Hopkins is my dude but tactically I always believed he is overrated as a tactician

[therealpugilist]

Bernard Hopkins is one of the top 5 fighters the past era...the 90's-2000's. He is seen as a master tactician, which he is a highly skilled fighter...not great at everything but good at it all, with a high ring IQ.

For a fighter to be considered a great tactician they have to have shown the ability to adjust to any style. Come Forward aggressive fighters are tailor made for a smart fighter who is a good counterpuncher like Hopkins. What troubles Hopkins is fighters of faster feet, hands, and atleticism with decent technical skills. Fighters who he doesnt hold physical advantages over.

Look at his biggest wins over come forward guys( Cloud, Trinidad, Echols, Pavlik) or physically smaller guys like ( Wright, De La Hoya, Trinidad)

He did defeat Pascal and drew with him, who has exceptional speed and power but is very raw, fights in spurts and didnt have the technique of other fighters of his athleticism that beat Hopkins.

Taylor, Calzaghe, Dawson, and Jones presented him with styles he could no overcome. They were essentially his size and trumped him in speed, activity, and footwork. James Toney is similar not being able to deal with this style even though he has reputed skills and tactics.

[Carpe Diem]

He's not overrated. He just doesn't look as smooth and precise as guys like, Floyd, Rigo, ect.

[Spray_resistant]

No, he is a masterful sweet scientist it just looks less impressive because he doesn't possess the athletic gift that some fighters do.

[therealpugilist]

He's not overrated. He just doesn't look as smooth and precise as guys like, Floyd, Rigo, ect.

Im not even comparing the eye test. Hopkins is effective at what he does. But speed, athletcism, and activity are things he rarely overcame in his career.

Overcoming the other fighters advantages shows how great a tactician a fighter is...i.e. when Leonard knew he wasnt gonna outbox Hearns he knew he had to brawl, in the rematch with Duran it was smarter to to outbox him, when he fought Benitez he turned up the tempo because Benitez was too hard to hit.

What made Leonard great is that he could adapt to any style AND FIGHT ANY STYLE. Same for Floyd Mayweather, Pernell Whitaker, Ezzard Charles, and Joe Louis. If these guys had hard fights they adjusted mid fight or did better in the rematch when not too far past prime.

[RVABoxer]

He's not overrated. He just doesn't look as smooth and precise as guys like, Floyd, Rigo, ect.

I agree with this he doesn't slip as much as guys like Floyd and Rigo but he blocks punches and avoids punishment that way it doesn't look as slick but it gets the job done. Plus he has subtle things he does that he's learned from experience though the years although some tactics maybe dirty they still contribute to his arsenal

[DeadLikeMe]

Of all the things to be critical of Hopkins over, his technical ability is probably the worst choice possible...

[therealpugilist]

I agree with this he doesn't slip as much as guys like Floyd and Rigo but he blocks punches and avoids punishment that way it doesn't look as slick but it gets the job done. Plus he has subtle things he does that he's learned from experience though the years although some tactics maybe dirty they still contribute to his arsenal

I totally agree about your entire post. The point I was making is that he isnt able to deal with all styles like say Leonard, Mayweather, Whitaker, etc. Thats part of tactics....knowing when something is not working and changing it up....thats just something I think he is overrated at...the sublties, the nuances, and as far as knowledge of the game in the ring he has forgot more than what some have learned.

[Mr. Philadel]

I agree with this he doesn't slip as much as guys like Floyd and Rigo but he blocks punches and avoids punishment that way it doesn't look as slick but it gets the job done. Plus he has subtle things he does that he's learned from experience though the years although some tactics maybe dirty they still contribute to his arsenal

Real Talk^^^^^^^^^^

I think it's better to be overrated than not rated at all

[therealpugilist]

Of all the things to be critical of Hopkins over, his technical ability is probably the worst choice possible...

there is a difference between techique and tactics...from a technique stand point he is top 5 in the past 25 years like jabbing, counterpunching, defense, stalling, etc....Tactics meaning adjusting to your opponent and making changes mid fight when what you are doing may not be working

[-Hyperion-]

the guy thought he could win a fight by throwing two punches for 6 rounds.....TWICE!, AGAINST THE SAME GUY! ....he can deal with slow guys or very raw guys...otherwise he goes defense first and loses decisions....and it happened repeatedly so clearly the guy didnt learn the lesson.....no way he can be considered smart.