Better Tactician: Floyd Mayweather or Bernard Hopkins?

hopkins, lets see how floyd does when he is forced to fight only on ring iq, I think he can handle it but at this point it remains to be seen.

 

let's wait a decade and see if floyd is still dominating his opponents tactically like bhop does without his speed and reflex.

 

This is a very flawed argument. Hopkins isn't fighting just on ring IQ. He still has good speed and excellent conditioning. He's also still bigger than his opponents as well. Basically, your argument here is that Mayweather is faster, therefore Hopkins is a better tactician. I think we both can agree that's a faulty argument. Both of these guys are master tacticians. I'd have to give the edge to Mayweather given that he has never been out manuevered by an inferior fighter like Hopkins has.

 

Hopkins..

he fought harder competition.

end thread.

 

mayweather has better reflexes and speed, since going to lightheavy hopkins he was shorter than tarver and pavlik who both got schooled badly despite having physical advantages, dawson will be bigger as well, the other guys despite being shorter were about the same weight on fight night.
Its just that I think very highly of b-hop as an technician, nothing against floyd in this aspect but once he faces guys as an underdog when he is considered past prime, schools them or faces the adversity hopkins faced in the first pascal fight, schooling the younger favourite when trailing on the cards and having 2 kd's against him in montreal than I will say he might be better, but at this point its more fair to give it to hopkins in my opinion.

 

Floyd Mayweather. I don't think they compare really. And thats not a dis against BHop but guys get the better of him all the time. What he has is great fundamentals and when he faces fighters the have poor fundamentals or have fundamental errors his strengths become very evident. But he is not the type of guy that makes massively huge in fight adjustments.

When he was young he used to power through other fighters not shut them down offensively, not counter punch the **** out of them. He used to be a fierce in your face, tough as nails grinder with a very tight defense, good footwork and above average boxing abilities. He never was a master of tactical chess-type boxing. Hopkins doesn't make the type of in fight adjustments floyd makes. Its really that simple. If a fighter hits floyd with a good shot once, he closes the whole and the shot is never there again. At no point in his career could you say that Bernard has had that level of understanding. In his second career (i.e. post middle weight champion period) he has been very selective with his opponents so there has been a myth created that he's some master tactician but really the biggest tactical genius goes into picking his fights. Don`t get me wrong bernard's an ATG and he can out think and out box 99% of fighters in the game today but his very impressive wins over Tito, winky Wright, tarver, pavlik, and the crude but strong pascal didn't exactly require some brilliant in fight adjustment.

 

Well, Hopkins has had to rely on it more, but every time Floyd does rely on it, he comes out victorious. It's tough. We've seen more of it with Hopkins, but we've also seemed to see the limit of it. (the extent of what he can't handle) Floyd hasn't had to rely on his tactical ability as much as Bernard, but he ALWAYS wins when he has had to. When both guys retire, I'll make a final assessment. For now, Floyd has the edge until he shows his extent being lower than B-Hop's.

 

I think they both are great but if you had to pick one you would have to give an edge to Floyd simply because he does not lose to fighters he should beat.

Its not about wins or loses either not saying because B-Hop loss he isnt as good im saying he has lost to fighters that he should have won against...if that makes any sense.

 

B-Hop
He's all tactics.

 

Pavlik is the same height as Hopkins but was coming up 2 divisons. I don't know how you could say Pavlik was the bigger man. Not only that, but he's clearly slower than Hopkins. Tarver was bigger than Hopkins but also was slower. If it's all about speed, those two examples need to be thrown out as both those guys were slower than Hopkins.

Now your argument is basically that Hopkins is the better tactician because Floyd is the better overall fighter. No way in hell would Mayweather ever be the underdog against a guy like Pavlik coming up two divisions. Marquez is a way better and more intelligent fighter than Pavlik could ever dream of being. Mayweather had Marquez totally confused, and won every round. That was considered a tuneup for Floyd while Hopkins beating a basic 1-2 puncher like Pavlik was considered a big win. Hell, Mayweather is 34, coming off a 16 month layoff and is fighting a guy 10 years younger than him that is arguaby better than Pascal and is still a huge favorite. Even against Pac or Martinez, Mayweather would probably be the favorite. He definitely would never be a big underdog.

 

Bernard, by necessity.

 

Floyd is cleaner with better boxing ability who cruises to a win
Bernard was/is a dirtier fighter who finds a way to win

In a nutshell

 

hopkins not even close.

 

hopkins , i dont think its close either.