How would Hopkins do with the former greats?

[docaveli]

What i don't understand is when people say he didn't fight anybody well who the **** the Hagler and Monzon fight? I mean i have seen all these classic fights people talk about and these fighters fought like bums.

Watch Ray Robinson versus Bobo Olsen and compare that with Hopkins and Council aren't they the same thing? Now watch Robinson and Lamotta then watch Hopkins Lipsey and tell me the difference in opposition.

Bottom line these greats we hail are only great cause they fought in the old days cause tell me Hamsho doesn't look like a bum. Or Nino Bernevenuti, these guys would be owned by Hopkins.

[Yogi]

I disagree that Hops would fight him less aggressively. Hops in his prime could be quite aggressive, and was. Lamotta would try to bully Hopkins and I see Hops tiring Lamotta a bit with his roughhousing and ending up cutting him, doc stops fight on cuts late. To me, a fight between Lamotta and Hops is a dirty and furiously fought contest with Hops getting the better of it late when the doc stops it on cuts as opposed to Lamotta being delerious from a Hopkins beatdown.

Hopkins was more aggressive in his younger days than what we've seen from him over the last few fights, but that agression was usually shown against fighters who tried to box with him and forced Bernard to be the aggressor. Pitted against fighters with an element of aggression themselves, Hopkins did show some aggression at times in there (or workrate, punchrate, fast paced inside work...whatever you may call it), but in his prime he has always been more of crafty in-and-out type fighter (more outside boxer), who "spoiled" his opponents agression with deft footwork & defensive moves...Against a LaMotta type of an opponent, Hopkins has never shown nearly the aggression and punchrate that Robinson did in that 'St. Valentine's Day Massacre'.

And I don't see the precedant there for even a stoppage on cuts win for Hopkins. I mean, sure LaMotta did bleed in some of his fights like vs. Dauthuille, Robinson, and Holman Williams...But I don't recall LaMotta's cuts being so bad that they had to stop a fight because of it (the Robinson TKO loss was certainly not because of cuts, but rather the vast number of flush power punches the Sugar Man laid on Jake). There's no precedant there, my friend, to indicate a cuts stoppage to be the most likely outcome.

Maybe in a way it kinda sucks that the vast majority of fight footage from LaMotta is of him being past his prime and might give people the wrong impression of his total talents. In fact, the only fight that I can recall offhand of what could be a prime LaMotta, would be of him fighting and stopping the very dangerous & murderous punching, Bob Satterfield (a natural Light Heavy, who was arguably the P4P hardest hitter of that time in terms of pure power). You could maybe argue that what little there is of the Cerdan fight, could indicate a prime LaMotta, but according to an article I have by Lew Eskin (associate editor of Ring Magazine during that era), LaMotta was already past his best when he finally won the world title.

[Super_Lightweight]

hmm

Lamotta was a beast and seeing his fight its undeniable. There's no way in my opinion that Hopkins would resist the chance to get in a war with a smaller man like that. Tito the brawler got beat at his own brawling game by Hopkins. That's not to compare Tito to Lamotta though. Lamotta I feel would be damaged by Hops' roughousing like I said, and that means not only punches would cut Lamotta, but elbows, shoulders, and "unintentional" headbutts as well. Add that to the leather he'll take and he loses on cuts late imo in a fight that's somewhat close with Hops ahead on pts. Lamotta was cut a fair amount of tmes in his career and vs Hops that weakness would be taken advantage of a bit more just due to Hops' dirty style.

I'm not neccessarily saying cuts TKO is the MOST likely outcome, but that's the way I see it.

As far as Lew Eskin goes, that's merely a matter of opinion, and there are a number of ways that opinion could be tainted. However, anyway you slice it we all know Lamotta was past his best vs Ray Rob later in his career.

[Yogi]

Lamotta was a beast and seeing his fight its undeniable. There's no way in my opinion that Hopkins would resist the chance to get in a war with a smaller man like that. Tito the brawler got beat at his own brawling game by Hopkins. That's not to compare Tito to Lamotta though. Lamotta I feel would be damaged by Hops' roughousing like I said, and that means not only punches would cut Lamotta, but elbows, shoulders, and "unintentional" headbutts as well. Add that to the leather he'll take and he loses on cuts late imo in a fight that's somewhat close with Hops ahead on pts. Lamotta was cut a fair amount of tmes in his career and vs Hops that weakness would be taken advantage of a bit more just due to Hops' dirty style.

I'm not neccessarily saying cuts TKO is the MOST likely outcome, but that's the way I see it.

As far as Lew Eskin goes, that's merely a matter of opinion, and there are a number of ways that opinion could be tainted. However, anyway you slice it we all know Lamotta was past his best vs Ray Rob later in his career.

You think Hopkins was a bigger man than LaMotta, SL? Taller obvious...but for body structure, I don't see it at all. LaMotta was a big boned Middleweight, who very often struggled immensely to make the 160 lbs limit (his weight struggles are pretty legendary), and if one existed, Jake would've probably been better suited for the Super Middleweight division. Hopkins on the other hand, while taller than LaMotta by a few inches (or more), did not nearly have the thickness of bone & body that LaMotta did, and in fact he likely could've fought at Jr. Middle for much of his career...Jake LaMotta was the naturally bigger & slightly stronger fighter of the two, if you ask me (both are/were known for possessing very good to great strength at Middleweight, though, but LaMotta proved it more by roughing up some naturally bigger guys in there).

[Yogi]

SL, my wife is giving me the boot off of the computer, and I gotta run out for a few hours. But I did enjoy the short conversation with you, though, so thanks for that.

[GasPed]

Hopkins beats Hagler, SD
Hopkins beats Hearns, same way Hagler did
Leonard beats Hopkins, same way he beat Hagler (by running around)
Monzon takes Hopkins
So does the real Sugar Ray
So did Roy
McClellan, that's a tough call.

People don't give enough credit to Hopkins - he's every bit as technical and clever as Hagler was, and rougher/dirtier on the inside to boot. Maybe not the warrior Hagler was, but still tough as nails. Great combination of smarts, skills and heart. I've never liked him, but for 10 years he always found a (not so pretty) way to win - credit where credit is due.

[SonnyG8R]

I agree Hopkins was a great top 10 Middleweight champion not a top 5 and it has nothing to do with him losing to Taylor who I believe at this stage isn't even as good as some of the fighters Hopkins fought earlier in his career. Hopkins longevity can be explained by his great connditioning and lack of great competition. While wins over fighters such as De la-Hoya and Felix Trindad proves he was a great fighter I have never seen anything to lead me to believe he could go toe to toe against fighters such as Hagler, Monzon, Robinson or Hearns. Heck I'd would have liked to see him last 5 rounds with fighters in the mold of John the Beast Mugbi

Good post.

Hopkins is probably around the top 8-15 middleweight range.

[Super_Lightweight]

hmm

SL, my wife is giving me the boot off of the computer, and I gotta run out for a few hours. But I did enjoy the short conversation with you, though, so thanks for that.

Later on, dude, and no problem. You gotta do what the wife says. Heh.

But the reason I said Hopkins is the bigger man...Hops dieting extremely strictly to stay at 160 his whole career, whereas Lamotta often weighed over 160 in fights due to his lifestyle, which left something to be desired when it comes to diet and so forth. Also there is the height thing, which I think would be a factor, as I certainly wouldn't imagine a man shorter than Lamotta bullying him. And it's not that I imagine Hopkins BULLYING and THRASHING Lamotta about, I just think Hopkins is a master of fighting a dirty fight and that combined with his punch accuracy, tenacity and slight size advantage would contribute to a tko loss. If pressed about the issue and forced to BET, I might lean towards a close decision win for Hopkins.