Hopkins got worse as the Calzaghe fight went on.

this does not make him prime at 160.

or are you gonna keep ducking that? :-(

 

how many punches a round do you think hopkins was throwing against roy jones?

 

Here you go:

TAKEHARA

GREEN II

GREEN III

CHERIFI

EASTMAN


The guy was a world champion with several defences and several wins over solid comp, and Trinidad utterly devastated him in his first fight at the weight, gave him a beating that neither Bernard Hopkins nor Jermain Taylor could match at 160.



"Pwned" as usual. :smoke:smoke:smoke

 

you have completely ducked my question, try again :deal

 

I have been answering it for pages, but you're just too cross-eyed ******ed to grasp it. Trinidad was in his prime at 147, and his performances at 154 and 160 showed no signs that his prime was over, until B-Hop beat it out of him. His performances at 154 and 160 up to meeting B-Hop were as good as, if not BETTER, than his performances at 147, so there is NO ARGUMENT for saying he was past his prime when he fought Hopkins.

Class dismissed :smoke

 

he was 2 weight classes above his "prime" weight.

he was not "prime" & only a complete fool or a b-hop nuthugger would say he was. & you are both of those. :deal

 

So are you saying Hopkins is choosing to not throw punches when he could. He has in previous fights thrown more than 800 punches and is now suddenly in his 40's choosing to only thrown 400-500 punches a fight?

Please explain Hopkins decision to become less effective by choosing to decrease his workrate? Also if he is not choosing to throw fewer punches why has his workrate decreased if it is not due to stamina issues.

 

what................ and trinidad managed to beat this phenomenen that holds hopkins resume together, with a middleweight trinidad supposedly being the only peak ATG hopkins ever beat





EPIC FAIL :smoke





artyartyartyartyartyartyarty







lets not forget in all this that there are 7 times borenard has got into the ring and wasn't good enough to beat his opponent. added to that, he specialized in dragging fighters above there best weight to beat them and pulled the wool over every ring comic / hbo puppetts eyes :deal






























ps fragile ducker popkins is a cum guzzling deepthroater

 

I would say Tito was in his physical prime just not at his best weight. I personally think he was most effective at light middle, he was too drained at welter which is one reason why he got dropped so much at that weight.

So he was prime just not at the peak of his abilities due to the weight. This of course is with hindsight at the time of the fight it looked light Tito was as good as he ever was at middleweight based upon his performance against Joppy.

 

I wasn't attempting to answer your question just simply pointling out the obvious flaw in your original question.

Ask a ridiculous question you'll get an equally ridiculous answer.

 

no you were simply ducking the question to hide the fact that joppys winning resume is ****ing dog dirt :deal

 

i do not feel he did become less effective. his performance against tarver is easily the best of his career imo. but yes...he did become more cagey. is jmm "less effective" than katsidis? workrate is not proof of anything...i would actually pick the later cagier hopkins that's beating tarver & pavlik over the earlier more active hopkins that lost to rjj & got a draw against mercado.

& someone with "stamina issues" is generally someone who has been exposed late in fights numerous times. b-hop has been the guy finishing strongly in all but 1 of his fights. that is not evidence of "stamina issues". other than the calzaghe fight he has had no "issues" whatsoever with his stamina. in fact...against tarver, pavlik & particularly pascal, his stamina has actually been very obviously better than his opponents'. so you are obviously mis-using the phrase "stamina issues".

maybe. he clearly had difficulty making the 147 limit towards the end of his time there. but you would have to be a spectacular nuthugger *cough* popkins *cough* to think that b-hop faced a "prime" (ie. absolute best with all the conditions being optimum for a peak performance) tito. if there is going to be a debate about when tito was "prime" i doubt anyone other than popkins would argue it was the night he got beat by b-hop.

 

artyarty:hammertimeartyarty
-------------:mj:dance:mj:dance:mj--------------

 

Hopkins got worse, but he was still doing better than calzaghe. all you idiots base rounds off of how hopkins did in one roumd vs. how he did in his previous rounds and if he doesn't do better, then who loses that round. so instead of judging hopkins vs calzaghe, you dumbasses score hopkins previous round vs hopkins current round and then give weak ass calzaghe the fight because hopkins didn't do as good as he did earlier. not because of anything calzaghe actually did, just because everyone's too stupid to see that

This content is protected

 

you're an idiot. you watch Hopkins fights at middleweight. every victory on Hopkins record is a dominating victory that stifled any chance of a career for most of his opponents. Hopkins at middleweight was easily in the top 5 of all time easily. this dumbass statement by you just shows how much you don't know. so you agreeing with the thread starter shows how dumb you both are.