When was Hopkins prime? does anyone know?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Probably around the johnson fight... 95-98... Experienced enough and still physical prime

[Larry the boss]

Well this is going to depend on a lot of factors but personally I'd say from the Mercado fight to the DLH ko were his prime years. His absolute peak though (peak = the best of the prime years when his physical attributes and skill combined to make him the best version of Bhop) was the Echols rematch to the DLH win, so that's 2000-2004.

so he was prime till 39?

[A-Wolf]

It's a great question. Bernard Hopkins is a mystery. Even his biggest admirers and closest followers will all tell you something different. I've watched every available fight and made two full length highlight videos for Bernard and there are still various elements of his evolution I find befuddling. Early in his career he was what I would consider a "Tyson tribute fighter," black trunks, black socks/shoes with the hard swinging, collapsing, destroyer style. He evolved into more of a cutie over time. Eventually, he became notorious for waiting too much and being overly selective and perfectionistic - but strangely there didn't seem to be a real determinable science to when and why. Didn't matter if it was total non-threat like Hakkar or a more dangerous opponent like Taylor. Hopkins is thesis material.. Obviously his tactical mastery of the sport is what makes him great. Attempting to chart his physical peak is difficult because his physical peak and tactical peak don't necessarily coincide. Hell, nothing coincided. He would seem to progress and regress from fight to fight - again for no determinable reason. To me I don't think Bernard really found himself until the point he decided he would become and remain a hybrid of all the Bernard's - attacker-cutie, selective shooter-flurrier, defensive master-offensive master - well into his advanced years, but he was an old man at that point. Confusing dude to keep track of..

[-DSG-]

Has to be when he beat Tito.

[Doctor_Tenma]

It's a great question. Bernard Hopkins is a mystery. Even his biggest admirers and closest followers will all tell you something different. I've watched every available fight and made two full length highlight videos for Bernard and there are still various elements of his evolution I find befuddling. Early in his career he was what I would consider a "Tyson tribute fighter," black trunks, black socks/shoes with the hard swinging, collapsing, destroyer style. He evolved into more of a cutie over time. Eventually, he became notorious for waiting too much and being overly selective and perfectionistic - but strangely there didn't seem to be a real determinable science to when and why. Didn't matter if it was total non-threat like Hakkar or a more dangerous opponent like Taylor. Hopkins is thesis material.. Obviously his tactical mastery of the sport is what makes him great. Attempting to chart his physical peak is difficult because his physical peak and tactical peak don't necessarily coincide. Hell, nothing coincided. He would seem to progress and regress from fight to fight - again for no determinable reason. To me I don't think Bernard really found himself until the point he decided he would become and remain a hybrid of all the Bernard's - attacker-cutie, selective shooter-flurrier, defensive master-offensive master - well into his advanced years, but he was an old man at that point. Confusing dude to keep track of..

Disagree, it did coincide, always did. Just didn't put as much emphasis on trying to take fighters out since his conditioning and physical tools greatly diminished. He started to use the art of deception to buy time, the walk off counter right hand, constant direction feints, taunting which usually initiated guys. There was no 'He got better at [said] aspect late into his career', Hopkins understood the in and outs of what was boxing early. There was nothing late that he didn't show me earlier in his career, none whatsoever.

[A-Wolf]

Disagree, it did coincide, always did. Just didn't put as much emphasis on trying to take fighters out since his conditioning and physical tools greatly diminished. He started to use the art of deception to buy time, the walk off counter right hand, constant direction feints, taunting which usually initiated guys. There was no 'He got better at [said] aspect late into his career', Hopkins understood the in and outs of what was boxing early.

I'm sure you disagree. Your post was incredibly one dimensional.

Judging by this ^ you have no clue what you're talking about. It seems you need to make the subject more simplified so your brain can work with it. You'll struggle with every subject in boxing as well as life with a need like that.

The fact that Bernard's fights themselves, if you've seen them, SCREAM the contrary makes your posts on the subject downright laughable. I'll assume you're just somebody who needs to make themselves seem knowledgable out of insecurity. There's no thoughtfulness in your descriptions. I find you completely full of ****, no offense. "Disagree" with me all you like, son. I'm unmoved.

[Doctor_Tenma]

I'm sure you disagree. Your post was incredibly one dimensional.

Judging by this ^ you have no clue what you're talking about. It seems you need to make the subject more simplified so your brain can work with it. You'll struggle with every subject in boxing as well as life with a need like that.

The fact that Bernard's fights themselves, if you've seen them, SCREAM the contrary makes your posts on the subject downright laughable. I'll assume you're just somebody who needs to make themselves seem knowledgable out of insecurity. There's no thoughtfulness in your descriptions. I find you completely full of ****, no offense. "Disagree" with me all you like, son. I'm unmoved.

It doesn't and you're probably a follower, listened to everyone else spew that nonsense and decided to do the same. You say unmoved but you came out guns blazing, all for a disagreement. Hopkins' approach late had to have been more simplified for you since through the ruggedness and rough house tactics you couldn't see the same technicalities as now.

Arguably my favorite fighter too

[A-Wolf]

It doesn't and you're probably a follower, listened to everyone else spew that nonsense and decided to do the same. You say unmoved but you came out guns blazing, all for a disagreement. Hopkins' approach late had to have been more simplified for you since through the ruggedness and rough house tactics you couldn't see the same technicalities as now.

Arguably my favorite fighter too

And his insecurity speaks.

And his limited intelligence. I'm a follower, eh? Whatever you say, kiddo.

[A-Wolf]

It doesn't and you're probably a follower, listened to everyone else spew that nonsense and decided to do the same. You say unmoved but you came out guns blazing, all for a disagreement. Hopkins' approach late had to have been more simplified for you since through the ruggedness and rough house tactics you couldn't see the same technicalities as now.

Arguably my favorite fighter too

What are people "spewing," Doctor? I'm curious.

[SlySlickSmooth]

It's a great question. Bernard Hopkins is a mystery. Even his biggest admirers and closest followers will all tell you something different. I've watched every available fight and made two full length highlight videos for Bernard and there are still various elements of his evolution I find befuddling. Early in his career he was what I would consider a "Tyson tribute fighter," black trunks, black socks/shoes with the hard swinging, collapsing, destroyer style. He evolved into more of a cutie over time. Eventually, he became notorious for waiting too much and being overly selective and perfectionistic - but strangely there didn't seem to be a real determinable science to when and why. Didn't matter if it was total non-threat like Hakkar or a more dangerous opponent like Taylor. Hopkins is thesis material.. Obviously his tactical mastery of the sport is what makes him great. Attempting to chart his physical peak is difficult because his physical peak and tactical peak don't necessarily coincide. Hell, nothing coincided. He would seem to progress and regress from fight to fight - again for no determinable reason. To me I don't think Bernard really found himself until the point he decided he would become and remain a hybrid of all the Bernard's - attacker-cutie, selective shooter-flurrier, defensive master-offensive master - well into his advanced years, but he was an old man at that point. Confusing dude to keep track of..

The thread ended here.