Bernard Hopkins 2001 vs. Joe Calzaghe prime, who wins this fight?

Funny, when the scorecards were read I could have sworn Taylor won both fights.

No one will ever look "good" against Hopkins. He's an all time great spoiler, a negative fighter and opportunist... all of these in the best sense of the terms. Unless his beard softens he could go on till he's 60 and still guys will not look good against him. That said, for all the craft and spoiling, he sometimes does not do enough positive fighting to get the decision.

 

Good posts Seamus. I'd take Calzaghe over Hopkins and Toney prime for prime.

Calzaghe raised his game against his better opponents and, if he'd met Bernard in 2002 at 168, he'd have beaten him narrowly. Calzaghe hit much harder at 168 and earlier in his career than he did at 175 when his hand injuries were worse and his power didn't carry.

Hopkins would still land several hard right hands - the punch Joe was most open to throughout his career - but Joe's hand speed and workrate would still win him the fight. Hopkins has a better resume than Joe but let's not pretend he wins a H2H fight.

Bernard always struggles against speed elite fighters IMO - the four losses to Jones, Calzaghe and Taylor twice are proof of this - and Hopkins hates it when he can't work at his own pace. And you know he can't hang with Calzaghe in terms of workrate. Close but clear decision for Calzaghe...

 

it still wouldn't have mattered.

hopkins

 

When exactly are people trying to claim either of these fighters were in their "primes"? And what weight class is this fight supposed to be taking place in?

This thread topic is fundamentally flawed, since these guys spent the vast majority of their world class careers in separate weight classes. Hops only fought above 160 a few times in his first year or so, and then bulked up to 175 (skipping 168 ) toward the very end. The only time they ever shared a weight class was when they actually fought.

 

Exactly. The man was pushing 37 in 2001. Definitely was past his best and especially so as he was a comparatively weaker man at 160 that deep into his 30s relative to the '90s. Anyone who watched his career from the start knew he would beat little Trinidad but also recognized that he was past his prime at 160 in 2001.

rofl

oh my sides .....

 

Especially in light of this quote:

:yep

 

2001 Hops was purely a MW though. The 2008 Hopkins might not have been as quick or busy, but he also was a bigger, stronger fighter after having bulked up to 175 a year or so earlier. No one knows what attributes Hops would've lost or gained had he moved up to 168 in 2001. How would Calzaghe have been affected by punches from a just-moving-up-from-160 Hopkins rather than a bulked up 175-pound version? And how does fighting down in his own natural weight class of 168, rather than in his first serious fight above the weight, alter the fight from Calzaghe's perspective?

 

Agreed with all these quotes.

We're talking about two long-reigning champions with notoriously difficult technical styles, who fought a close, awkward, tough-to-score fight with both men late in their careers and outside their usual weight classes. People can talk all day about what each guy "would've" done under other circumstances, but the "would've"s go both ways, and there's a lot of intangibles to consider. I don't see how anyone can say with any degree of certainty that the outcome would be so outright reversed under other circumstances.

 

74 - 17. Quite reasonable though the 17 is certainly generous.

I don't think anyone is projecting a MW BHOP facing a SMW JC. And, I don't think the assertion of a prime BHOP (and even more so a version from 2001) being a pure MW is quite accurate. BHOP did have to weigh-in at 160 the day before all of his fights from around the end of '92 through the end of '05 but I don't agree with the suggestion that 168 would been problematic as you speculate by saying "No one knows what attributes Hops would've lost or gained had he moved up to 168 in 2001". At what weight do you think he entered the ring on fight night? 161? 163? 165? 168? What do you think he weighed on average when he wasn't trying to get down to 160 for the pre-fight weigh-in or do you think he spent the last week of camp coming up from 155? This is still a 6'1" man who was regularly weighing in the mid-160s from '90 through late '92 when he finally had to strictly make weight the day before fights due to there being belts/titles at stake.

BHOP was becoming progressively more drained at the weight as it is simply unnatural to remain at such a weight with his height and frame until nearly 41 as he did. I think we would learn that his dieting efforts required a herculean commitment and near monk-like sacrifice. It was certainly a strategic decision and one he probably deemed beneficial to remain in the more prestigious division historically, the division he built his legacy and record, and minimize the risk by meeting smaller men in the ring but it was at the sacrifice of power and comparative strength in his mid-30s on.

BHOP finally moved up to 175 at 41 1/2 years of age. At that age, it didn't matter whether he went to 168 or 175 - his best physical period was over. But, comparing BHOP to Calz - physical prime for physical prime (the second half of the 90s 'til decade end for Bernard and the first half of the 00s for Joe) it takes no stretch of the imagination at all to see a cut muscled Bernard from '97-'00 entering the ring to meet Joe with the further benefit of eight additional pounds - being a slightly heavier yet correspondingly even stronger version (and he would have felt fine there as this was not an unfamiliar weight for a guy cutting to 160 pre-fight) of an already highly durable and assertive fighter.


Calz, on the other hand, was always a boiled down LHW who struggled similarly to make 168 and I would say that is particularly evident in his lack of upper body development and any discernible musculature - if he had added any muscle he would have had to cut a leg off as he simply couldn't then make 168. So, weighing in at 173 as he did in 2008 rather than the usual 168 doesn't seem particularly material or meaningful. The only objective factor is that Calz was closer in '08 to his best version physically than was Bernard. But Calz was clearly not as confident in his own abilities as the seventeen here are as he held a rather nondescript belt for eight and a half years until he turned 34 years of age and was into his eighteenth defense of it before finally agreeing to face the most relevant challengers around.

We attempt to measure a mythological fight of BHOP and Calz in their primes off the one fight that actually occurred in which one fighter was more than seven years younger than the other. How might the impression change if we view their ages in reverse? Too much credit is given by a few on ESB from a dismal performance by Calz against a very old fighter. It is not an acceptable mitigation to reference subsequent performances against Pavlik and Jean Pascal. Most would or should find it impossible to defend their ring quality against the best imaginable version of Calzaghe.

Bernard's fighting style altered somewhat in his mid-30s on through today solely as a result of age and the need to conserve resources. I don't believe he is vastly different - he just does far far less than he once could when he was able to be aggressive and sustain a strong pace.

If a 43-year old version of a physically far past prime BHOP could still land cleanly on Joe's grill in 2008- a prime version would have attacked and finished the job. Joe flailed with poor technique pounding the air with two fisted chops catching little and rarely anything cleanly. This isn't a product of bad hands or his own age - he simply isn't as athletically strong or sound as Hopkins. The ONLY thing that worked in his favor was a pace and work rate that troubled a 43 year old OLD man. Anyone who has watched Bernard from the 90s knows that would not in and of itself been nearly enough to achieve victory against a physically prime version. That accomplishment was going to require either an extraordinary very special athlete or a slicker or equally slick well schooled ring technician with power. I have seen all of Joe's fights - every single round of it - he was neither of those.

It is a pity they don't have a component fight viewer (to refresh memories) on ESB to line up all of BHOP's fights from the mid 90s through the end of his physical prime side by side with Joe's matches from around '01 through '04 (or '06 if you want the Lacy fight or the end of '07 if you want the Kessler performance). While both fighters fought in weak eras this doesn't mean that because they fought poor comp that both are equivalent athletes. Some might discern that if one has the skill to continue into old age with a reasonable level of success that alone should spell out what more than 80% easily sense in this poll. Perhaps the effects of age and its relevance isn't something all have experienced or had the opportunity to see in athletes or in people around them. Bernard's success is laudable. He might also advocate the idea - RIGHT NOW or publicly or promotionally or motivationally at least - that the current old version is a better fighter in some ways than the younger one - but I know and fully believe that he wouldn't want to enter the ring at 168 or 175 against a version of himself that was in his early 30s. This wouldn't be a 1988 version in his first 4 rounder against solid amateur Clinton Mitchell. This would be a muscled hard high stamina aggressive fighter who returned fire as quickly as received and didn't worry about pace. He could be beaten and was. He just could never be beaten by Joe Calzaghe minus the 7+ year age advantage.

 

Agreed, Hopkins basically quit in the late rounds of a dull, ugly tactical fight, which decided the outcome on my scorecard - and which is another reason I wouldn't make him a favorite over Calzaghe in their "primes" (whenever that was).

 

Hopkins weighed in three pounds under the MW limit when he fought Tito in 2001. He was a genuine MW at that time, making the limit with room to spare. And when he decided to try for the LHW title a few years later (only after he'd lost his own title, and failed to regain it), he had to hire Mackey Shilstone for the specific purpose of putting weight on. These aren't the actions of a "progressively weight drained" fighter.

Except he didn't look any more muscular at 175, either - he just looked less solid around his midsection. By contrast, Hopkins was solidly muscular at 175, having scientifically bulked himself up two years earlier and now being well-settled and comfortable at the weight. Fighting at 175 was definitely a factor in the fight for both men, and was to Hopkins' advantage.

Which would be expected if he was fighting at a weight class he was less comfortable with - just like Hopkins' inability to maintain Calzaghe's pace can be attributed to his disadvantage in age.

 

I just don't understand how this can even really be much of a debate tbh.

Those of us who have seen all of Bernard Hopkins's fights know fine well that his peak was roughly 1996/7-2001/2, because even by the time of the Eastman and De La Hoya fights in 2003/4, it was pretty obvious Bernard had slowed down, and by the Taylor fights he was still a high-level fighter in terms of skills, but was pretty toothless and bereft of stamina compared to the guy who dismantled Glen Johnson, Antwun Echols, Tito Trinidad, etc.

Those of us who have seen all of Joe Calzaghe's fights know fine well that his most complete performances were in 2006-7 when he overwhelmed Jeff Lacy in a blizzard of punches and adapted to outbox Mikkel Kessler. IMO, the Calzaghe who got taken to an SD by Robin Reid would not have had the experience or nous to pull off a victory like his win over Kessler. In 2006, Calzaghe still had insane workrate and stamina, but he had acquired a ring IQ that he just did not possess earlier in his world championship career when he relied so heavily on defeating sub-standard opposition via his high output.

You take a 43 year old who can't maintain a decent pace for 12 rounds and had his peak performances 6-11 years previously, and put him in with a guy 6-7 years younger whose peak performances came 1-2 years previously, and (on my card) the 43 year old still manages to sneak more points by virtue of his pretty obviously superior skillset, technique, accuracy and ring generalship - despite having to take rounds off and utilize some unsavoury tactics to get breathers... because he's 43 and has human physiology, therefore of course cannot match the stamina of his younger, fresher, fitter opponent.

What does that tell you? Of course a peak Hopkins who can easily match Calzaghe's workrate/stamina would clearly and convincingly nullify his attacks, pick him apart, and probably drop him once or more than once en route to a wide UD.

 

I thought he'd slowed quite allot, I watched the Holmes/Trinidad fights the other day and he's so much quicker and active than he would against DLH/Allen 3, you could tell he'd deteriated a little against Joppy. Calzaghe himself slowed and lost technique towards the end though but certainly had more left

You've never seen a prime Hopkins, his workrate was none stop in his prime

Well many of us (around half) had Hopkins winning that fight, he did fade down the stretch and cheated to catch a breath. A prime Hopkins certainly wouldn't be outdone for stamina, which was effectively his problem here. Looking at when they did fight, Hopkins made him look like an amateur for the first 5rounds

For many of his fights Hopkins weighed 168-172 in the ring, he'd likely handle 168 very well. I suppose the theory he goes to 168, adds a little bulk/strength like when he went to 175lbs, and size isn't an issue. Aside from that this is a fantasy fight, ie not real

 

The conclusion you have reached may seem intuitive on the face of it but the process actually works opposite to that when it comes to drying out to try and make weight in the days before a fight for an aging athlete. A younger athlete finds it possible to endure a more drastic short-term reduction in fluids and have a greater re-hydration and increase in weight by the time they enter the ring for the fight. His body handles this stress comparatively better or easier.

For an aging athlete it becomes harder not easier to force the body through that and it necessitates a fundamental change in aerobic activity and one's eating approach that results in a habitual need to stay consistent between fights and in a narrow range with minimal fluctuation. Coming in at the contracted/required weight successfully in your mid and upper 30s - and even coming in under by a couple pounds pre-fight - may seem to allow for the intuitive conclusion or determination that this is now one's normal weight but it actually only means that there is margin of error in cutting weight below it's usual level - and in relation to the base level for measurement (i.e., the differential for a larger/heavier athlete compared to a smaller/lighter one) and that the habitual change is obtaining the desired result of keeping an athlete within range of the intended target weight. This doesn't mean that an aging fighter is not sacrificing strength and power simply because he is still making the weight.

Anecdotally or topically, we just saw a 25 year old Chavez, Jr. make 160 and enter the ring at a re-hydrated 180. While it is always difficult to make generalizations, I would expect that for him to make 160 when he was 36 1/2 years old - like BHOP for the Trinidad fight in 2001 - you would not see him re-hydrating to 180. He would have to have made a fundamental habitual change in his aerobic and eating approach - comparatively - to stay within a narrower range or risk failing to meet the 160 limit by the stipulated date. Making 160 ten years from now wouldn't be evidence of being stronger at the weight merely by virtue of successfully getting there. It would more likely result in the opposite.

No, this assertion doesn't follow. He didn't have to hire Mackie Shilstone. He didn't have to use the Shilstone method. It would likely be more correct to say that BHOP learned of the man's success and was impressed with his results and chose to employ, use, or follow it to enhance his own ability to perform at the highest level possible. He chose to move up to 175 because of his fight ambition and his body's own requirements in middle age. He didn't move up in weight because he met Mackie Shilstone. He would have made the move even without Shilstone and would have made the transition EASILY to 175 with or without him because that was a weight that was natural for a 6'1" 40+ year old man.

Addressed above in whole or in part.

Don't think this assessment or conclusion is correct either. Joe didn't look any more muscular at 173 than at 168 because it was only a five pound differential (not 7) in his LHW weigh-in compared to his usual one at SMW and because he was also now a middle aged man (just he was 7+ years younger into his middle age than BHOP). More relevantly, Joe never had any real upper body development. To have sought some for this fight probably meant he couldn't have made 175. Joe was not a little SMW - he could have easily fought at 175 for the entirety of his career if he was as ambitious and talented as RJJ. [Additionally, for this fight, BHOP didn't look as fit and tidy as he appeared in the Tarver fight - from ringside.] But, I agree that adding eight pounds of muscle to a prime version of middleweight Bernard Hopkins from '97 - '00 would have been a nightmare for SMW Calz if they had met in a one off - in these years - at 168 - in this case the extra weight would have benefited BHOP but merely in the basic sense of putting him on even terms with Calz to allow for a fight at SMW.

Joe would have had problems at 175 because it is generally always harder to fight larger men than smaller ones - all else being equal. But, while it arguably may not have been the optimal division for both men the weight would never be an issue in a fight between Calz and BHOP as long as it wasn't at 160 for Joe and wasn't at 160 for BHOP when he was deep into his 30s. He was drained and comparatively weaker and it was obvious and evident in his fights with Taylor and even against Trinidad relative to the BHOP of a few years earlier.

 

Two points come to mind.

1) Name me another volume/action fighter who was anywhere near his peak at 37. Usually, it's the cagey fighters or power brokers who can extend their peaks, not that Calzaghe was without his guile.

2) I don't think that Hopkin's "peak" was so terribly high (relative to say Roy Jones) as his descent from it was incredibly long and gradual. He sustained his skills as well as any fighter... ever, I guess.