better boxer and defense, pbf or bhop?

[dde91]

I think it's Floyd, he doesn't need to hold like B-Hop, and his defense always set him for a counter attack.

Hopkins always has a counter attack. But you are talking about the 40 year old version of hopkins and up. He does hold a lot now because he uses it as a trick to throw off the other fighter. But A younger hopkins didn't hold as much and threw way more punches.

Mayweather defense most of the time is hit hit, THEN RUN!!!! That isn't great defense when Hop goes toe to toe and uses angles on his opponents. In his prime he would smash on everybody.

[dde91]

Changed him for the better maybe, Johnson learned a lot from that fight and became a better fighter over the years because of it.

Changed him better in the long run. in the short run, he was losing fights for the next couple of years after the fight.

[Silencers]

Changed him better in the long run. in the short run, he was losing fights for the next couple of years after the fight.

Quite a few of those losses were questionable.

[dde91]

A lot of those losses were questionable.

He had five UD prior to the Jones fight before the Jones fight. The others were SD. if half of them were Wins, he still have around 8 losses right now. And thats 8 losses AFTER HOPKINS.

[!! Shawn]

The Johnson fight wasn't a defensive fight from Hopkins, it was a very good performance all around but it really didn't showcase his defense and Johnson was not the fighter he is now back then.

As Bouie Fisher said, Hopkins was a work in progress, his defense was not as good when he was 30 as compared to his defense when he was about 34-5. And he was 32 when he fought Johnson.

You see glimpses of what his defense will become in the Johnson fight, the Jackson fight etc. It really didn't become what it is now until probably the first Echols fight.

He was 31. Unless they show his age wrong in the tale of the tape.

Go watch the Johnson fight. His is damn near untouchable. I don't know how you can say that wasn't a defensive performance. You don't have to sit back and counter punch to have great defense.

Hopkins barely got hit the entire fight, and Johnson was no slouch at all.

[Silencers]

He had five UD prior to the Jones fight before the Jones fight. The others were SD. if half of them were Wins, he still have around 8 losses right now. And thats 8 losses AFTER HOPKINS.

From a boxingscene article.

He's been a victim of some shady scoring over the years by boxing judges from around the world and 5 of his 12 career losses are highly questionable. He could have easily been tabbed the winner in his two career draws. Instead of a journeyman-like record of 48-12-2 (33 KOs), he could rightly possess a more impressive ledger of 57-5 (33 KOS).

[Silencers]

He was 31. Unless they show his age wrong in the tale of the tape.

Go watch the Johnson fight. His is damn near untouchable. I don't know how you can say that wasn't a defensive performance. You don't have to sit back and counter punch to have great defense.

Hopkins barely got hit the entire fight, and Johnson was no slouch at all.

His birthdate is listed as January 15 1965 on boxrec, he fought Johnson in June 1997.

He neutralized everything Johnson tried to do but again, it wasn't a showcase of his defense, you see glimpses of what his defense will be, it wasn't as great as it will become.

Johnson was not the same fighter back then, even if he was no slouch, he is on whole different level now.

[!! Shawn]

His birthdate is listed as January 15 1965 on boxrec, he fought Johnson in June 1997.

He neutralized everything Johnson tried to do but again, it wasn't a showcase of his defense, you see glimpses of what his defense will be, it wasn't as great as it will become.

Johnson was not the same fighter back then, even if he was no slouch, he is on whole different level now.

Im going to have to disagree with you. I see no defensive liabilities present in Hopkins during the fight.

Just go watch it again and you will realize how ridiculous you sound right now.

He has the roll developed, the lateral movement, the head movement, the feints.

The only difference between the Hopkins that fought Johnson and the older Hopkins is the stamina. Old Hopkins fights backwards. Young Hopkins fights forwards.

[Silencers]

Im going to have to disagree with you. I see no defensive liabilities present in Hopkins during the fight.

Just go watch it again and you will realize how ridiculous you sound right now.

He has the roll developed, the lateral movement, the head movement, the feints.

The only difference between the Hopkins that fought Johnson and the older Hopkins is the stamina. Old Hopkins fights backwards. Young Hopkins fights forwards.

As I said, you see glimpses of what he will become, the angles and the footwork wasn't what it will be in a couple of years' time.

Agree to disagree.

[!! Shawn]

As I said, you see glimpses of what he will become, the angles and the footwork wasn't what it will be in a couple of years' time.

Agree to disagree.

No. Not agreed to disagree. You know I love you, but you are flat out wrong. The angles and footwork are not what they are when he is older because he didn't need them to be.

Older fighters fight different. You have to execute (no pun intended) a different game plan when you are older, than you execute when you are younger.

Hopkins DID show the footwork at spots. He did show the angles at spots. The key point that you are missing is that he showed them when he needed too.

When he got older he needed to implement those tools more frequently, that does not mean that he didn't have them, as he clearly demonstrated that he did. A fighter cannot show glimpses of something he does not have.

All that happened is that he needed to rely on his defensive skills more and more as he aged. It doesn't mean they got better. He didn't pick up anything new, we simply began to see more of it.

Accept it or not, that is the truth.