Bob Fitzsimmons vs Bernard Hopkins @ Middleweight

Neither of them beat much at middleweight imo.

 

Hopkins lost to the best three men he fought who were natural 160-168 pounders in Jones, Clazaghe and Taylor.

While his career longevity and title defenses is impressive he's not going to out slug Fitz.

 

Who says he's gotta slug? B-Hop is a master technician and could avoid getting tagged in a phone booth. I think he outboxes fits.

 

Fitz was rather deceptive too with his feints, and traps. Hopkins was never a fleet footed mover, and that is the best way to beat Fitz.

Trying to counter a guy who Ko'd men cold or worse is not the way to win.

 

Assuming he practiced these skills on men who were on Hopkin's level then great.

 

Look after november the 8th, when Sergey KRUSHER Kovalev sends hopkins into the dirt. than all opinions may change.

 

A. Jermain Taylor never beat Hopkins.

B. Why would Kovalev beating a 50 year old Hopkins change anyones opinion of how Hopkins (at mw no less, a weight he hasnt boxed at in years) would do against Fitz? Bob Fitzsimmons was getting his ass handed to him (something Hopkins has yet to have happen) well before age 50.

 

Fitz was always a sucker for the jab.Hopkins could give him fits or should that be Fitz?:think

 

Im a big Fitz fan, and I think he was a top all time great fighter. But I readily agree he looks bad on film. The problem with this kind of judgement is that he was a puncher. Lots of punchers have technical flaws. Its their power that gets the job done. Fitz had the kind of legendary power you see once in MAYBE a generation. If he could hurt Hopkins he could very well change a fight and make it a winning proposition. The problem is that Hopkins is one slipper SOB and reaching him solid, much less hurting, prior to about 45 yrs of age was damn hard proposition by guys who were faster and better coordinated than Fitz.