Bernard Hopkins vs Charley Burley

[McGrain]

Only a tiny handful of fighters have "millions."

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by thistle1

this guy never said that at all... this guy happens to focus first on ERA's, the Best of those Era's, Champions & Contenders alike are streets ahead of weaker Era's.

WHY???

because of the level of competition, number of fights among that competition, longievity in that Era & against such comp and lastly fighting up against the next division or two.

this guy said two things about Hopkins (and others),

1) in that Golden Era of the 1930s - mid-late 50s, Hopkins would have been a L-HW, a 6'1" guy at that time was never a MW except as a young teenage fighter passing through the division, leveling off as a L-HW cum HW.

2) against such reality and fighting facts, again Comp & number of fights against such Comp, does BHop 'stay' the distance, does he remain a TOP fighter???

well all we've got to compare is His Era, much weeker comp and a fighter who fought (like most today) well below his natural weight - there is very little to say that he swims with the sharks for a career of it.

Thats it, thats all, and it is the same for ALL fighters from weaker Era's, the fighters that DID it, are Sealed for ALL TIME, the ones that did'nt have to be looked at under the microscope to see where they would fit in such Era's and whether they would still be on top or not... thats it, it's that simple!

I said Bhop would be a 'Fringe Contender and a Journeyman fighter, as SO many greats then were and became, on the fringe finishing up journeymen.

as to Froch/Bute - the comparison was Two Great Fighters, the courts were split even as to who was going to win, but Froch walked it... Why? because he was just better... not a difficult analogy was it?

Burley's just better.


and believing in God all of a sudden rules a person out of discussion. Please.

The Froch/Bute comparison is still abysmal,

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by Shake

How do you feel about the assertion that it is almost a different sport now? The dip in activity and frequency of fights in a boxers career makes it so that it suits different types of fighters.

Injury-prone but otherwise fine boxers can thrive in the current climate, where they couldn't in an environment where you often boxed more than once in a month. You have the advantage of video footage of your opponent, ample time to prepare for his style, and to prepare yourself physically. Ricky Hatton was famous for a lifestyle that would have barred him from any sustained success in the old days.

In reverse, you could say the best fighters in the old days were the ones that kept fit continuously, could fight while avoiding injuries, be tough and fight with injuries or in less than perfect condition, figure out an opponent while having much more limited info and without the use of performance enhancing substances.

The current climate favors fighters who, given the perfect preparation and postponement in case of injury, can work towards the highest highs and peak at just the right moment. You need to be a "ten" twice a year.

In the old days natural fitness, grit and recuperative ability were much more important. It does no good to be sterling one night and wortless the next. You need to be an "eight" all year round.

Therefore, I submit that modern fighters of comparable standing reach a higher level of quality in comparison to their old time counterparts on a given fight night.

In other words -- the boxing on display in the modern era is better, overall, than in the days of 200+ fights on a resume. In the old days it was simply more quantity instead of quality.

I largely agree with this, but like Flea said, not the bit about modern fighters reaching a higher level - in general, perhaps, mostly with regards to physical condition (tying in with what you've said about injuries and preparation), but when those old timers had a bit longer to get ready, that difference I consider negligible.

Not so negligible is the difference in craft; I agree with Surf-Bat's assertion that number of fights x quality of opponents = experience = skill.

My addition to this leans away from that slightly; we have to remember that humans are still human and that most (not all) great boxers today would likely adapt to the parameters set and rules by which they governed, therefore I believe such a consummate professional such as Bernard Hopkins would fit right into the '40s. To me it's obvious the man is both talented and hardy and would shine in any era, if not as a single standout then at least as part of a top tier elite, even if his own times didn't test him as much as we'd have liked. Two other examples of the same kind of fighter; Bob Foster and Larry Holmes.

[Flea Man]

I think a lot of the best fighters from 24 hour weigh in's onwards would adept well, their career paths would likely be unrecognisable to what they've carved today (or strolled through)

[Shake]

I agree completely that experience is a key ingredient in craft and skill. However, boxing is also a physical sport, and the decline of age is often hurried by miles on the clock and ring wars with competitive adversaries.

The old timers tested themselves more often against better competition often in less than ideal circumstances -- it should be reasonable to assume that wear and tear is a natural consequence. Even in todays environment we see fighters in their twenties deteriorate, although I do admit that performance enhancing drugs and more prevalent dehydration is partly to blame.

But anyone after 100 or so fights should experience a physical drop-off, and there is a cut-off point where that matters more than in-ring experience.

[Flea Man]

I blame 24 hour weigh in's for early burn outs we often see nowadays (in terms of number of fights) most fighters seem to cut a stone upwards.

Lamotta would be a monster welterweight today

[Bollox]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

I blame 24 hour weigh in's for early burn outs we often see nowadays (in terms of number of fights) most fighters seem to cut a stone upwards.

Lamotta would be a monster welterweight today

"and may the bigger man win"

[Flea Man]

Hmm...I dtilll think that being at your own natural weight you can overcome any size disadvantages as the bigger cutters compensate by not working in their yehbiqur enough I.3 Pacquiao clotted and margarita and quahog mehhhh

[Surf-Bat]

Originally Posted by Shake

I agree completely that experience is a key ingredient in craft and skill. However, boxing is also a physical sport, and the decline of age is often hurried by miles on the clock and ring wars with competitive adversaries.

The old timers tested themselves more often against better competition often in less than ideal circumstances -- it should be reasonable to assume that wear and tear is a natural consequence. Even in todays environment we see fighters in their twenties deteriorate, although I do admit that performance enhancing drugs and more prevalent dehydration is partly to blame.

But anyone after 100 or so fights should experience a physical drop-off, and there is a cut-off point where that matters more than in-ring experience.

This is true...sometimes. I have found that it usually depends on styles. Guys with give and take style like Ad Wolgast, Battling Nelson, Terry McGovern, Joe Frazier, Jeff Fenech, etc. tend to have a shorter shelf life due to this. But it doesn't apply to guys who weren't as easy to hit and dished out more than they took, as evidenced by the careers of Archie Moore, Johnny Dundee, Harry Greb, Benny Leonard, Willie Pep, etc.

Back then you were considered a mere novice if you hadn't had at least 50 fights with several losses sprinkled in there (losses were considered learning experiences then, not things that make them shred your multi-fight deals with Showtime like today, hence why they pamper fighters in the modern age). Nowadays they think you're ready for a title shot after 20 fights. In earlier eras this would be absolutely UNTHINKABLE.

[Surf-Bat]

Originally Posted by Manassa

Not so negligible is the difference in craft; I agree with Surf-Bat's assertion that number of fights x quality of opponents = experience = skill.

My addition to this leans away from that slightly; we have to remember that humans are still human and that most (not all) great boxers today would likely adapt to the parameters set and rules by which they governed, therefore I believe such a consummate professional such as Bernard Hopkins would fit right into the '40s. To me it's obvious the man is both talented and hardy and would shine in any era, if not as a single standout then at least as part of a top tier elite, even if his own times didn't test him as much as we'd have liked. Two other examples of the same kind of fighter; Bob Foster and Larry Holmes.

I completely agree with this. Hopkins wouldn't be anyone's punk, that's for sure. And H2H I might take Foster over almost any LH in history.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by ecto55

Burley's bigger and more physically accomplished than Oscar de lay Hoya from Burley's bout descriptions and the Smith footage we can veiw; and many (myself included) had Oscar out-boxing the shit out of Hopkins before he got lucky with 'that' liver shot. And anyone who can handle Eddie Booker et al isn't going to get kayo'd by a single Hopkins bodyshot ever...

Burley could out-box, out-hustle and out-punch (in terms of raw power) the best versions of Hopkins; anyone who can turn Archie Moore into his personal skin suit needs more respect than many here are giving Burley.

ODLH is/was bigger than Burley, heavier at the weigh in, heavier in the ring, taller with a wider reach

ODLH was not outboxing Hopkins either, it was about even with Hopkins taking over at the age of 38 at a 157lb catch weight

[Surf-Bat]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

ODLH is/was bigger than Burley, heavier at the weigh in, heavier in the ring, taller with a wider reach

He was not bigger than Burley at all. Just a little taller. Burley was a natural 155 lb fighter. DLH had to grow into the WW range and looked awkward and out of his league fighting at Burley's natural weight . Burley had a longer reach, too. He was a naturally larger fighter.

[Surf-Bat]

Burley weighed 150 lbs for his pro debut. DLH weighed 133.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by Surf-Bat

Burley weighed 150 lbs for his pro debut. DLH weighed 133.

DLH was a career weight drainer, for some of his 147lb fights he'd come into the ring at 160lbs. Burley fought at his natural weight

[Shake]

I was playing devil's advocate here. Old-school Bernard Hopkins is in a way our window into the past. Hopkins was fit his entire life in and out of the ring, and a premiere example of craft, and he has shown amazing longevity to the point where people aren't even sure when his prime was.

We can see firsthand that while he has physically dropped off, he has compensated with his craft. That class has seen him win over a punching workhorse like Pavlik, and a primed physically gifted Jean Pascal.

The lungs of Pavlik and the physical presence of Pascal couldn't bring them victory over this wily old man. Their numerous physical advantages were not enough, in Pavlik's case not by a long shot.

My honest opinion is that while athletes are definitely physically sharper than athletes in the past were on average on match day, that doesn't negate the wealth of experience they possessed. Boxing is funny that way. Seems so physical, but in reality it's such a mental sport. True toughness, the grit to see through to victory, the discipline to do the work in the gym, the craft to exploit your opponents weaknesses and the mental game to be a step ahead of your opponent.

This is what I love about the sport.

People look at me funny when I say I dislike Micky Ward against Arturo Gatti. It turns my stomach at times. Barrera against Morales, now we're talking.

Sorry /rant