Tweet
I only took some parts of it because it's such a long read.
This particular section I was pointing out how Hopkins footwork/defense is inferior to Whitaker's and how Hopkins was a bit exposed against certain foes.
Bernard Hopkins as great as he is tend to struggle against certain styles in a way Whitaker never did.
One only has to look at the most difficult moments of Hopkins’ career to understand the truth of this matter. Against Taylor,it was easy to see the frustration on the part of Bernard Hopkins, who was unable to use his footwork to his usual advantage. Jermain Taylor was not a pressure-fighter looking to overwhelm an old man, nor was he the kind of fighter you could barge in on to get inside, back up, and rough up at will. Jermain Taylor made Bernard Hopkins fight right at the end of their punches, and Bernard’s entire game suddenly seemed off.
A boxer’s base is at his feet, and the fact that each man was constantly switching between the role of aggressor and defender (not always on BHop’s terms) revealed the lack of Hopkins’ ability to fluidly step in, out, and around an opponent who did not ascribe to either extreme.
Many times, Hopkins was rushing forward and missing punches, unable to ambush Taylor who was in perfect position to see those shots coming. Other times, Hopkins was easily rushed backwards by Taylor, who was in perfect position to seize an offensive opportunity.
Whitaker, however, was at his creative best staying just in and out of range, reading an opponent’s body language, setting his traps, and creating the art upon the canvas that was the ring. Hopkins often makes his opponents miss by miles by keeping miles between them, or smothering them entirely; Whitaker more often played a game of inches, and played it well. Just look at the opening performance against Roger Mayweather. Although Whitaker is praised so highly for his upper body movement, it was his subtle footwork that facilitated his upper body to move with such precision. Sliding backwards while pulling his head slightly, ducking out at a side-angle with a full pivot, and even effortlessly intimidating a stalking opponent into backing up momentarily to maintain control of the center (such as against Roger Mayweather, a well-rounded boxer-puncher) by stepping forward-these are all subtle tricks that allowed Whitaker to maintain complete offensive and defensive control of an opponent in a way that Hopkins rarely demonstrated.
The one instance I can think of in which Hopkins managed Whitaker's feats is his late-round performance against Trinidad, having countered and batter him, being comfortable enough to stay right in front of him and outsmart & outquick him. But Whitaker has shown these traits each time he’s stepped into a ring, against McGirt, Nelson, Mayweather, and even in his controversial past-prime performance against Oscar De La Hoya.
This particular section I was pointing out how Hopkins footwork/defense is inferior to Whitaker's and how Hopkins was a bit exposed against certain foes.
Bernard Hopkins as great as he is tend to struggle against certain styles in a way Whitaker never did.
One only has to look at the most difficult moments of Hopkins’ career to understand the truth of this matter. Against Taylor,it was easy to see the frustration on the part of Bernard Hopkins, who was unable to use his footwork to his usual advantage. Jermain Taylor was not a pressure-fighter looking to overwhelm an old man, nor was he the kind of fighter you could barge in on to get inside, back up, and rough up at will. Jermain Taylor made Bernard Hopkins fight right at the end of their punches, and Bernard’s entire game suddenly seemed off.
A boxer’s base is at his feet, and the fact that each man was constantly switching between the role of aggressor and defender (not always on BHop’s terms) revealed the lack of Hopkins’ ability to fluidly step in, out, and around an opponent who did not ascribe to either extreme.
Many times, Hopkins was rushing forward and missing punches, unable to ambush Taylor who was in perfect position to see those shots coming. Other times, Hopkins was easily rushed backwards by Taylor, who was in perfect position to seize an offensive opportunity.
Whitaker, however, was at his creative best staying just in and out of range, reading an opponent’s body language, setting his traps, and creating the art upon the canvas that was the ring. Hopkins often makes his opponents miss by miles by keeping miles between them, or smothering them entirely; Whitaker more often played a game of inches, and played it well. Just look at the opening performance against Roger Mayweather. Although Whitaker is praised so highly for his upper body movement, it was his subtle footwork that facilitated his upper body to move with such precision. Sliding backwards while pulling his head slightly, ducking out at a side-angle with a full pivot, and even effortlessly intimidating a stalking opponent into backing up momentarily to maintain control of the center (such as against Roger Mayweather, a well-rounded boxer-puncher) by stepping forward-these are all subtle tricks that allowed Whitaker to maintain complete offensive and defensive control of an opponent in a way that Hopkins rarely demonstrated.
The one instance I can think of in which Hopkins managed Whitaker's feats is his late-round performance against Trinidad, having countered and batter him, being comfortable enough to stay right in front of him and outsmart & outquick him. But Whitaker has shown these traits each time he’s stepped into a ring, against McGirt, Nelson, Mayweather, and even in his controversial past-prime performance against Oscar De La Hoya.
Comment