Harold Johnson vs Hopkins

[Bummy Davis]

I like Johnson by UD

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by Boxed Ears

Did no one show you how to add a poll? I skimmed but I didn't see anybody say it. Upper right of your original post, click thread tools there and a menu pops up with the option to add a poll.

Thanks! Done.

[lora]

Hopkins is becoming egregiously overestimated imo.

All the "old school master ring general, impossible to figure out"stuff is getting tiresome and will only take an old fighter so far against the genuinely great fighters that were natural at a higher weight.

Its also often easier to look like a master ring-general when you are well-schooled and come up against one track non-technicians and punchers for most of your career.

Who were the best boxers Hopkins ever fought, the most adaptable?.Well at light heavy you have a similarly aging, physically out of his depth Winky Wright....the most technically sound and that fight was an appalling clinch, punch n' grab fest and pretty damn close.Then you have Calzaghe, not too technical, but natural adaptable and while i sympathise with the debate Hopkins arguably won, both looked like shit for a large chunk of the fight and it was actually Calzaghe that did the more efficient adapting, with Hopkins far superior punching technique and defence being what brought him success.


The basic tools and athleticism Johnson brings to the table are going to be far too much.He's quicker, stronger, has a much better outside game for piling up points with that great jab and one two, compared to Hopkins counterpunching on mistakes and pot shotting right hands.He hits much harder and i dont think Hopkins has the offense to crack his D.

There's no shame in it and Hopkins is overall a great fighter of course, but taking on a primed Johnson at light heavy is far, far too much.Not a competitive fight unless harold was off-form and in tuneup mode.

[burt bienstock]

Some thought must be given to this question... Are we talking about pound for pound ? Or are we talking about about catchweights ? The Harold Johnson at his normal weight of 175,who whipped Jimmy Bivins, Arturo Godoy,Bert Lytell, Archie Moore, Clarence Henry
Bob Satterfield,Nino Valdez, etc whips any version of Bernard Hopkins easily.He beat a slew of guys that would lick Bernard Hopkins, as they were strong ,normal light heavies
fighting in a much superior era than Bernard did. Harold Johnson,too big and strong for
Hopkins at their best...

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by burt bienstock

Some thought must be given to this question... Are we talking about pound for pound ? Or are we talking about about catchweights ? The Harold Johnson at his normal weight of 175,who whipped Jimmy Bivins, Arturo Godoy,Bert Lytell, Archie Moore, Clarence Henry
Bob Satterfield,Nino Valdez, etc whips any version of Bernard Hopkins easily.He beat a slew of guys that would lick Bernard Hopkins, as they were strong ,normal light heavies
fighting in a much superior era than Bernard did. Harold Johnson,too big and strong for
Hopkins at their best...

The premise is that Hopkins moves up to 175 soon after the Trinidad fight, i e ca five years earlier than he did in reality.

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

The premise is that Hopkins moves up to 175 soon after the Trinidad fight, i e ca five years earlier than he did in reality.

Got your premise B.He moves up to 175, gets stopped,by a stronger Johnson, jimmy Bivins,Archie Moore, Clarence Henry, and moves back to
160 where he can win. End of premise ! A different era and calibre of fighters fought in the Harold Johnson era...

[GPater11093]

Originally Posted by abraq

This would be a very good fight. P4p, B'Hop was the better fighter. But Harold Johnson was the naturally bigger man (I am not talking about only height here). IMO, both were equal technicians but Hopkins was more innovative. Would this be enough? Or, could Johnson use his naturally slightly bigger size to offset this?

I don't know. I don't mind Harold Johnson winning. But, as many here has intelligently pointed out, Bernard Hopkins might just do what is necessary to take this one. But one thing I know is that this one is going to be a very, very close fight.

I'm not sure about this statement. I see where you are coming from, though. I think Johnson was pretty clever in there with creating traps and angles, he wasn't stuck to the textbook, he rather expanded on it and used it. I think his adaptability and innovation is slightly overlooked.

By that token, controversially, I would say Hopkins is slightly sounder technically. I know, bold call.

Originally Posted by Bokaj

No, Pastrano's movement just didn't give him many openings. It's not like he overreached and looked clumsy as Liston did at times against Clay. You can have perfect balance, but still find it hard to find opening against a fast moving target.

IMO he wasn't throwing as he could not find a targte on balance.

Johnson stayed in the centre of the ring without exposing himself by overreaching, he just had a hard time keeping up with a younger, faster fighter.

Agreed here.

It's always hard to see clearly on such footage, but to me it seemed that Johnson actually landed more jabs than Pastrano. He also started to land with solid shots in the later rounds.

I'll have to watch it again pal.

Sure, strike that category altogether then. Johnson still had the remaining two imo.



Yeah, always hard to fight someone with speed and skill, especially when you're old and slowing down. But still think Johnson got the more solid work done, which shows just how good he was.

It has been a while since I seen it. I think I had it really close to Pastrano, all on the last if I remember rightly. I do not think it can be construed as a robbery though.

Originally Posted by burt bienstock

Got your premise B.He moves up to 175, gets stopped,by a stronger Johnson, jimmy Bivins,Archie Moore, Clarence Henry, and moves back to
160 where he can win. End of premise ! A different era and calibre of fighters fought in the Harold Johnson era...

I don't think Hopkins is too far behind these guys in ability.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by GPater11093

IMO he wasn't throwing as he could not find a targte on balance.

True. But that's not the same as being off-balance in my book. But we're probably moving into semantics here, basically we seem to be on the same page: Pastrano's movement and speed made it hard for Johnson to get off his punches. I think that's what we're both saying.

[GPater11093]

Agreed.

We just disagree on the extent of Pastrano's success.

I'd be interested to here your thoughts on my comments on Hopkins being the sounder technician.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by GPater11093

I'd be interested to here your thoughts on my comments on Hopkins being the sounder technician.

Oh. Sounder than Johnson? That's a gutsy claim.

I've only seen Johnson against Charles and Pastrano and parts of his last Moore fight. And of Hopkin's I've only seen the fights against Jones, Trinidad, Pavlik and Tarver and parts of his fights against De la Hoya and Calzaghe. So there are better judges here than me.

But if we compare their best efforts it seems like very little separates them in terms of technique. Johnson's jab is better, but that's probably down to more things than just technique. Conversely, I'm very impressed by Hopkin's defence on the ropes, but that's also partly down to his ring generalship.

The main difference between them is what they've been tested against. Looking good against Charles and Moore is a level above looking good against Tarver and Pavlik. So I'd have to say that Johnson is the more proven of them, but I still find it hard separating them. Perhaps Hopkins is better at playing it by ear (but now we're talking ring generalship), but Johnson is the better at dictacting a fight with his jab I'd say. Very close anyway you look at it.

And your case?

[PowerPuncher]

What are people's thoughts on Hopkins comparisons to Moore, in terms of a technician, speed, defense.....obviously Archie packs more of wallop

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by lora

Then you have Calzaghe, not too technical, but natural adaptable and while i sympathise with the debate Hopkins arguably won, both looked like shit for a large chunk of the fight and it was actually Calzaghe that did the more efficient adapting.

Good post all round, and I like this part especially. It's exactly how I see it, too. Hopkins didn't need to adapt of course, unless he was capable of upping his punch out-put, but he basically got forced to fight a fight he didn't want to and couldn't change the fact.

[Senya13]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

What are people's thoughts on Hopkins comparisons to Moore, in terms of a technician, speed, defense.....

On film Hopkins looks better in all three departments. Some people will argue that Moore was better defensively, but the frequency that he was being hit proves otherwise.

[GPater11093]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

Oh. Sounder than Johnson? That's a gutsy claim.

It is, I better clarify this, by sounder I mean, better rounded. As in less weaknesses.

But if we compare their best efforts it seems like very little separates them in terms of technique.

Agreed. I think Johnson is much more of a 'traditionalist' whereas Hopkins is a bit more unique. I mean both guys are outstanding technically, but Johnson tends to stick to the basics, whereas Hopkins seems to have grasped and adapted them slightly better for himself.

Not saying he is any more effective with it, just the usage of them differs slightly.

Johnson's jab is better, but that's probably down to more things than just technique. Conversely, I'm very impressed by Hopkin's defence on the ropes, but that's also partly down to his ring generalship.

I'd say Johnson's offence is better overall. If you have seen the bout with Von Clay (McGrain may have uploaded it), he really shows some superb punching technique and lets some hard combo's go. I think Johnson is much more consistent in his attack and uses more combinations.

Hopkins on the other hand, I feel, is slightly stop-start with his offence. It can catch opponents off guard, but IMO he does not sustain it often enough. Saying that when Hopkins does sustain he looks usperb, but it is not the calibre of opposition of Johnson's adversaries.

The main difference between them is what they've been tested against. Looking good against Charles and Moore is a level above looking good against Tarver and Pavlik. So I'd have to say that Johnson is the more proven of them, but I still find it hard separating them. Perhaps Hopkins is better at playing it by ear (but now we're talking ring generalship), but Johnson is the better at dictacting a fight with his jab I'd say. Very close anyway you look at it.

I like that, I really do. You are sort of expanding on my point of Hopkins adapting the basics slightly better. I feel, yes, he is slightly more adaptable but less forceful. Johnson looks to play his own game, Hopkins tends to feel you out and play a counter-game.

The biggest point though is Hopkins IMO has no real, glaring weakness. Whereas Johnson had a bad tendency to be hit by right handers, there just isn't that 'hole' in Hopkins game IMO.