Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > General Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-29-2012, 01:58 AM   #16
pride4jc1222
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Posts: 441
vCash: 1000
Default Re: A fact of life: Bernard Hopkins never lost in his prime

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotty321 View Post
So what fighters did B-Hop beat that were better than Jones Jr?
Felix Trinidad
pride4jc1222 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 04-29-2012, 02:02 AM   #17
tito44
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ponce
Posts: 2,784
vCash: 1000
Default Re: A fact of life: Bernard Hopkins never lost in his prime

Quote:
Originally Posted by pride4jc1222 View Post
I'm pretty sure that Hopkins beat Glen Johnson and Felix Trinidad. I'm pretty sure they were better than Jermaine Taylor.
Don't be ridiculous. Trinidad and De La Hoya were welterweights. Neither were at Taylor, in his prime's ievel at that weight. Glen Johnson never was that close.He made his name off beating smaller guys, he should have been dq'd against Winky. And even though he is old as hell, Dawson tonight and Calzaghe just made him look stupid.
tito44 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2012, 02:03 AM   #18
Lance_Uppercut
ESKIMO
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Alaska
Posts: 26,025
vCash: 1000
Default Re: A fact of life: Bernard Hopkins never lost in his prime

Lost to Taylor in his prime. Can't change that.
Lance_Uppercut is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2012, 02:04 AM   #19
Scotty321
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,269
vCash: 1000
Default Re: A fact of life: Bernard Hopkins never lost in his prime

Quote:
Originally Posted by pride4jc1222 View Post
Felix Trinidad
Scotty321 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2012, 02:07 AM   #20
J.R.
No Mames Guey
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,528
vCash: 107
Default Re: A fact of life: Bernard Hopkins never lost in his prime

A LOT of all-time greats can make this same claim.
J.R. is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2012, 02:07 AM   #21
pride4jc1222
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Posts: 441
vCash: 1000
Default Re: A fact of life: Bernard Hopkins never lost in his prime

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance_Uppercut View Post
Lost to Taylor in his prime. Can't change that.
Hopkins was 40 years old when he lost to Taylor. Hopkins was already passed his prime.
pride4jc1222 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2012, 02:11 AM   #22
Lance_Uppercut
ESKIMO
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Alaska
Posts: 26,025
vCash: 1000
Default Re: A fact of life: Bernard Hopkins never lost in his prime

Quote:
Originally Posted by pride4jc1222 View Post
Hopkins was 40 years old when he lost to Taylor. Hopkins was already passed his prime.
Establish the years YOU think he was at his prime, and explain why chose that time frame. A fighters age doesn't always indicate his prime, because being in your physical prime isn't the same as the prime of your career.
Lance_Uppercut is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2012, 02:11 AM   #23
Scotty321
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,269
vCash: 1000
Default Re: A fact of life: Bernard Hopkins never lost in his prime

Quote:
Originally Posted by pride4jc1222 View Post
Hopkins was 40 years old when he lost to Taylor. Hopkins was already passed his prime.
And he was just out of diapers at 28 when Jones Jr whipped him?
Scotty321 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2012, 02:12 AM   #24
Caelum
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,702
vCash: 500
Default Re: A fact of life: Bernard Hopkins never lost in his prime

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance_Uppercut View Post
Lost to Taylor in his prime. Can't change that.

Past his prime by then. Pre-Tito is a great look at Prime Hopkins


If you take the version of Hopkins that dismantled Johnson, Taylor would have been crushed.

Even the version that fought Tito, Taylor would have lost.
Caelum is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2012, 02:12 AM   #25
Lance_Uppercut
ESKIMO
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Alaska
Posts: 26,025
vCash: 1000
Default Re: A fact of life: Bernard Hopkins never lost in his prime

Quote:
Originally Posted by pride4jc1222 View Post
Felix Trinidad

Tito was not better then Jones Jr. No way. This statement almost makes it hard to take anything else you say as serious.
Lance_Uppercut is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2012, 02:14 AM   #26
Lance_Uppercut
ESKIMO
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Alaska
Posts: 26,025
vCash: 1000
Default Re: A fact of life: Bernard Hopkins never lost in his prime

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caelum View Post
Past his prime by then. Pre-Tito is a great look at Prime Hopkins


If you take the version of Hopkins that dismantled Johnson, Taylor would have been crushed.
Hopkins Prime is hard to pin down. He has a great deal of succes at the top level post Tito. What's to separate Hops pre- and post tito, aside from age and style? Tough one.
Lance_Uppercut is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2012, 02:16 AM   #27
pride4jc1222
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Posts: 441
vCash: 1000
Default Re: A fact of life: Bernard Hopkins never lost in his prime

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance_Uppercut View Post
Establish the years YOU think he was at his prime, and explain why chose that time frame. A fighters age doesn't always indicate his prime, because being in your physical prime isn't the same as the prime of your career.
There is no doubt in mind that Bernard Hopkins was in his prime during the years 1995-2004.

Hopkins' prime began in 1995, when he won the IBF Middleweight title. His prime ended in 2004, after he knocked out De La Hoya.
pride4jc1222 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2012, 02:21 AM   #28
Caelum
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,702
vCash: 500
Default Re: A fact of life: Bernard Hopkins never lost in his prime

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance_Uppercut View Post
Hopkins Prime is hard to pin down. He has a great deal of succes at the top level post Tito. What's to separate Hops pre- and post tito, aside from age and style? Tough one.

His I.Q. and boxing technique has allowed him to do well past his peak or prime years. Peak and Prime sometimes gets separated. It's a matter of opinion. Prime might be more of a broad look I guess.

But by the time he fought Taylor, he was past his best. He started to adjust the way he fought because his stamina wasn't quite the same. He used to take rounds off even. Time when he'll attack. He was more conservative with how much energy he spent because there was only so much in the tank and that tank was slowly leaking.


Robert Allen, who fought Hopkins three times, thought Hopkins was on the decline the last time they fought. And despite being knocked down, he thought Hopkins' power had declined.
Caelum is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2012, 02:30 AM   #29
Lance_Uppercut
ESKIMO
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Alaska
Posts: 26,025
vCash: 1000
Default Re: A fact of life: Bernard Hopkins never lost in his prime

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caelum View Post
His I.Q. and boxing technique has allowed him to do well past his peak or prime years. Peak and Prime sometimes gets separated. It's a matter of opinion. Prime might be more of a broad look I guess.

But by the time he fought Taylor, he was past his best. He started to adjust the way he fought because his stamina wasn't quite the same. He used to take rounds off even. Time when he'll attack. He was more conservative with how much energy he spent because there was only so much in the tank and that tank was slowly leaking.


Robert Allen, who fought Hopkins three times, thought Hopkins was on the decline the last time they fought. And despite being knocked down, he thought Hopkins' power had declined.
can't argue. Hops is one of those who's prime is hard to pin down. It also can be used to argue that the prime of an athlete, isn't the "be all, end all", of his being a top fighter. All too often here, posters use the "He's past his prime" to suggest a win over said boxer means nothing or is tainted.
Lance_Uppercut is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2012, 02:32 AM   #30
Lance_Uppercut
ESKIMO
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Alaska
Posts: 26,025
vCash: 1000
Default Re: A fact of life: Bernard Hopkins never lost in his prime

Quote:
Originally Posted by pride4jc1222 View Post
There is no doubt in mind that Bernard Hopkins was in his prime during the years 1995-2004.

Hopkins' prime began in 1995, when he won the IBF Middleweight title. His prime ended in 2004, after he knocked out De La Hoya.
Out of curiosity, what factors did you come up with to choose the DLH fight as the end of his prime?
Lance_Uppercut is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > General Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013