Tweet
Solid post, but how good do you expect a 40+ year olds reflexes to be ? it goes without saying he might struggle with fighters younger than him who still have their reflexes, but that does not mean he could not beat those fighters when his reflexes were sharp, because for my money he would beat Taylor,Calzaghe.
-
Solid post, but how good do you expect a 40+ year olds reflexes to be ? it goes without saying he might struggle with fighters younger than him who still have their reflexes, but that does not mean he could not beat those fighters when his reflexes were sharp, because for my money he would beat Taylor,Calzaghe. -
In response to thread starter
You said you only deal in Ws and Ls, not taking in to account whether a fighter was in their prime or any other circumstances.
So going on your logic:
you said Roy adjusted to southpaws and that makes him a legend but bernard didn't adjust to speed/reflex fighters so therefore he is only great.
Well if I remember correctly Roy got knocked and beaten by Tarver ( A southpaw) and as you only count wins and losses, how is it that you claim roy adapted to Southpaws.
Also a you say a loss is a loss in repsonse to the Calzaghe and Taylor fights, then do yu count Roy Jones losing to Montell Griffin
ThanksComment
-
hes slightly overrated as of right now, but can you blame people? look at what hes accomplished at his age.
the thing is that while Hopkins was obviously better in his prime, he wasnt drastically better. I see him beating Calzaghe and Taylor in his prime, but he still would have trouble with them at times, and probebly wouldnt have knocked either of them out. eh well maybe Taylor, but only if they had a rematch, because Hopkins was always very good at rematches.
Ill agree that Hopkins is at his best against slower fighters and less technical fighters and has a little trouble with quick/skilled ones, but every fighter has their strengths and weaknesses. there are very few fighters that Bernard would lose to in his prime that fought around his weight.
at the end of the day, Hopkins is still easily a top 5 middleweight of all time(I probebly have him #3), and probebly the best or 2nd best 'old' fighter ever. those are some standout credentials right there, if you ask me.Comment
-
Bernard deserves all the respect in the world. He's an all time great.Comment
-
It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Lewis didn't really have problems against anybody stylistically. He still managed to lose to two average fighters (by decisive KO) because he didn't have the dedication of Bernard Hopkins.
Many whom knew Mike personally said that if he hit an opponent with his best shots and couldn't drop him, Tyson would fold. That's what happened to him a lot of the times he lost.
He was never able to get up from the canvas and come back to win, which in Tyson's OWN opinion shows true greatness. Tall fighters with jabs weren't Tyson's problem, not being able to overcome adversity was Tyson's problem.
0:40
I don't like using these terms, but sometimes it is just so obvious that a boxer is not nearly as good as he was at his best, that there should be no question about it.also, are you a "PRIME" "GREEN" guy...
you know someone that uses those terms
to make cases about fighters
in relation to their wins/losses/career status
please let me know
so i can adequately and effectively respond you and your posts
thanks
No one will bring up Ali's loss to Trevor Berbick or Leonard's loss to Hector Camacho.
Anyone who watches Hopkins' fights from 1997-2004 and compares it to the Philadelphia style pressure fighter that Hopkins was in 1993 will see a clear difference.
Last edited by TheGreatA; 01-14-2009, 03:12 PM.Comment
Comment