Hopkins vs Lamotta

[IronDanHamza]

Why?

Cerdan was awesome.

I'm specifically I'm talking about guys that lamotta fought. Obviously we'll have to put aside people with no existing film. If lamotta is an ATG and considered by many to be a top 5 MW, if hopkins fought in that same era against the same opponents I see no reason why hopkins wouldn't have accomplished the same if not more against the same opponents.

Oh, I thought you said of that era.

Lloyd Marshall might be a good fight.

Erm, Lytell is great but no film of him. My uncle saw him fight live though. Lucky bastard.

Cerdan I think would be a great fight with Hopkins.

Robinson of course.

Zivic would be a spectacle! Hopkins wins that though.

I don't consider Lamotta a Top 5 ATG MW personally.

[ИATAS]

Cerdan was awesome.

haha yes but I'm trying to get more from you on why!

Oh, I thought you said of that era.

I did, I should have been more clear.

Lloyd Marshall might be a good fight.

Erm, Lytell is great but no film of him. My uncle saw him fight live though. Lucky bastard.

Cerdan I think would be a great fight with Hopkins.

Robinson of course.

Zivic would be a spectacle! Hopkins wins that though.

I don't consider Lamotta a Top 5 ATG MW personally.

Fair enough. Would you agree then that if Hopkins fought lamotta's resume he would come out on top of most all of them? And being that was really the golden era, hopkins would have gone down as one of the greatest at MW.

[IronDanHamza]

anyone of them, just pick one. Glen Johnson, echols, pavlik, tito to a certain degree, etc. Now like I said, lamotta is better and everything else I said but my point is the STYLE of lamotta is nothing new top hopkins. Maybe the relentlessness or is overall toughness but again his style isn't something hopkins would be unused to and the same can't be said for lamotta, he has no experience as far as I know against a style like hopkins.

I don't think any of those fighters bring to the table what Lamotta do in terms of style or ability

Especially Pavlik and Trinidad.

I don't really think any of those fighters have the style of Lamotta yes they're aggressive but we can't just put all aggressive fighters in one basket.

That's like me saying Lamotta have and beat people the style of Hopkins because he's beaten skilled fighters with lateral movement like Robinson, Cerdan, Lytell, Marshall when in all honesty none of them fight like Hopkins.

Fact is, neither of them have seen what the other brings to the table.

Although, Lamotta has the huge advantage in terms of fighting and beating better fighters than Hopkins has.

[IronDanHamza]

haha yes but I'm trying to get more from you on why!

Oh

Cerdan's skills, jab, timing might give Hopkins some trouble.

I think it would be a chess match but both like to **** too.

Think it would be a great, even matched fight between two ATG MW's.

Fair enough. Would you agree then that if Hopkins fought lamotta's resume he would come out on top of most all of them? And being that was really the golden era, hopkins would have gone down as one of the greatest at MW.

Possibly.

But I rank both of them between 6-10 at MW anyway I consider them both ATG MW's.

[Toney Loc]

Give me Jake Lamotta anyday of the week. Hopkins made a name off of fighting under sized big name fighters. When Hopkins fought legitimate opponents he lost, even to the caliber of fighter that is Joe Calzaghe.

Bernard is a good fighter but his "skills" and "ring tactics" that he receives praise for all not as good as people would believe.

Jake Lamotta was just a different kind of fighter.

This.

Hopkins is more or less a fraud. He knows how to survive fights but he's not a winner. His resume is thinner than wax paper and he made his money calling out welterweights and fighting old men like Tarver coming down from heavyweight.

His most legit win is Pavlik.

LaMotta would crush Hopkins into fine powder and force him to quit.

I mean really, even Joe Calzaghe who's not even a pressure fighter had Hopkins faking low blows just to try to keep from falling over.

[sunny31]

Hopkins

Too big, too athletic, too skilled.

Boxing tends to move on more than people think, I mean it is not like other sports where technological upgrades on equipment has made a significant difference, but certainly there has evolution in boxing.

Hopkins even by today's standards was a massive, strong middleweight. I have no doubt in my mind that he would have destroyed Lamotta.

[Mister Wolf]

u made it far that back reading my post, im sure u have read the later things i posted...

and man, the 37+ hopkins was a lot better than the younger one... true story...

Sorry bro the hopkins in his prime that beat down glen johnson is better than his 37+ year old self.

[talip bin osman]

Sorry bro the hopkins in his prime that beat down glen johnson is better than his 37+ year old self.

tell u what...

let me watch some old hopkins fights then i'll get back to you..

i'll watch some fights of good old jake too...

interesting thread... props to mannie phresh...

[Toney Loc]

Sorry bro the hopkins in his prime that beat down glen johnson is better than his 37+ year old self.

Glen Johnson is a glorified bum with almost 15 losses.

So Hopkins beat a glorified bum with almost 15 losses.

He also had a trilogy with Robert Allen, went 12 of the ****tiest rounds on record with a blown up Winky Wright, Howard Eastman and showboated against some bum ass Moroccan he outweighted by at least 20 pounds named Moradde Hakkar.

I'm convinced Hopkins fans are without a doubt the dumbest bunch of Roody Poo's on this forum.

Making excuses for someone who enjoys sparring on tv.

[Cardinal Buck]

^How many loses did LaMotta have? We're talking about a guy who was 50-50ish in his big fights, maybe worse.