2001 Bernard Hopkins vs prime Jake Lamotta

So was Jake. Oftentimes he had to practically kill himself to make the middleweight limit.

Jake fought Bob Satterfield, who was bigger and hit a hell of a lot harder than Hopkins. So how is Hopkin's size going to be an issue here?

I think Hopkins has a good chance to win this. But to suggest that he easily beats LaMotta is silly. Jake was far more experienced against MUCH better opposition. It isn't even close in that regard.

Any way you slice it, Hopkins is going to catch hell that night, win, lose or draw.

 

Easy win for Hopkins. LaMotta just doesn't have anything he can surprise prime Hopkins with.

 

The first time he fought LaMotta he was 21 years old.

The second time he was 22

The third time he was 22

The fourth time he was 24

The fifth time he was 25

Please explain to me how these ages can possibly be considered "past prime"?

 

You said he was "past his prime" when he fought LaMotta. All of his fights with Jake LaMotta were when he was under the age of 30 and with plenty of years left in him.

 

I havent seen the responses but my pick is Hopkins who is bigger and smarter, slicker, quicker, and better on defense, with about the same level of durability

Hopkins frustrates lamotta who is headed for another heartbreaking loss

Jake just cant seem to win the big ones

 

I just want an explanation for your claim that Robinson was "past his prime" when he fought LaMotta. Explain please.

And just for the record, Ray was also MIDDLEWEIGHT CHAMPION OF THE WORLD and considered one of the greatest at 160 ever. A greater welter, for sure. But no slouch at 160.

 

That's not what you said. You said he was past his prime against LaMotta, which is provably untrue (as I have clearly illustrated).

Fair enough. But it would definitely be tougher than you think.

 

Hopkins. Too much footwork and combination ability. Hopkins and Robinson are pretty different, bad comparison.

 

You're right. Hopkins doesn't compare to Robinson in either department :smoke