Is Bernard Hopkins a smart fighter?

[Mr. Philadel]

Bernard Hopkins is a very smart fighter.

[Pugilistic™]

He's one of the smartest in the fight game.

[ИATAS]

I might very well ask you the same question - have you seen the fight? - I find it very hard to believe that if you have you can say anything other than Hopkins size was a major factor, it is absolutely plain for all to see.

Yes, I have seen the fight. At least half a dozen times.

Now again, for the forth time, have you seen the fight? It's starting to sound like you haven't based on the amount of times you refused to answer the simple question.

[Flawless]

Yes, I have seen the fight. At least half a dozen times.

Now again, for the forth time, have you seen the fight? It's starting to sound like you haven't based on the amount of times you refused to answer the simple question.

No way had Hopkins won the fight because of his size. He clearly out boxed Tito and his movement cause Tito a lot of trouble and his jab was the main reason he won, well that’s what I thought I saw.

[ИATAS]

No way had Hopkins won the fight because of his size. He clearly out boxed Tito and his movement cause Tito a lot of trouble and his jab was the main reason he won, well that’s what I thought I saw.

I agree.

[2501]

any fighter who can take a world class opponent and completely make him look opposite of what they normally look is not only a smart fighter, but a genius. simple as that.

[abadger]

Yes, I have seen the fight. At least half a dozen times.

Now again, for the forth time, have you seen the fight? It's starting to sound like you haven't based on the amount of times you refused to answer the simple question.

The reason I haven't answered you is because it is a ****** question. I tend not to have opinions about fights I haven't seen.

Let me make an analogy for you, using a fight involving my favourite boxer, Joe Calzaghe:

Lots of people think Calzaghe's best ever performance was his beatdown of Jeff Lacy, but I don't. The reason for that is because Lacy was so poor, and Calzaghe's style so horrible for him, that Calzaghe couldn't do anything but look good.

I have a similar view of Hopkins - Trinidad. Hopkins size meant that Trinidad could barely get into the fight, he simply couldn't impose himself on Bernard at all, just like Lacy against Calzaghe. In those circumstances, what else could Hopkins do but look good.

In both cases the supposed excellence of the performance was caused by factors that meant their opponent could not really box their game. With Calzaghe it was mostly because Lacy was so poor and with Hopkins it was mostly because he was so much bigger than Trinidad.

[Flawless]

The reason I haven't answered you is because it is a ****** question. I tend not to have opinions about fights I haven't seen.

Let me make an analogy for you, using a fight involving my favourite boxer, Joe Calzaghe:

Lots of people think Calzaghe's best ever performance was his beatdown of Jeff Lacy, but I don't. The reason for that is because Lacy was so poor, and Calzaghe's style so horrible for him, that Calzaghe couldn't do anything but look good.

I have a similar view of Hopkins - Trinidad. Hopkins size meant that Trinidad could barely get into the fight, he simply couldn't impose himself on Bernard at all, just like Lacy against Calzaghe. In those circumstances, what else could Hopkins do but look good.

In both cases the supposed excellence of the performance was caused by factors that meant their opponent could not really box their game. With Calzaghe it was mostly because Lacy was so poor and with Hopkins it was mostly because he was so much bigger than Trinidad.

Has to even come to your mind that Hopkins didn’t allow Tito into the fight. Tito didn’t seem worried until the 6 round and 7 when he started to get frustrated when he imitated Hopkins shuffle. Why didn’t Tito get into this stride and get comfortable because Hopkins jab was confusing Tito in that fight.

[warp1432]

Hopkins was able to box so well because his size advantage meant that Trinidad was in his pocket for virtually the entire fight. When you have control of your opponent it is easier to box in an impressive fashion. That doesn't mean that Hopkins' boxing skills were not good, they were, but it was his size that enabled him to put them into practice. I don't even think this is a contoversial opinion.

Mayweather in the Corrales fight was able to use his legs to keep Corrales in the pocket the whole fight. Is Mayweather bigger then Corrales?

Bernard isn't using his size advatnage if he's using his legs and defense. It means he has a speed advantage. Which is obvious if you watch the fight.

he simply couldn't impose himself on Bernard at all,

Because Bernard was never there to be hit. SPEED. Not size.

[Xyei]

Too bad this isn't a public poll so we could publicly flog the two dolts who think he is not a smart fighter... I'd love to hear these idiots arguments on how he's not a smart fighter...