X's power at 160: how would you rate it?
 

Compared with the Ketchels, the Walkers, Cerdans, Haglers and Robinsons and more recently, other powerhouses Mugabi's, Roldans, and Hearns', I'd say looks rather low.

Long time observers of the sport such as Larry Merchant admittedly have said X never had the big punch and even I must admit to having overrated it a bit when he almost failed to put away Felix inside the distance.

His % with lesser opposition may be a bit more impressive but notice he doesn't knock out the better, more skilled opponents.

On a scale of 1-10, a generous 7.2 from me.

Re: X's power at 160: how would you rate it?
 

But for his style of fighting you must admit he's somewhat disadvantaged when he's pressed to come forward. That's why he lost his title in the first place-because he was hoping Taylor would come at him, a gamble that he lost.

I know it's a sensitive issue for Hopkins fans but how would you rate him?

Re: X's power at 160: how would you rate it?
 

His power is good enough to keep you honest but not good enough to intimidate you. Trinidad kept marching forward kept pressuring him (unsuccesfully) for 12 rounds before succumbing to a TKO loss. The comparison that I draw would be Holyfield's power at HW. Not damaging but he can wear you down and keep you honest.

Re: X's power at 160: how would you rate it?
 

Still no takers.

John Thomas, what do you think?

Re: X's power at 160: how would you rate it?
 

I'll go with a '7'.

Re: X's power at 160: how would you rate it?
 

Will people stop fecking calling him X, he's not a slave he has a name, use it

Re: X's power at 160: how would you rate it?
 

Taylor also had Bernard hurt early and taylor is not a fearsome hitter. Felix is a small boned jr middle who he really just wore down more than knocked out.

I think Merchant hit it on the button when he said that Hopkins isn't a big enough with the power to wait around. And he never has been.

He should have pressured Taylor alot more than he did. That's what you're supposed to do when you lack the knockout punch. Because adaptability only wins fights on paper.

with Taylor, he did nothing the first few rounds and until the late rounds did little else but an occasional right hand. Even late, he did nothing special on offense. Is that the genius people have been mentioning? He can't even launch an offense against a near novice on the move.

He gets another chance to remove doubt and fails yet again. The only thing those two fights confirmed to me is that he's overrated and the beneficiary of a weak division. A good fighter but nothing special.

Re: X's power at 160: how would you rate it?
 

I would give Hopkins a 4/5 Rooster. Solid power while not great. Maybe similar to a Holmes P4P. Hagler might hover around 4.5 with Hearns and Valdez making 5 IMO. Roldan MAYBE 4.5, but different to Hagler, less sharp and cracking but more ponderous type power. SRR might garner a 4.75, it's hard to rate perfectly. Benn and McClellan right up near the top. Remember that many recent middles had the advantage of coming in way way heavier at fight time.

Re: X's power at 160: how would you rate it?
 

:lol: Bernard doesn't compare with Roldan. Roldan was a puncher if there ever was one.

The fact is Bernard is one of the lesser punchers in the history of the division. Solid but as far as it goes. Even Larry Merchant said he never had a real punch and you're comparing him with Hagler and Roldan.

What got him where he is is a combination of factors. For one, he ruled a mediocre division. In Bernard's favor, he was durable with loads of stamina but he could be outpointed.

I still don't understand tho how feather fisted Jermaine was able to hurt someone like Bernard. What happened there?

Re: X's power at 160: how would you rate it?
 

Well, he caught him on the temple, and the punch was hard enough to knock Hopkins off balance.

Anyway, if we're going to discuss B-Hop's power, we have to take into consideration that, at one point, he was almost purely a puncher, who gradually developed his skill-set as his power began to disappear. Early Hopkins floats around an 8.5 out of 10. Prime Hopkins gets an 8 from me, and the later versions get a 6, at best.

Re: X's power at 160: how would you rate it?
 

holyfield/hopkins idea was lush:good great choice

holy has power but it isnt a concussive one shot brute shot it's a quick bang on the ribs and chin it can knock you down and maybe knock you out and it wouldnt be a big surprise.

trinidad i feel walked right into him...hopkins was doing that left uppercut, right hand all night and felix didnt see it coming ,to be fiar it wasnt like he was looking for a tactical fight where as bernard was.

Re: X's power at 160: how would you rate it?
 

i actually heard no one call him that until this thread

Re: X's power at 160: how would you rate it?
 

X is short for Executioner. Clever isn't it?

Re: X's power at 160: how would you rate it?
 

Point me again to his best two or three destructive ko's over good durable opposition? Oh hang on, he doesn't have any

:rofl

Larry also said Leonard beat Hagler. That seals it beyond doubt of course

:good

Unlike hundreds of other great fighters who never were, or even could be outpointed right? :lol:

Probably something about as meaningful as Roldan dropping Hagler i'd say :good

Re: X's power at 160: how would you rate it?
 

The consensus is that Hagler slipped. You're an idiot with nothing intelligent to offer.

Now explain to me why you said "Bernard's power is very often underrated"?

Why would anyone say that? Maybe you and Tobkhan are satisfied with
performances Hopkins-Hakkar :lol: but that shouldn't mislead anyone into thinking that Bernard was "Up there" with the other gifted punchers, as you say. What a crock of .....

And yet some misguided fans are putting him up there with Hagler and Robinson. Don't you know all the greats were traditionally feared punchers? Ketchel, Walker, Cerdan and even Nunn was dangerous and had speed to go with it when in top condition.

When X hits a man they don't wobble unless it's done thru what Merchant says cumulative effect.

Even his jab is more of a push with no real snap as compared with the better fighters and has fans longing for the days of Hagler and Robinson. Hell, I'd much rather see Tony Ayala in action than boring, plain vanilla Hopkins. I'm glad he's gone from the middleweights.

About all I can say is he's a good fighter, a little dirty and a durable blue collar fighter, but that doesn't make him special.