Hopkins wouldn't be as great if he fought dudes his size...

[Sin City]

LOL so you think hopkins is still in his prime? Show me one hopkins fan that says hopkins is still the same fighter he was 10-15 years ago.

What people have been saying is that he is still good enough skill wise to beat certain fighters. Nobody says hopkins has the same reflexes, speed, power and agility. Don't be stupid.



He's been dominating because of his skill set and his ring IQ. He's kept his body in fantastic condition obviously, but he's clearly an older bernard hopkins in the ring.




Glen Johnson. Antwun Echols. Keith Holmes. etc etc etc. Go through his entire middleweight campaign and he fought one guy that didn't belong there and that was oscar. Tito was the other guy people bring up but he was a middleweight champion, a 7-1 favorite to beat hopkins and hopkins needed to unify the belts and the only way to do that was to beat tito so not sure why people use that against bhop. Hopkins/Calzaghe were the same size and pavlik was basically his twin. The only guy at LHW was Winky. So that's two guys hopkins fought out of 58 fights or whatever that you can make a case hopkins had a big size advantage over.

I'll give you Glen Johnson. That was by knock out too.. but I don't remember Echols being that great of a fighter, although I could be mistaken.

[pistol whip]

I will quote all the Paul Williams ******s for this thread.


"They are called weight classes not height classes"!

[Steak]

by the way, Hopkins has not even been dominating in everyfight. he looked like garbage against Ornelas and Jones. and the Calzaghe and Winky fights were both close if you ask me.

the only fights hes been dominating in are the ones where the fighter has an obvious flaw(s).
Pavlik had nothing but his jab jba right hand and constantly planted his feet. Hopkins made him off balance all night hand constantly turned his h=offense against him with the right hand over Pav's jab.

Pascal has an amateurish style flurry and run style and his stamina is terrible. Hopkins simply very basically walked him down while going to the body, which murdered Pascal's awful stamina even more and had him running for his life past the 4th round.

Hopkins is a master of the basics, and basically only dominates opponents when they are incomplete or have a glaring weakness.

[ИATAS]

I'll give you Glen Johnson. That was by knock out too.. but I don't remember Echols being that great of a fighter, although I could be mistaken.

Echols was a very good fighter with a lot of power. He knocked out everyone he fought but one other guy up until he fought hopkins I believe. Hopkins ruined him though (and this time I'm not saying it for the "hopkins eats souls!" joke Echols really was never the same guy after his two fights with hopkins).

[djtmal]

if hopkins would have stayed at 175 after his first pro fight loss, i strongly doubt he dominates the division like he did with all those weak middleweights in the 90's and 00's...i mean you had hearns still there, virgil hill, prime jones, toney, griffin, michael nunn, tarver before he was hanging out with stallone...etc...

[Heru]

2 flash knockdowns by a very strong Lt. Heavyweight at age 46 and now he would've gotten beaten and stopped by those his size. Typical NSB ****.

Pascal moved Dawson whenever he landed clean or on the gloves and led me to believe either Pascal is that strong or Dawson is that weak. Now, he confirmed that it's because he's that strong.

What's even more hilarious is the fact that Calzaghe didn't have any physical advantages, except fast hands. The same advantage RJ and Pascal have. Taylor, Echols, and Hoya had the same too. Neither could decisively win against him after age 35, forget about all that though, your point is logical.

[ИATAS]

by the way, Hopkins has not even been dominating in everyfight. he looked like garbage against Ornelas and Jones. and the Calzaghe and Winky fights were both close if you ask me.

the only fights hes been dominating in are the ones where the fighter has an obvious flaw(s).
Pavlik had nothing but his jab jba right hand and constantly planted his feet. Hopkins made him off balance all night hand constantly turned his h=offense against him with the right hand over Pav's jab.

Pascal has an amateurish style flurry and run style and his stamina is terrible. Hopkins simply very basically walked him down while going to the body, which murdered Pascal's awful stamina even more and had him running for his life past the 4th round.

Hopkins is a master of the basics, and basically only dominates opponents when they are incomplete or have a glaring weakness.

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification for what hopkins does in the ring. First off, every fighter has flaws & weaknesses. It's the other fighters job to exploit those weaknesses and that's what hopkins tries to do in every fight. There is no such thing as a perfect fighter.

Hopkins didn't look good against Jones, but I don't see how he looked like garbage against Ornelas. A little rusty in the beggining but other than that good tune up. Against Winky he took away Winky's best weapon the jab and against Calzaghe he attempted to take his best weapon away high volume of punching, both result in smothering the opponent so it looks nasty to viewers but it's by design.

[Steward]

as stated before.. Antonio Tarver is probably his lone exception.
who else can you name besides that?
& Taylor beat Hopkins twice..

and i suppose physically Hopkins is much stronger than Pascal?!

Your implication is that when on a level playing field then Hopkins can't achieve what he has. Regardless of the loses to Taylor (a split and mixed decision btw) he still didn't lose because of a size issue.

He fights a prime Roy an inch and a half smaller than him who has fought his last three fights at super-middleweight and gets out-speed... not out-punched and prime Roy hit hard.

Trinidad knocks out middleweight William Joppy in the fourth? So he's physically strong...

I think the only fighters you can't argue were made for the weight were Pavlik, De La Hoya and Winky

That's out of Roy, Taylor, Pascal, Tarver, Calzaghe

Thinking about it, i agree and i disagree at the same time. Just that his losses weren't too do with size issues... nor were his wins, it's his movement and his technique that wins him fights; not necessarily reach and all the stuff that come with being a bigger fighter.

the guy has fought 10 fighters with perfect records... it's not like he really cherrypicks his opponents, most of these people were still favoured to win.

[Steak]

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification for what hopkins does in the ring. First off, every fighter has flaws & weaknesses. It's the other fighters job to exploit those weaknesses and that's what hopkins tries to do in every fight. There is no such thing as a perfect fighter.

Hopkins didn't look good against Jones, but I don't see how he looked like garbage against Ornelas. A little rusty in the beggining but other than that good tune up. Against Winky he took away Winky's best weapon the jab and against Calzaghe he attempted to take his best weapon away high volume of punching, both result in smothering the opponent so it looks nasty to viewers but it's by design.

I thought Hopkins looked like crap against Ornelas and Jones. especialy considering the quality of the opponent.

and to be fair to Hopkins, hes not only a master of the basics but also a master of strategy. he really can analyze his opponent and choose the most effective course of action against them.
But I will maintain that he does best against guys that having gaping holes in their style. Jermain for example was decent in all respects, but was outdid by someone like Pavlik who was better than him in one catagory, although Pavlik was always quite one dimensional.
Thats why Hopkins lost to Taylor(arguably) but easily handled Pavlik.

[mannyman]

Hopkins has had the physical advantage in just about all of his fights except a select few. With the exception of Tarver he hasn't looked that great with dudes that could be as physical as he can, see Calzaghe. I thought Hopkins won the Pascal fight but we saw him get dropped twice in the first few rounds. Which makes me believe that if he would've stuck to fighting dudes his size, he wouldn't be what he is and probably would've been KO'd by now. Pascal is decent and all, he beat Dawson and lost to Froch.. but there's no reason why 'Nard should've been dropped by him. Since he isn't known for his punching power.

another boxing 'fan' trying to discredit a fighters career.

Is being faster than another fighter an unfair advantage?

To even suggest a fighter that made 20 MW title defences isn't 'great' is plain stupid.

FYI - He was knocked down probably due to his age i.e. slower reflexes... plus they where flash knock downs and as for Calzaghe... he was out worked... that fight was nothing to do with physical size or strength.

BTW - when B-Hop first lost to RJJ - guess what... RJJ was smaller than him... just thought I'd point that out to you and destroy your thread.