Bernard Hopkins vs Tommy Hearns @ 160

Hopkins was unlucky to lose both imo. A bit like Toney-Griffin.

 

I totally agree. The way some people talk it's as if Taylor beat him easily both times.

 

It's true that that version of Taylor might have been the best MW Hopkins faced bar RJJ, but they were could go either way fights, and I think a five years younger Hopkins wins comfortably, without a need for a rematch.

 

Hearns by decision. Hopkins does not have the brawler type of style like Hagler or Barkley. He is more of an analytical cautious fighter. He is not a puncher either. So chances are Hearns would win a decision with a few shaky moments down the stretch. Hearns had tremendous heart and would likely survive these moments IMO.

 

Again as i've said multiple times i never said Hopkins was in his absolute peak vs Taylor. I said he was not that far off his prime and there is nothing to suggest in his prior performances to Taylor or in his performances after Taylor to say otherwise.

Hopkins had looked fine stopping ODLH and then winning a wide UD over Eastman in his previous fights.

So i'm not buying that the weight is the sole reason Hopkins was struggling against Taylor.

Yes and all of Hopkins's best wins come in his late 30s and and early 40s which suggests he was performing at a very high level despite the age and that Taylor's wins over him are very legit.

Well if Taylor wasn't that good in your own words then why wouldn't Hearns who had identical height/reach to Taylor a better jab and a much more powerful right hand wouldn't have a good chance of beating Hopkins then ?

The fighters who beat Hearns had very good chins and were willing to walkthrough whatever he threw with reckless abandonment almost.

Hopkins is not that type of fighter he can be rough yes and fight a dirty fight on the inside. But he's a low output fighter and i'd argue he wouldn't be so keen to try and be aggressive with the threat of Hearns's right hand especially when Taylor's right hand kept Hopkins honest.

What fighters did Hopkins whoop that whooped Taylor ?

Pavlik moved up two weightclasses to fight Hopkins and he never had a single win at that weight.

Hopkins won a very ugly close fight vs Wright and he hardly whooped him. Again like Pavlik he dragged him up 2 weightclasses and again Wright never registered a single win at Light Heavyweight and clearly didn't belong at the weight.

I'm not taking any scorecard which had 117-111 or 116-112 for Hopkins seriously because that is complete nonsense.

At most it would be 115-113 Hopkins and even that i find to be a stretch with how little Hopkins did in the first 8 rounds. I cannot really find 7 clear rounds that Hopkins won apart from the last 3 or 4 he won.

Also this fight was revisited on this forum not long ago and Taylor edged the poll.

The fact is Hopkins lost twice due to being too passive.

 

Hopkins also stopped ODLH and won a wide UD over Eastman and there was no hint of Hopkins aging in these fights just prior to the Taylor fights which you conveniently left out.

A younger Hopkins was also having all he could handle vs Allen in their 1st fight until he threw himself out the ring.

Sorry not a fan of Hopkins at all with all his play acting ugly style and boring fights.

 

Yes, he was still top level at 40, but he was very much most likely much better in his early-mid 30s, from when he beat Glen Johnson to when he beat Trinidad.

He clearly had learned ring IQ and had a lot of tricks by his mid 30s and I just don’t see anything technically that he was so much better at when he was 40 that outweighs the physical decline to the point where he was better or just as good at 40.

 

You keep bringing up Glen Johnson but he hadn't peaked yet.

Johnson had fought absolutely nobody prior to facing Hopkins and he peaked later on when he moved up to Light Heavyweight.

I never said Hopkins was better at age 40 ? I don't know why people keep assume I'm saying this.

I'm saying Hopkins wasn't that far from his prime when he fought Taylor as evident of his performances prior and after the Taylor fights.

I'm also saying Taylor being a stylistic issue for Hopkins who is arguably the best prime Middleweight he ever fought outside of RJJ. Is the reason Hopkins struggled against Taylor rather than Hopkins being some geriatric old shot fighter.

 

He appears to not be far past it at 40 because of how great his technical skills and IQ is, so even with a heavy decline, he can still look solid because of how good he is.

Most guys’ legs, balance and times etc have gone at 40 in boxing, and Hopkins’ didn’t look shot in that way, but it doesn’t mean his timing or reactions or ability to take advantage in certain moments hadn’t declined by a split second, which can make all of the difference.

So even though he may have looked solid, he was still likely far off what he was at his best, since the body declines a lot from mid 30s to 40 based on science.

Hopkins was still a solid fighter at 40, but was still much more effective in his early-mid-30s.

 

Leave out? I used Allen as an example since a comparison could be made with how he looked against him when younger. There is no such possibility concerning Eastman and ODLH.

He beat Allen the third time as comfortably as he did Eastman and lost fewer rounds than he did against ODLH, from memory, so he by no means had a bad showing. But there's a noticeable difference compared to the rematch IMO.

And he was still very good at that time, yes, but had gone more towards the lower output, punch and grab style that he would go on to perfect. The Allen fights shows this even more clearly, since it's against the same guy.

"Throwing himself out of the ring"?. I wouldn't agree with that. But, yes, he adapted and did better in the rematch. As he did aginst Mercado. As great fighters do.

You don't say.

 

And even younger Hopkins didn't look good vs Allen in their 1st fight.

Hopkins used to be more aggressive and that style didn't quite suit him so he become more technical in his later years where he had his most success.

Or maybe Allen fought a slightly better fight the 3rd time around ?

Well what would you call it then ? Mills Lane barely touched Hopkins and he literally flew out of the ring.

Well i wouldn't say Hopkins is a fan favourite or very popular.

His personality isn't the most likeable.

His fights are boring.

He's a dirty fighter.

He's known to play act in fights.

So yes i wouldn't say me not being a fan of Hopkins is an unpopular opinion.

 

Like many great champions Hopkins didn't have his best fight first time around and then improved. In the third fight he still soundly beat Allen, but didn’t have quite the aggresiveness and work rate he had when younger. As also was showing in his orher fights around this time. Exactly what you would expect for someone closing in on 40.

A bit more realistic than that he progressed radically at 33 over 6 months,.to 34, and then stayed at that level for the next 5 years, to the rubber whem he was 39.

This really is a no brainer

 

Do not think Hopkins deserves a lot of credit for the Glen Johnson,. Glen only became a top fighter later on. overall Hopkins record at 160 is over padded.Although the fights could have gone either way, his 2 losses against Taylor should not be dismissed . Hopkins was only slightly past it and had had some his career best wins after the Taylor fight,.

 

Pretty much all I'm saying is Taylor was a stylistic problem for Hopkins and people are trying to insinuate it was just down to Hopkins age or weight problems and nothing to do with Taylor and I don't agree.

 

I would agree with you that ha probably was. Hopkins after all conclusively beat Wright and Pavlik, whom Taylor had a draw respectvely two losses to. I don't know if anyone disagrees very much with that. It can after all both be true that Hopkins was ageing and getting too big for MW, and that Taylor always would be a tricky opponent. Like Norton for Ali, for example.