Re: **** Tiger vs Bernard Hopkins
Some people tend to disagree with me, but I think that Hopkins had quite a bit in common with Griffith stylistically.
Not completely so for a couple of reasons, but I always thought they went about business in a similar way (and were both turgid as **** to watch as they got older).
And if we're talking a younger middleweight Griffith, I'm not really sure that Hopkins was that much more skilled or effective, if even at all. Maybe ever so slightly better at some things on the defensive/transitional side. But Griffith's opponents were generally a lot more skilled than Hopkins', so it can be hard to tell sometimes, and I'm uncertain that Hopkins would consistently present the same type of difficulties that Giardello and Archer did if he tried to do so. I don't feel as confident as others here do on this, it seems.
Hopkins wasn't quite as fleet footed as either imo and didn't quite have Archer's jab nor Giardello's style even if you wanted to say that the constructed layers of his defensive makeup were better as an overall package. He was often content to mix his movement and mid-range positioning with s****ping, spoiling and mauling up close, which is what Griffith did against Tiger. And I thought Tiger edged their fight tbh.
Hopkins was generally good at close range in this day and age of nonexistent inside tussling, but I can't quite shake the notion of him being something of a flat track bully who never responded well to people who had ring intelligence that challenged his own or the gumption to take him on at his own game up close, which was depressingly rare. So I'd be very interested to see what he made of Tiger at that range and how he might respond.
As Griffith did? Or go entirely defensive after much *****ing and moaning to the ref? I'd bet on the latter, so it's just a question of whether he could keep himself half a peg in front over the 15.