I see the 'Old' Hopkins and 'Prime' Hopkins arguments are coming rearing their ugly heads so I thought I'd remind you all of some of the facts since so many Americans have blissfully seemed to have forgotten......... * Age was a factor in this fight but only with regards to Hopkins stamina - NOT HIS SPEED - and even in the early rounds all he did was work on the backfoot countering and after the first 2 rounds Joe worked him out so if he was younger and had the stamina to go 12 rounds easier why would it have been any different with the same gameplan to negate Joe's strengths? It wouldn't. * You can't assume because a man is over 43 a fight would be sifferent, especially given that fighters casual and defensive style. Assumption is the MOTHER of all ****ups. * Hopkins was a fast as he ever was he definitely was not slower than his prime years; he just lacked stamina. * 'Prime' Hopkins would not have had the experience this Hopkins carried - that counts for ALOT! * Hopkins is dirtier now than he's ever been! * Clearly Joe is the better technical boxer * Joe always has/had more stamina * Bernard can NEVER flurry Joe like he did those 18+ odd token title defence chumps he beat. As we saw in the early rounds where Bernard had full stamina Joe's far too mobile; all Bernard could do was try a counter and grab! * As we saw a 'prime' Tarver commited more vs a just above average Taylor and win or lose those fights were closer than this fight with Joe!!!! * This was the exactly same Bernard we saw against Tarver only Joe made the ***** work his ass off Tarver couldn't. * As we witnessed Joe is not Tarver and adapted. Tarver was so 1-dimensional he flunked. * Bernard cannot has & has not ever been able to adapt to styles like Joe does. Bernard has a gameplan or looks for a specific weakness over the course of the fight for 1-dimensional fighters * I saw no weakness in Joe other than the one Hopkins found in round one whereupon Joe adapted so why would a prime less experienced Hopkins have found a second? He wouldn't have. * Bernard was MADE to fight at Joe's pace which you all seem to have forgotten since such a big deal was made about Hopkins being talented enough to negate Joe's workrate and make the fight his way which he tried and failed to do in the early rounds; a younger Hopkins would have found it no different - I don't see those people admitting they were wrong! * Only the spoiling made Joe look 'poor'; are you saying he would spoil MORE @ prime? * JC + RJJ are the best two fighters Hopkins own size he has EVER faced and both times Hopkins came away the loser. Beating midgets and a 1-dimensional Tarver IS his claim to fame. * This content is protected Prime Hopkins NEVER beats Joe, if anything he commits more and throws more which in turn as we've seen would enable Joe to throw more because Hopkins wouldn't be grabbing, holding & tying up so much of the ****ing time. You guys look at Hopkins stopping Joe's boxing yesterday with grabs and assume he can do the same in his prime without grabbing just because he may have more stamina? If he's commiting more he's grabbing less and last time I looked he wasn't beating Joe technically was he!?!!?!?!? You're living in ****ing fairytale land my friends, wake up.
Ancient BHOPs just took your boyfriend to school. Calazage didnt land **** all night, he just walked forward got his ass countered to it and good cheered by dumb asses like your sheep shagging self
Calzaghe isnt in his prime either, plus as ive stated before Calzaghe underperformed and still won:hey
what??????? hopkins wasn't even marked or was never in trouble at all during this whole fight, still at 43 years old he gave calzaghe a hell of alot of trouble, a prime hopkins would of ripped apart calzaghe no questions asked
I reckon he probably would. At least in the states. Joe didn't have him worried. Hopkins just couldn't match his pace.
He clearly is not. Calzaghe's punches are to wide and he slaps (pitter patter) that alone eliminates him. I could go on. Hopkins throws straighter punches and more compact shots even when past his prime.
Hopkins kept getting better and better with age. He still could do a lot more after the Tito fight, but that was his best performance so far. But saying that Hopkins would've beaten Joe in 2002 BECAUSE he was younger is funny as hell because Joe was younger as well... 30 to be exact. And Hopkins wasn't the physical fighter built up by the Execution Squad, so jumping up in weight to fight Joe at 168 would've been a disadvantage just as in the case of Calzaghe, who moved up in weight this time. Let me use YOUR arguments guys: if Hopkins only defeated smaller guys, how come you don't use that argument now, when he fough another smaller, weaker opponent - and lost to him? But the biggest delusional thing to think why would Bernard would've beaten Joe in 2002 is this: because he beat Tito. Both the great Hopkins and the great Calzaghe made their best performances vs. seemingly one-dimensional, predicatable fighters like Tito, Lacy and even Kessler (who isn't one dimensional and lot quicker than Lacy and Tito but still very predicatable). So that's a bad argument because both shined vs. one dimensional opponents and both looked worse vs. awkward opposition (Eastman, Winky; Bika, Salem).
Just watched the fight again and it's amazing how different I see it in the cold light of day. Last night I knew it was going to be close (JC by 2 rounds) but after watching it again this afternoon I see Calzaghe as a much clearer winner. Hopkins did little throughout the fight, the only high point was obviously the KD in the first. He continually held for the next 11 rounds and if Calzaghe didn't try and make a fight of it, it would have been awful. On my second viewing I gave Hopkins three rounds at most....and that was being generous.
[Qoute]Age was a factor in this fight but only with regards to Hopkins stamina - NOT HIS SPEED - and even in the early rounds all he did was work on the backfoot countering and after the first 2 rounds Joe worked him out so if he was younger and had the stamina to go 12 rounds easier why would it have been any different with the same gameplan to negate Joe's strengths? It wouldn't.[/Quote] doesnt stamina effects your speed? In fact stamina affects everything else not just speed. Example scenario: when you're tired as hell you lose speed, your punches gets weaker, and you gasp for more oxygen, etc.
