was hopkins closer to his prime then calzaghe in their fight? i think so...

The fight wasn't exactly action packed nor pleasing to watch. A rematch would have provided much of the same.

 

Calzaghe's prime was Lacy/Kessler, which is a lot more recent than Hopkins prime.

Both were awful to watch in any event, i would sooner play russian roulette than watch either of them.

 

Cl;ose but Calzaghe [ulled it out BHOP is old but not shot ig he was shot or finished he wouldnt a beat Pavlik

 

What facts do you feel i was bending to suit my argument?
Im not sure who the most people are that you refer to on when Hopkins prime was. You could well be right but it does sound like a ready made excuse for when he lost to Taylor in 05.
What makes you think Pavlik wouldnt have gone the distance if he was fighting what you think is a prime Hopkins? Pavlik was fighting 2 weight divisions higher than he usually fights, giving Hopkins an advantage he wouldnt normally have anyway. Prime (as you claim) Hopkins couldnt KO lesser fighters than Pavlik. ie Joppy, Holmes etc.
Why is it so (as you so nicely put) ******ed to note Hopkins finished stronger against Pavlik than he did Joppy? I admit Hopkins threw more punches against Joppy but he was also fighting at a lighter weight then, and fighters often throw more when they are lighter. Hopkins only threw 5 punches more against Calzaghe than he did Pavlik and was fading terribly against Calzaghe, and its not like Hopkins has ever been known for his workrate before Joppy. But Hopkins didnt look gassed against Pavlik. Against Joppy he was fighting a smaller, lighter punching fighter than Pavlik so could afford to throw more against a less physically strong fighter

 

Taylor was a world class operator???!!!!He lost twice to Pavlik including once by knockout.Taylor was good,but he was NEVER a world class operator.

 

No way man, a prime Bernard Hopkins doesnt gas out in the last few rounds. He wasnt in his prime either when he fought Tarver, Pavlik and Wright, they just didnt throw as many punches as Calzaghe and Taylor did thats why they were outboxed. Thats the key to beat a past prime Hopkins, throw enough punches be active through 12 rounds, Tarver didnt, Winky didnt, Pavlik didnt, but Taylor and Calzaghe did. And no way in hell was Hopkins closer to his prime than Calzaghe, it was a good win for Calzaghe no doubt about that, but he would have never beaten the Hopkins who fought Trinidad.

 

Hopkins was in no way in his prime, I really think he is past his prime but because he is such a genius he can still put up a great fight with any fighter in the world, and he might even win it, but believe me he is past it.

 

That punch visibly staggered Calzaghe.

 

You stated that Hopkins fans have a varied perception of Hopkins prime it is this statement that I pointed out as a fallacy and is a bending of the truth. It is clear that Hopkins prime ended at the very latest around the end of 2003 at the age of 38 which is when his punch output really dropped off quite dramatically. I clearly remember watching the De La Hoya and Eastman fights and thinking he didn't look the same.

The jump up in weight would have made a slight difference but not a huge one. Calzaghe's workrate did not suffer noticeably when he jumped to light heavy and Pac's dramatic rise in weight hasn't effected his workrate. Hopkins workrate has dropped due to old age and being past his prime. To suggest that a man in his mid forties can have comparable anaerobic threshold to himself several years earlier is ludicrous. Hopkins threw 530 punches against Pavlik and that is 2/3 of his punch output against Joppy. That is not a small difference so it's not suprising he had plently left in the tank against Pavlik. I can't believe you think Hopkin's is closer or comparably closer to his prime than a man over 7 years his junior.

Your figures are wrong, Hopkins actually threw 62 more punches against Pavlik. But the figures you should really be looking at are the workrates of Hopkins opponents on those nights. Calzaghe threw 707 punches while Pavlik managed a measly 463. He faded terribly against Calzaghe because he was under constant pressure and wasn't able to take a breather unlike Pavlik who just didn't have the speed or footwork to apply the pressure Calzaghe could.

You state that Hopkins is not known for his workrate before Joppy which shows how little you know about Hopkins. Fact is during most of his prime he was ignored which is why most fans only know Hopkins post Tito. Just look at Hopkins fight against Glen Johnson in 1997. He threw over 900 punches in the 10 and a half rounds that fight lasted, many of them power punches. He threw 103 punches in the 5th round alone and in his quietest round he threw 73 punches. It is undeniable his workrate has suffered as he has aged and declined.

 

I wondered how long it would be before you replied.
It could also be thought that Hopkins is physically stronger now, having grown into LHW more (I know he debuted before boiling down). Most men of 40 are stronger than men of 20 and with his often holding style this could suit him more anyway, if he not throwing so many shots.
At a heavier weight alot of fighters do throw less. You mention Pacquiao who had a great workrate last night (now hes a bit more established in the division), but in his fight before with Cotto there were times when he took some time off in the later rounds, possibly as it was the furthest he had gone at the new weight and was a little more tired with the extra weight.
I stand corrected Hopkins did throw more in his fight with Pavlik which emphasizes what I had said even more.
You mention how Hopkins throws so much less, and say he still had more in the tank after Pavlik, so that shows he could have still thrown more if he thought neccessary, and remember he had a side bet with Joppy that he would give him extra money if Joppy went the distance put in their contracts, so of course he was going to throw more, hes not the sort of guy to just throw money away. He was going all out to stop Joppy to save himself some money.

 

He wasnt talking about the entire fight as a whole he was talking about that slow motion gif saying Calzaghe got the better of Hopkins without actually hitting him once while Hopkins landed a counter. That is ****ing ******ed. Calzaghe won the fight overall fair and square but I know ******edness when I see it and that was a dumb statement.

 

im done with this thread! all im reading is pedantic diatribe,wishy washy excuses and a lot of bitterness/hypocrisy! its pathetic,and its been done to death! all i can say is read my posts in the thread they are nothing but the facts and counter anything the morons will try to convince of! its been unemotional!

 

p.s 'didnt look the same against delahoya' lmfao! oh please this threads killing me,oscars a ****ing midget! hopkins and his welterweight fetish in his 'prime' years! 'he looked good then, didnt look good then, he beat him so looked good, was shot when he lost to him' lol pathetic just pathetic! his 2 best wins were tarver and pavlik stop fighting it and just accept it! lol

 

This is the definitive post in this thread, and one of the best posts I've read in a long time. Every word is true.

 

he still lost.