When was hopkins prime & how does he rate to the hopkins who fought pavlik/calzaghe?

He was in his prime against Calzaghe, Pavlik and Tarver.

When he was younger he beat, but didn't exactly make a fool of Howard Eastman even.

Due to some rare genetics he aged very slowly, so only phyically peaked well into his 40s. I know that sounds far fetched, but it is almost certainly true, stranger things have happened in the world. Add that to his now superior skillset and it is clear last year was his prime.

 

watch him againt Johnson, Trinidad, Echols, Holmes, Joppy.

 

Trinidad was his peak, maybe slightly before that.

He's lasted well by being cagey - the younger Hopkins was more athletic but the older Hopkins was more cagey. Pre-Trinidad was his best balance

 

His mental prime is definitely in these fights. His physical prime was around and after jones. So really he have two primes but the median is when he beat down trinidad when he was both physically strong as well as mental.

 

Hopkins was #1 before Taylor I. I think he was always behind Jones at the #2 spot. Hopkins was way more athletic and aggressive back in the time (eg. the Glen Johnson fight) but he aged really well. He knows the game perfectly, he's disciplined and wants to be remembered as an all-time great, that's why he's so effective at 44, 15 pounds over his weight class.

 

Fighters have (at least) two kinds of peak.

And often, if the're 'brought along' carefully and start young, those two should coincide.

The first peak relates to the physical condition of the man and is mostly determined by genetics, though training and nutrition can play roles.


For MOST physical endeavours, and most men, this occurrs between 20 and 23. There's a slow falling off after that. For endurance events, some peak later, say 27-30.

For boxing, I would say the physical peak, all things considered, occurs around 25 and is decline thereafter.


Then there's the skills-set peak.

In games of physical prowess, you improve with practice and experience.

And this improvement continues well past the physical peak, as you practice and learn more 'moves.'


The two kinds of peak are in an interplay with each other, and the overall peak occurs there is optimum balance between the skill set peak and the physical peak.

In other words when there opimal balance between the increasing skill set and the decreasing physical prowess.

IMO, for MOST boxers, this ranges from 26-29.



In Bernard's case, he came to the game very late in life, therefore his skillset continued to improve past an age where most would have 'learned all they were going to learn.'

In addition, his body did not have the physical damage inflicted that other boxers had, at an early age as he wasn't in the sport.

Finally, he has a body type that (with good fitness and nutrition practices) aged more slowly than average.

The result of all of this is that Bernard's peak was postponed well past the age of most boxers.

I would say that his peak was sometime between his fights with Roy and Joe, and I would further state that he was closer to peak when he fought Joe than when he fought Roy.

(A poll on here on that question resulted in posters agreeing with me by a ratio of 4 to 3. http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=7111)

I don't believe that a bell curve is the best representation of the peak. I feel that the peak lasts for some length of time, months or years, and therefore the curve would be essentially flat, representing a plateau, before the onset of serious decline.


IMO, Bernard's peak stretched from about Echols to Delahoya, roughly 35 to 40.


And the decline has been slower since his peak, than would be expected from most boxers.

The version from Eastman to Pavlik, was as good, IMO, as the version from Mercado to the Allen fights (first two).

While he may have been in better physical shape for Mercado to Allen, he had more skills (somebody said cagey) during Eastman to Pavlik.

And BHop is pretty much unique in where his peak lay.

 

.
That is biggest load of dog **** I have ever read. Bhop was near his peak against Calzaghe. Bhop said why he underperformed in that fight. He said he overrtrained and did not rest his body. For the Pavlik fight he did not do as much training/sparring etc etc. He has been far removed from his prime since the JT fights. Adding on the extra weight helped out but you dont get younger bones and joints.

 

hopkins had a LONG prime
I would say from when he was 35 to the taylor fights and it seems he got him a second wind

 

Pretty, read the whole ****ing post, and not just the little snippet that gets your red flags out.

I never said he was at peak for Calzaghe.

He was at least three years past peak for that fight.

What BHop said about overtraining and such ****, doesn't matter a ****. He's a proud man and has to have an excuse. In fact, I've never heard him say he underperformed in that fight.


And you say:

If you'd read my post more carefully, you would see that I indicated he was PAST PRIME FOR BOTH JT fights.

So I have his prime EARLIER than you do.

Again, between 2000 and 2004, before either JT fight.

 

If that's true, you need to read some if One Punch's thoughts in the lounge.

 

"I would say that his peak was sometime between his fights with Roy and Joe, and I would further state that he was closer to peak when he fought Joe than when he fought Roy."

Yeah, you really narrow the gap. 1993-2008. His prime was between 1997-2001. Closer to ****ing Roy than Joe if you want to get technical.