fighter who had been retired for over 5 years (except for a brief return to fight Kevin Howard) was fighting for the first time at that bodyweight and had slowed considerably since his prime. Watch Leonard against Hagler and compare it to his fights against Benitez, Duran, Hearns or Kalule and you will see how much speed Leonard had lost by being inactive.

Since this is a fantasy fight I would take the version of Leonard where he would have been in 1983-85 if he hadn't have retired due to his retina problems. Still with the same physical gifts but now combined with the ring experience, generalship and confidence after beating Benitez, Duran, Hearns and yes Hagler who I believe Leonard would have defeated had they fought during that time frame.

Unfortunately, we never saw Leonard's prime.

You're using the same Leonard as me....for whatever that's worth.

You're using the same Leonard as me....for whatever that's worth.

What version of Leonard are we actually talking about?

The Leonard who beat Hagler was an inactive fighter who had been retired for over 5 years (except for a brief return to fight Kevin Howard) was fighting for the first time at that bodyweight and had slowed considerably since his prime. Watch Leonard against Hagler and compare it to his fights against Benitez, Duran, Hearns or Kalule and you will see how much speed Leonard had lost by being inactive.

Since this is a fantasy fight I would take the version of Leonard where he would have been in 1983-85 if he hadn't have retired due to his retina problems. Still with the same physical gifts but now combined with the ring experience, generalship and confidence after beating Benitez, Duran, Hearns and yes Hagler who I believe Leonard would have defeated had they fought during that time frame.

Unfortunately, we never saw Leonard's prime.

these are my weapons for future arguments :boxing:

both fighters from 25 to 29 and we never saw their primes

ALI 67-70 (I will claim that version of Ali would beat any HW)

PBF when he fought nobodies (between castillo and judah: i will claim that version of pbf beats anyone at 135-140) (we saw his prime wasted against nobodies, so we did not really see it)

anyway, kidding aside, you guys are using very big "what if"s... but i am cool with that.

to be precise, the 84-87 part of leonard's retirement was not due to the retina, that was only 82-83

to be precise, the 84-87 part of leonard's retirement was not due to the retina, that was only 82-83
Well....let me split hairs here.

Part of Leonard retiring after the Howard fight was due to Ray's admitted reluctance to getting hit and his pre-occupation with potential further damage to his eye and in fact insisted on using only thumbless gloves for his 1984 comeback, something he abandoned when he came back in 1987.

Well....let me split hairs here.

Part of Leonard retiring after the Howard fight was due to Ray's admitted reluctance to getting hit and his pre-occupation with potential further damage to his eye and in fact insisted on using only thumbless gloves for his 1984 comeback, something he abandoned when he came back in 1987.

i think being knocked down by a fighter who probably would not have laid a glove on hm 2 years earlier was the bigger part of the decision.

i think being knocked down by a fighter who probably would not have laid a glove on hm 2 years earlier was the bigger part of the decision.

What is often forgotten is that Leonard suffered a perforated retina in his right eye (his good eye) while in training for the Kevin Howard fight which required surgery, pushing the fight back.

It was his left eye which suffered the detached retina when training for Roger Stafford in 1982 which lead to his first retirement, so going into the Howard fight he had suffered injuries to both retinas requiring surgery.

I'm not saying a sub-par performance (by Leonard's standards) against Howard had NO impact on his decision, but in interviews afterwards he repeatedly made mention of his reluctance in the ring and fear of further injuries to his eyes.

What is often forgotten is that Leonard suffered a perforated retina in his right eye (his good eye) while in training for the Kevin Howard fight which required surgery, pushing the fight back.

It was his left eye which suffered the detached retina when training for Roger Stafford in 1982 which lead to his first retirement, so going into the Howard fight he had suffered injuries to both retinas requiring surgery.

I'm not saying a sub-par performance (by Leonard's standards) against Howard had NO impact on his decision, but in interviews afterwards he repeatedly made mention of his reluctance in the ring and fear of further injuries to his eyes.

i can see that, but if you were a fighter would you say "i retired because i sucked" or "I retired because of my detached retinas" plenty of incentives for reporting the second one.

all in all this does not change your point that we never saw leonard's prime, which I agree with: a layoff matters, no matter why it happened.

and as a sidenote, the following pisses me off immensely: Floyd Mayweather Jr. wasted those years too, fighting nobodies, possibly because of going in and out of court, and so on.

He did not do it because of a detached retina, he did not go to court for his beliefs. no he was just being his dumb self that everyone now loves to hate. all those skills, in his best years wasted cos he is basically a dick.

He did not do it because of a detached retina, he did not go to court for his beliefs. no he was just being his dumb self that everyone now loves to hate. all those skills, in his best years wasted cos he is basically a dick.Guys like Leonard are few and far between.

He sought the big fights and got it done, promoters, WBC, WBA, promoters whatever, he wanted the best and he found a way to fight the best. He gave Duran a title fight (considered by many to be boxing's P4P best at the time) when he had only two title fights under his belt and only 7 months after winning the title. He also unified with Hearns 10 months after regaining the belt. No wasting of time. He fought the fights people wanted to see. Period.

The new breed of fighter wants the biggest reward for the least risk. We need confident fighters to step up to the plate and give the public the fights we want to see, otherwise boxing will continue a slow death.

I was never a huge Oscar Delahoya fan (although I respect him immensely) and he too fought the big players in his division. You can't hold that against him.