Hopkins Takes The Age Test in Boxing History

[warp1432]

Do any of you seriously deny that if Hopkins were to beat Joe it would be his biggest career win?

Do any of you seriously deny that beating Oscar and Winky were meaningless?

It would be the biggest win.

And no they weren't meaningless.

Oscar = $$$$ plus unifying all of the division.

Winky= Great fighter and at the time ahead of him on the p4p lists.

[Vladimir303]

Dude, this could be the most ignorant piece ever penned.

So glad Boxingscene is merging into Max, so all these fringe ****ing writers will be kicked to the curb.

I agree, this writer is full of it. He just ****ted all over Hopkin's entire resume by discrediting every significant win he ever had. Is it his fault there were no great middleweights around? No he just fought what was available at that weight and the only great fighers period were the ones coming up in weight trying to become middleweight champions.

He didn't pick and choose Trinidad, Trinidad and Don King chose him. They though they were gonna beat him and fight Roy Jones but he shocked everybody and dominated Tito. No way you can discredit that win.

He defeated Tarver in his first fight at light-heavy, without any tune-up's. That's the way I see it unstead of this "losing weight" excuse. Tarver simply had nothing on B-Hop, stamina or no stamina.

Get real.

[warp1432]

It's not like he was throwing a million punches where he didn't have any stamina after the fifth round either.

And the weight wasn't all muscle like Jones had to lose. It wasn't even proved true that he even weighed over 220 anyway. If he did gain 20 extra pounds he would have to work harder and then that's Tarver's fault.

[edgarg]

I don't want to seem to disagree with everything published so am just stating my opinion on this very well WRITTEN article. I liked the trend, if not the choices. For example, I believe you are correct in your carefully laid out position on Hopkins, and would not have had him on the list either. I believe that Roberto Duran should be #1, by a large margin. Suffice it to say that he was really a career lightweight, and regarded as well over the hill when he went on to further, and much heavier, glory. And his size and lack of resistance to "temptation" made his achievements all the more spectacular.

I have high regard for Archie Moore, but not to your extent. He won his title in 1952, and having had a narrow escape from Harold Johnson 2 years later, would never fight him again, and his title opponents were mainly less than stellar. He was stripped, area by area, piece by piece, because of this, and finally was only "Champion of New York State" (and maybe California too). He defended about 7, maybe 8 times in 9 years, against guys like Bobo Olsen who began as a lightweight, and Joey Maxim, whom he beat 3 times. His first Durelle fight was a phenomenon, for pure grit, skill and just doggedness. Durelle certainly took him by surprise, since he had a mediocre reputation, being a full-time Canadian fisherman, and VERY crude as to skill. What a fight! He didn't have a granite jaw, and was KD'd literally dozens of times, but he mostly got up. Either they didn't punch as hard in those days, or else, he had a special type of head and brain, which refused to be damaged. Fighting today, he'd have been dead half way through his career.

Lavoronte and Howard King as your examples were bad choices in my opinion. Lavoronte was only a kid, at career's beginning. 6'4", and about 205-210, a skinny reedy guy, with few boxing skills, a wild swinger, always out of balance, a set-up for a skilled guy like Moore. After the Moore late KO, (I have a BI picture of him carried out on a stretcher) a couple of months later he was KO'd by Muhammed Ali, and a month or so later by someone I can't recall. This put him in a coma for nearly 2 years and died aged about 23-4. A tremendous tragedy and waste of a young life.

Howard King was EVERYBODY'S trial horse, and I believe Moore and he fought about every few months for YEARs. Maybe a dozen times total. I think Moore always won but not by KO. Maybe an "arrangement"?? He was a heavyweight, as Moore properly was too.

I'd have had George Foreman as #2 for obvious historical reasons, none of which have anything to do with a kitchen cooking appliance.

I'd have had Jack Johnson in as #3 for the very same reason, but you could also add his masterly skills and record,and consider the ferocious times in which he survived.

At #4 I'd have included Sugar Ray Robinson, because almost to the very end of his stellar career, he fought the best top notch opposition available at the time. And he was well past his best when he made his Middleweight history, which included all but beating Joey Maxim for the Lt-Heavy Title, having entered the ring at a little over 155, with Maxim nearly 30 lbs heavier. He fought a "draw" with Gene Fullmer when just verging on 40, which draw was scored by nearly every ringside journalist at 11-4 for Robinson.

At #5, reluctantly, Archie Moore.

[edgarg]

I agree, this writer is full of it. He just ****ted all over Hopkin's entire resume by discrediting every significant win he ever had. Is it his fault there were no great middleweights around? No he just fought what was available at that weight and the only great fighers period were the ones coming up in weight trying to become middleweight champions.

He didn't pick and choose Trinidad, Trinidad and Don King chose him. They though they were gonna beat him and fight Roy Jones but he shocked everybody and dominated Tito. No way you can discredit that win.

He defeated Tarver in his first fight at light-heavy, without any tune-up's. That's the way I see it unstead of this "losing weight" excuse. Tarver simply had nothing on B-Hop, stamina or no stamina.

Get real.

The Tarver fight was not his 1st at Lt-heavy. He began his career as a Lt-heavy, and it was only his determination with his rigorous lifestyle and always in training, which kept him at middleweight. He also has a slim light-boned skeleton. So he had a huge size advantage over most of the guys he fought. Maybe he's a physical phenomenon too?? He's about 6'2". And there's no doubt but that Tarver was living it up in Movieland for most of the previous year and entered camp about 40 lbs overweight. The fight was a stinker at best. Tarver was wading through glue most of the time.Tarver expected to make his future in movies, in fact I heard him say this himself, or words to that effect. You probably did too.

[edgarg]

The Tarver fight was not his 1st at Lt-heavy. He began his career as a Lt-heavy, and it was only his determination with his rigorous lifestyle and always in training, which kept him at middleweight. He also has a slim light-boned skeleton. So he had a huge size advantage over most of the guys he fought. Maybe he's a physical phenomenon too?? He's about 6'2". And there's no doubt but that Tarver was living it up in Movieland for most of the previous year and entered camp about 40 lbs overweight. The fight was a stinker at best. Tarver was wading through glue most of the time.Tarver expected to make his future in movies, in fact I heard him say this himself, or words to that effect. You probably did too.

And I forgot to mention that he's a rough-tough, damned good fighter too.

[warp1432]

The Tarver fight was not his 1st at Lt-heavy. He began his career as a Lt-heavy, and it was only his determination with his rigorous lifestyle and always in training, which kept him at middleweight. He also has a slim light-boned skeleton. So he had a huge size advantage over most of the guys he fought. Maybe he's a physical phenomenon too?? He's about 6'2". And there's no doubt but that Tarver was living it up in Movieland for most of the previous year and entered camp about 40 lbs overweight. The fight was a stinker at best. Tarver was wading through glue most of the time.Tarver expected to make his future in movies, in fact I heard him say this himself, or words to that effect. You probably did too.

That's Hopkins' fault how?

He wasn't throwing many punches per round that would make him gas or anything. He had like 10 weeks to lose 40 pounds or whatever it was. Ricky Hatton does it, Antonio Tarver can too.

And he was so confident about losing he bet 100,000 dollars to knock Bernard out in 5 rounds.

[TheGreatA]

I have high regard for Archie Moore, but not to your extent. He won his title in 1952, and having had a narrow escape from Harold Johnson 2 years later, would never fight him again, and his title opponents were mainly less than stellar. He was stripped, area by area, piece by piece, because of this, and finally was only "Champion of New York State" (and maybe California too).

Archie Moore did beat Harold Johnson 2 times (and lost once).
All fights were very close and the last one ended in a 14th round TKO for Moore after being almost KO'd by Johnson in the 10th round.
I'm not sure if they are on film but they sound like great battles, not entirely different from the Ali vs Frazier trilogy.

Moore's reign might not have been as great as it seems to be but I think I would blame it on the fact that there weren't many great LHW's out there, most of the LHW's fought at HW.
I'm not sure if I can point out many top light heavyweights whom Archie didn't fight.

Moore himself went up to the HW division and had some success beating top contenders like Valdes and Baker but failed against to win the title against Marciano and Patterson.

He defended about 7, maybe 8 times in 9 years, against guys like Bobo Olsen who began as a lightweight, and Joey Maxim, whom he beat 3 times.

Bobo Olson might have started as a lightweight but he was only 16 years old then, he mostly fought at middleweight and held the MW title for a short while (decisioned Kid Gavilan and Turpin). He also defeated Joey Maxim (former LHW champion) so he had earned his title shot.
The fight proved Olson wasn't a worthy contender (KO'd in 3 rounds) but it wasn't that bad of a title defense.


45 year old Archie Moore looking as good as ever.

[edgarg]

That's Hopkins' fault how?

He wasn't throwing many punches per round that would make him gas or anything. He had like 10 weeks to lose 40 pounds or whatever it was. Ricky Hatton does it, Antonio Tarver can too.

And he was so confident about losing he bet 100,000 dollars to knock Bernard out in 5 rounds.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear, I do that sometimes. I didn't say it was Hopkins' fault. Yes it's the fighter's DUTY to come into the ring fully prepared and take the consequences if he doesn't. I merely said that Tarver, in the state he was in, was not NEARLY at his best, nor ready for a guy always in training, and rough-tough, like Hopkins. Actually, since Tarver was wll on the downgrade, and hadn't fought well for a long time before, and entranced with the movie life, he shouldn't have fought at all, but retired. After all, although fighters age differently, (example Hopkins) Tarver was also closing in on 40.

[edgarg]

Archie Moore did beat Harold Johnson 2 times (and lost once).
All fights were very close and the last one ended in a 14th round TKO for Moore after being almost KO'd by Johnson in the 10th round.
I'm not sure if they are on film but they sound like great battles, not entirely different from the Ali vs Frazier trilogy.

Moore's reign might not have been as great as it seems to be but I think I would blame it on the fact that there weren't many great LHW's out there, most of the LHW's fought at HW.
I'm not sure if I can point out many top light heavyweights whom Archie didn't fight.

Moore himself went up to the HW division and had some success beating top contenders like Valdes and Baker but failed against to win the title against Marciano and Patterson.



Bobo Olson might have started as a lightweight but he was only 16 years old then, he mostly fought at middleweight and held the MW title for a short while (decisioned Kid Gavilan and Turpin). He also defeated Joey Maxim (former LHW champion) so he had earned his title shot.
The fight proved Olson wasn't a worthy contender (KO'd in 3 rounds) but it wasn't that bad of a title defense.


45 year old Archie Moore looking as good as ever.

Yes, you have the picture. I have all the boxing magazines from then, and it was almost a national scandal the way Archie was avoiding Harold. I have the fight on tape where Harold was KO'd in the 14th. Being in B&W and not good quality, it doesn't compare to present day TV, many of the punches are only seen and not heard, to me more of a tactical fight than one of great thrills. Johnson was a very skilled boxer, good punch and very good defensive skills. But hadn't a first class jaw. As for Bobo, he had a glass jaw, and was KO'd by practically every top fighter he faced. He got better as he got older, but not much. Just my opinion of course, memory sometimes plays tricks.

I think Archie also beat Harold when he was very young, near the beginning of his career. Re the 2 losses, I remember that when Harold was about 22 or so, he fought Archie twice in less than a month. They fought actually 5 times, but Archie would never fight him again after the near Title escape.

What I believe about Archie is that he really was a heavyweight, who boiled himself down to 175, and was one of the reasons he made so few defences over such a long time. In between he was fighting at 190 or so. There were dozens of articles written about "how was he going to make the weight". He used to milk this for tremendous PR. he used to say tha he ahd a secret Indian recipe which caused his weight to miraculously disappear in days. And, in fact he often would appear maybe 10 or more lbs over just a few days before the fight. I dunno, maybe they played a few tricks with scales in those days, like Juan Luis Castillo's doctor tried in the 2nd Corralles fight?? Eventually Archie revealed in a well publicised article that what he woul;d do was to eat a piece of rare steak, well....not eat it, but chew and chew, swallowing the juice then spitting out the ******-dry solids. That he would NEVER eat any solids. this of course was when making weight. Whether you can believe him or not...???

One more thing about Harold. he came to his Title when really well past his best, in the meantime even at his light weight, he was beating ALL the top 10 heavyweights. For a long time he was the #1 heavyweight contender as well as Lt-heavy. And when everyone was buzzing about Sonny Liston being an invincible destroyer, (before the Patterson fights) they wrote that the ONLY one who could beat him was Harold Johnson.