Howard Eastman

Joppy was not a bad fighter, not even close.

I think you’re selling him a little short, considering he was rated every year by Ring Magazine for nine years straight, reaching as high as number two, multiple years.

You don’t accomplish that if you suck. I went through the Ring Magazine annual ratings, he claimed 4 scalps that were top 10 contenders during his tenure at 160. Was 11-5 in title fights despite losing his last 3 such fights, meaning he was 11-2 with 7 KO’s at one point. Average fighters don’t do that.

 

Exactly! Joppy was no push over. He'd easily be a belt holder if around today.

 

I think if it weren’t for Hopkins, he’d have been the best during that time.

 

If Tito didn't stop by, yes

 

That too lol

Cheato Tito

 

Was a tough solid fighter. I used to think he choked in the big fights and never fulfilled his potential.

 

I think he just came up a little bit short to be honest

no shame in losing to William Joppy or Bernard Hopkins

 

Helped bring a young Carl Froch on as a young pro with some tough sparring sessions

 

You are putting words in my mouth there compa.

Average is a relative term though. Obviously if the overall competition was quite weak then even an above average fighter for the time can still be average in a historical sense.
We are talking the middleweight champion of the world, that moniker holds a bit of prestige.

What I was trying to highlight if that Eastman was as good as some were expecting then he should have bested Joppy, who was probably on the decline by that stage and post Tito destruction. He came pretty close I guess but dug himself to large a hole with the early deficit from memory.

Joppy made the most of what he had. Tough, athletic guy with good combos but his technical ability and defence was shown to be lacking culminating in the Hopkins Chipmunkafication.

 

I think the Tito fight shaved some of his lifespan down pretty badly. Hopkins dominated him every second of their fight. I thought he’d push Hopkins at least a little bit.

 

Yeah I know what you mean. Like he never beats Hopkins but you got to wonder if pre-Tito Joppy could make more of a fight of it.
I doubt it, Hopkins is a master of taking a fighter's strengths away. And when you took away the hand speed and athletcisim of Joppy he wasnt really a well developed boxer or ring general.

That may have been one of Hopkins' last 'Nard' performances, where he was more willing to let his hands go.
I think the side bet where Hopkins wagered he would knock Joppy out was a motivating factor aswell lol.

 

These fights were before I got into the sport, and Tito made it look like Joppy was some paper titlist. After watching more and more of the middleweight fights from that era, it became clear to me that Joppy was actually damn good.

I got into the sport when Bute picked old ass Joppy as a title defense at 168, lol. And then years later Shumenov dragged Joppy´s 40 year old carcass up to Cruiserweight for a title defense. Had to have been the worst title defense of that year, and it stuck with me.
Karma is a ***** tho *cough*joppyvsduran*cough*

 

Not Joppy’s fault Duran was winning fights often

Duran had won 16 of his last 20 over a 6 year period, so it’s not like he was a total corpse, he was obviously past his best but he was beating lower to middle tier guys. Even beat Castro during that stretch in a rematch.

 

I assume you were around back then, what was the sentiment like going into that fight?

 

I wasn’t following at the time but a lot of people were upset Duran got that fight and some felt Joppy was a little too happy about beating Duran.

My thing is, winning a fight and defending your belt is never anything to be ashamed of. Especially since Duran was the one fighting and winning, Joppy didn’t beg for the fight,

Because imagine if Duran landed a haymaker and beat Joppy? Joppy would have been a massive laughing stock.