Re: **** Tiger vs Bernard Hopkins
Id be rooting for Tiger as well but Im fairly certain he wouldnt be able to get the job done.
I dont really agree with the comparison of Giardello. The only time Tiger convincingly won against Giardello was in their last fight when Giardello was already well past his inconsistent best.
If you look at the guys Tiger lost to during his prime, say 1960 - 66, they are all well rounded durable fighters who confused him with movement. Archer, Griffith, Greaves, and Id throw Torres in there as well because Tiger could have easily lost those fights.
Even Gene Fullmer confused the hell out of Tiger in their first two fights with movement and Fullmer was about as graceful a boxer as Stephen Hawking.
Hopkins may not be your favorite fighter but hes tricky and he can box, hes also very durable, strong, and has a good punch, particularly at middleweight where I assume this bout takes place.
Nobody is going to convince me that Joey Archer was better than Hopkins, or Wilfie Greaves, or Gene Fullmer in full on retreat mode, and maybe not even the old Giardello who beat Tiger for the title.
Throw in Hopkins significant advantages in height and reach and you have a very tough night for Tiger. Tiger only fought one guy as tall as Hopkins, Foster who had two inches on Hopkins, and that did not go well.
I think Hopkins would box and move. He would start out slow and increase both the pace and his activity as the fight wore on and as Tiger became frustrated and made mistakes. Tiger would follow Hopkins around the ring, tapping his gloves together and trying to set traps or time him and would all the while be getting outpointed. Tiger would be competitive because he would have his moments on the inside when Hopkins clinched to rest or minimize the action but outside of that I see this as a win for Hopkins by decision.