Boxing News 24 Forum

Boxing News 24 Forum (http://www.boxingforum24.com/index.php)
-   Classic Boxing Forum (http://www.boxingforum24.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   the 6'1" BHop against the great L-HWs (that he IS)... (http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=464444)

thistle1 03-11-2013 04:58 PM

the 6'1" BHop against the great L-HWs (that he IS)...
 
just a little annoyed with all the 'purposefull' refusal to except certain historical documented records, reports and quite simply FACTS!!!

BHop (and MOST of his contempoaries), fighting UP at the weight they would have been fighting at in greater era's and periods in boxing, in BHops case that would have been a L-HW cum HW.

how does he fair against them...

Loughran
Rosenbloom
Conn
Lesnevich
Mills
Maxim
Charles
Moore
Johnson and so on,

feel free to include the HW's if you wish, if you DARE.

this is the REAL comparison and questions. he was/is a L-HW and infact before the 90's there was barely a MW taller than 5'10".

so follow the greats, compare on even terms and veiw likely outcomes in an honest scenario.

NoNeck 03-11-2013 05:13 PM

Re: the 6'1" BHop against the great L-HWs (that he IS)...
 
He do fine, but struggle with fighters who threw 100+ punches per round.

lufcrazy 03-11-2013 05:14 PM

Re: the 6'1" BHop against the great L-HWs (that he IS)...
 
I preferred him as a mw tbh.

the cobra 03-11-2013 05:17 PM

Re: the 6'1" BHop against the great L-HWs (that he IS)...
 
He made 160 easy in his prime, usually weighing in several pounds lighter, and would always have been able to get to 160. A big middleweight to be sure, and in a busier era, he'd have plenty of fights above the limit and up at 175, he wouldn't be able to stay at MW to the age of 40 (the cut was starting to get to him by then even in his own era), but he'd find himself competing at Middleweight for long spells even if you threw him back in the 40's.

turbotime 03-11-2013 05:19 PM

Re: the 6'1" BHop against the great L-HWs (that he IS)...
 
He'd struggle with Charles. Beats the rest. Conn, Rosenbloom, etc. would all get Pavlik'd :smoke

thistle1 03-11-2013 05:24 PM

Re: the 6'1" BHop against the great L-HWs (that he IS)...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by the cobra (Post 14932134)
He made 160 easy in his prime, usually weighing in several pounds lighter, and would always have been able to get to 160. A big middleweight to be sure, and in a busier era, he'd have plenty of fights above the limit and up at 175, he wouldn't be able to stay at MW to the age of 40 (the cut was starting to get to him by then even in his own era), but he'd find himself competing at Middleweight for long spells even if you threw him back in the 40's.

NO, Nah, Not Likely!

this is the piont of the thread, he would do as everyone else did then, and he'd have been a L-HW.

so these are the kind of matches to truely ask about his capabilty and greatness, does he cut it in the end?

well, there's a whole career we've all just witnessed full of smaller opponents and lesser ones too. So it's much harder for me to throw him to the sharks!

AlFrancis 03-11-2013 05:31 PM

Re: the 6'1" BHop against the great L-HWs (that he IS)...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by turbotime (Post 14932144)
He'd struggle with Charles. Beats the rest. Conn, Rosenbloom, etc. would all get Pavlik'd :smoke

I don't know about that. I think he Pavlik'd Pavlik because the difference in experience. He wouldn't of had that advantage over them fellas.

Jorodz 03-11-2013 05:43 PM

Re: the 6'1" BHop against the great L-HWs (that he IS)...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by turbotime (Post 14932144)
He'd struggle with Charles. Beats the rest. Conn, Rosenbloom, etc. would all get Pavlik'd :smoke

respectfully disagree sir :D charles takes him, and clearly. i'd also favour johnson, loughran and conn (the latter by a wide margin).

maxim could outjab him but that's 50/50

turbotime 03-11-2013 06:35 PM

Re: the 6'1" BHop against the great L-HWs (that he IS)...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorodz (Post 14932311)
respectfully disagree sir :D charles takes him, and clearly. i'd also favour johnson, loughran and conn (the latter by a wide margin).

maxim could outjab him but that's 50/50

:blood

LittleRed 03-11-2013 06:36 PM

Re: the 6'1" BHop against the great L-HWs (that he IS)...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thistle1 (Post 14931990)
just a little annoyed with all the 'purposefull' refusal to except certain historical documented records, reports and quite simply FACTS!!!

BHop (and MOST of his contempoaries), fighting UP at the weight they would have been fighting at in greater era's and periods in boxing, in BHops case that would have been a L-HW cum HW.

how does he fair against them...

Loughran
Rosenbloom
Conn
Lesnevich
Mills
Maxim
Charles
Moore
Johnson and so on,

feel free to include the HW's if you wish, if you DARE.

this is the REAL comparison and questions. he was/is a L-HW and infact before the 90's there was barely a MW taller than 5'10".

so follow the greats, compare on even terms and veiw likely outcomes in an honest scenario.

Ray Robinson was 5'11' as a welterweight. Ezzard Charles was a 6' middleweight, and Conn was 6'1". Jose Basora was a career middleweight at 6'. Off the top of my head. Anyway Hopkins is still an atg and would do as well as anybody.

Jorodz 03-11-2013 06:41 PM

Re: the 6'1" BHop against the great L-HWs (that he IS)...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by turbotime (Post 14932659)
:blood

maxim had a fantastic jab, possibly better than hops whose jab i thought was a bit overrated.

turbotime 03-11-2013 06:44 PM

Re: the 6'1" BHop against the great L-HWs (that he IS)...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorodz (Post 14932707)
maxim had a fantastic jab, possibly better than hops whose jab i thought was a bit overrated.

I don't see it as a battle of the jabs at all. Maxim had no problem getting into an ugly inside fight and Hopkins is leagues ahead there. I'd favour him fairly marginally actually.

jont 03-11-2013 06:45 PM

Re: the 6'1" BHop against the great L-HWs (that he IS)...
 
he would still lose to Roy Jones...we dont have to go that far back to find some lightheavies to beat him

Jorodz 03-11-2013 06:52 PM

Re: the 6'1" BHop against the great L-HWs (that he IS)...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by turbotime (Post 14932731)
I don't see it as a battle of the jabs at all. Maxim had no problem getting into an ugly inside fight and Hopkins is leagues ahead there. I'd favour him fairly marginally actually.

that's fair, if hopkins can turn the fight into one that he wants he has the clear edge. not entirely sure he can take maxim's jab away though

thistle1 03-11-2013 06:53 PM

Re: the 6'1" BHop against the great L-HWs (that he IS)...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by LittleRed (Post 14932670)
Ray Robinson was 5'11' as a welterweight. Ezzard Charles was a 6' middleweight, and Conn was 6'1". Jose Basora was a career middleweight at 6'. Off the top of my head. Anyway Hopkins is still an atg and would do as well as anybody.

Ike Williams was about 5'10 as a LW, SO.

we're NOT talking about the Exceptions here, as the thread clearly stresses. MOST, not necessary all, MOST, accepting there is an exception, MOST, the MAJORITY...

MOST Middleweights were 5' 10" or less in the 1940's, Hop & Co would be a weight or two UP, Fact.
Fighting UP except it, UP just like MOST all the other L-HW's then - 5' 11 - about 6' 1" typically. the MAJORITY, NOT the odd exception.

So don't be scared let BHop fight his historical peers as the L-HW that he is, Oh and keep in mind he would have had to handle the odd HW too, Yikes!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2015