Bernard Hopkins vs Tommy Hearns @ 160

If Taylor can beat Hopkins, Hearns could and definitively. I don't care what age.

 

Hearns isnt strong enough to go 15 with Hopkins at 160. Hearns was up and down in weight all the time that he really never settled in at 160 with the stronger fighters than him. He struggled at 160, his legs weren't all there. Bhop is too cagey for Tommy. This is a bad style matchup for Hearns. Bhop spoils him and roughs Tommy up on the inside. 160 wasnt Tommys weight. He struggled there with the bigger stronger fighters

 

Hearns UD

 

I disagree with this nowadays. I think Bernard probably circumnavigates the jab well enough to get inside and exploit the gap in ability while ear-to-ear. Plus B-Hop is a lot more suited to the weight and great at taking away the right hand.

 

All of Hopkins best wins/performances came in his late 30s with the Tarver win being top 5 performance for Hopkins.

Tito aged 36
Holmes aged 36
ODLH aged 39
Tarver aged 41

Hopkins had better energy levels when he was younger yes but he wasn't quite the technician he was in his later years.

Beterbiev's best win is Bivol yes but alot felt he lost the fight and it wasn't anywhere close to a virtuoso performance like Hopkins/Tarver.

 

Hopkins went on to have one of the best performances of his career vs Tarver after losing to Taylor.

All of Hopkins's top 5 wins/performances were when he was in his late 30s with the Tarver performance being when Hopkins was aged 41.

Taylor was simply a stylistic problem for Hopkins it's as simple as that.

A younger Hopkins had better energy levels of course but he become a better technician in his later years.

So whilst I don't think Hopkins was at his absolute peak vs Taylor he was still very good. And it has more to do with the stylistic problem that Hopkins faced vs Taylor rather than Hopkins being a shot old man which he clearly wasn't.

And as I've said Hearns is identical to Taylor in regards to height and reach except Hearns has a better jab and significantly more 1 punch KO power.

 

He was at his peak against Glen Johnson and Joppy, Hopkins needed to become more clever because he lost his speed and reflexes

 

Hopkins’ win against Tarver was a solid win, but it absolutely wasn’t Hopkins’ prime, his prime was somewhere between his Glen Johnson win and his Felix Trinidad win.

Hopkins had certain tools which allowed him to remain quality into his 40s, but even with that, you’re still much better in your early-mid 30s than your 40s, since you still lose your athleticism, it’s just that athleticism wasn’t something he relied on, but it helps any fighter.

 

Did you read what I said ?

I never said Hopkins was at his peak vs Taylor.

I said he was still very good and not that far from his prime.

Johnson and Joppy do not present the same stylistic challenge that Taylor does.

The point I'm making is the issue Hopkins had vs Taylor is due to the stylistic problems that Taylor presented. And not simply because Hopkins was some old shot fighter which he clearly wasn't as evident of his performances shortly before and after the Taylor fights.

 

It wasn't just a solid win Tarver was considered the best Light Heavyweight in the world it would be a top 5 win and performance on Hopkins's ledger.

The fact is Hopkins was still very good vs Taylor and his performances before and after the Taylor fights suggests that also.

 

He was never shot there but I dont think 40 year old Hopkins beats 34 year old hopkins

 

I think the point you're missing is I'm suggesting Hopkins had alot of issues with Taylor due to a stylistic issue.

Those same stylistic issues I think he would face against Hearns who had identical height and reach to Taylor. But as I keep saying Hearns had a better jab and a much more potent right hand than Taylor.

 

Wasn't Hearns record at 160 5-2 and getting KO'd twice?

Tommy was a fine and well-trained fighter but Bernard was way more intelligent in the ring. Hopkins would maneuver his way to either a late round KO or decision.

 

Hopkins being a late bloomer doesn't change the fact that he'd been fighting pro for 17 years and Hagler and Monzon's career didn't last that long. Who is at their best at the 17 year mark before the current era.

Tarver was one of his best performances because he'd been released from the burden of making 160. This is a guy that had one, just one fight, under 160 in his first 21 fights. He was then routinely making 160 for another 12 years before he faced Taylor. It's hardly fanciful that he was struggling by the time he fought Taylor. I think it was Steward that harped on about it when he fought Tarver. The extra life and energy was obvious against Tarver where he came in at a whopping 174, 14 pounds heavier than he had been for 12 years. That energy and form then carried. Of course he was battling against his age by then, he was miles past his physical prime. At least he wasn't battling that and struggling against the weight.

Hopkins best was probably around Johnson to Trinidad. He'd made 20 odd defenses by the time he faced Taylor for heavens sake.

I disagree. Hopkins never struggled getting past jabs and taking away right hands. Taylor simply wasn't that good. 5 minutes later Hopkins was whooping guys that were whooping Taylor, and not just one of them. I'd bet big dollars that if they fought the rematch with less weight constraints Hopkins would have beaten him soundly.

Hopkins had plenty of workrate around the time he fought Johnson. Age and making weight slowly conspired later on.

I had it 7-5 for Nard, i think rough did too. Below is the unoffical cards from ringside and such. 21 cards and Taylor gets just two and two draws. Heaps of cards have it 116-112 and 117-111 for Hopkins. It's hardly a stretch he got the better of it.

• Jerry Magee, San Diego Union-Tribune: 114-114 Draw
• Dan Rafael, ESPN: 114-114 Draw
• TheSweetScience.com: 117-111 Taylor
• Harold Lederman, HBO: 115-113 Taylor
• Kevin Iole, Las Vegas Review-Journal: 115-113 Hopkins
• Max Kellerman, HBO: 115-113 Hopkins
• Michael Katz, Reuters: 115-113 Hopkins
• Paul Upham, SecondsOut.com: 115-113 Hopkins
• Associated Press: 114-113 Hopkins
• Ramiro Gonzalez, La Opinion: 116-112 Hopkins
• Doug Fischer, MaxBoxing.com: 116-112 Hopkins
• David Mayo, Grand Rapids Press: 116-112 Hopkins
• Keith Idec, New Jersey Herald-News: 116-112 Hopkins
• David Avila, Riverside Press Enterprise: 116-112 Hopkins
• Tim Smith, New York Daily News: 116-112 Hopkins
• Ron Borges,Boston Globe: 116-112 Hopkins
• Joe Santoloquito, The Ring Magazine: 116-113 Hopkins
• Robert Morales, Los Angeles Daily News: 117-111 Hopkins
• Franklin McNeil, Newark Star-Ledger: 117-111 Hopkins
• Steve Kim, MaxBoxing.com: 117-111 Hopkins
• Ivan Goldman, The Ring Magazine: 117-111 Hopkins

 

Yep. I also think MW was becoming difficult for him to make as he became older, and stylewise opponents like Tarver probably suited the spoiling counterpuncher he grew into better than quick, young fighters like Taylor.

I think there's a clear decline in his MW performances after Tito. Compare Allen 2 and 3 for example.