? about bernard hopkins??

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by pinoy2k7, Mar 27, 2008.


Page 1 of 2
  1. pinoy2k7

    pinoy2k7 Member Full Member

    348
    0
    Apr 7, 2007
    Since the hopkins vs calzaghe fight is comin up soon i gotta a question. How would you describe hopkins defensive style. I can't pin point it. I mean you look at Sweet Pea Whitaker, and he made you look stupid with all his ducking and weaving. Then you look at El Radar Benitez and the slightest head movement made you miss. Plus Benitez was a wizard on the ropes. Winky wright, with his tank shell upright right style, daring you to hit him. How would hopkins be described as... i mean i know he got the the whole philly rough you up mentality, but how wuz his defense. Any help??
     
    pinoy2k7, Mar 27, 2008
    pinoy2k7, Mar 27, 2008
    #1
  2. teeto

    teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,075
    54
    Oct 15, 2007
    The best way to describe it is totally as a tactical thing - the reason you see people calling B-Hop a great defensive fighter is because he changes his tactics of taking away his opponents' best tools in every fight. Against Trinidad he smothered Trinidad's big punches and knew he wasnt sending himself to slaughter because he was bigger and stronger.

    Against Winky (who you normally couldn't imagine someone countering), he knew going to him was pointless, so he actually made WINKY come to him! That was remarkable imo, and he countered him all-night.

    He's great with his positioning and subtle counters, he can destroy a man if he creates an opening either through his own cleverness or defensive tactics. A legend of the highest order imo
     
    teeto, Mar 27, 2008
    teeto, Mar 27, 2008
    #2
  3. sthomas

    sthomas Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,002
    6
    Jul 14, 2007

    I always nod my head yes, yes Bernard is brilliant. Then I think, How did Jermain Taylor beat him?.......Twice????
     
    sthomas, Mar 27, 2008
    sthomas, Mar 27, 2008
    #3
  4. pinoy2k7

    pinoy2k7 Member Full Member

    348
    0
    Apr 7, 2007
    so he is a defensive tactician then..hmmm good stuff..any fighter remind u of that style??
     
    pinoy2k7, Mar 27, 2008
    pinoy2k7, Mar 27, 2008
    #4
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,065
    Mar 21, 2007
    Though I agree with Teeto that he is a tactical genius, I think this is only a part of the story. He also has wonderful, wonderful ring instincts.

    Lots of fighters are good at making angles for punches, that is, controlling the action in the ring, or reacting to the action in the ring to allow maximum detonation on punches, or to allow a punching chance where one may not have otherwise exsisted. The really good guys can do this without getting hit, even at close quarters.

    Hopkins is absolutley brilliant at this, and has continued to imporve, in my view, with experience. He's getting into Moore territory now in my view, that is, really subtle feints as regards space that bring the opponent on to him - causes his opponent to go for a punch or turn in a way, take some action that they wouldn't otherwise have taken - for the counter. So above and beyond just countering his opponents, Hopkins creates opportunities for these counters regardless of the opponents actions.

    He did this most successfully against Tarver of course. Tarver was his with punches from all angles and was thorughly beaten in just this fashion. Of course, against a really good ring general this skill is going to be strethched, and in my opinion a mentally competent Calzaghe is just that, so we'll see. This is also why almost any version of Moore beats almost any version of B-Hop, because Archie was just that bit better at these things.

    Of course, Hopkins great strength also creates his greatest weakness. Because this wait-and-force game suits him best, it's very difficult for him to take chances. I still scream at him to get after Roy when I watch Hopkins-Jones, but he just isn't capable of it i'm afraid, for reasons I now feel I understand better. But Hopkins IS capable of forcing the action against an opponent he has dominated (see Johnson for the best example) and when he does so he rarely makes the mistake of allowing his opponent to do to him what he so often does to them. This is why he is a good defensive fighter. He is a great counter-puncher for reasons i've laid out above and he's very very smart about getting countered/giving up ANY chance for punches because of his understanding of this art.

    It's my opinion that almost any great speedster would beat him, but he'll give any other fighter in history at 175 and under a really good fight.
     
    McGrain, Mar 28, 2008
    McGrain, Mar 28, 2008
    #5
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,065
    Mar 21, 2007
    Bernard is my favourite active fighter so I have to be careful not to become an apologist, I will only say that Bernard has quite clearly improved vastly as a fighter since he moved up to 175. Weight making at age is not easy.
     
    McGrain, Mar 28, 2008
    McGrain, Mar 28, 2008
    #6
  7. Decebal

    Decebal Lucian Bute Full Member

    34,525
    7
    Mar 10, 2007
    What? I thought your favourite active fighter was Juan Manuel Marquez!:huh

    :bart
     
    Decebal, Mar 28, 2008
    Decebal, Mar 28, 2008
    #7
  8. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,065
    Mar 21, 2007
    Six of one half a dozen of the other.

    Excited about the one that's coming up so I go for Bernard as of right....now!
     
    McGrain, Mar 28, 2008
    McGrain, Mar 28, 2008
    #8
  9. dpw417

    dpw417 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,461
    348
    Jul 13, 2007
    Top notch post.:good
    Hopkins takes what the opponent gives him in the clinches. Been looking at Hopkins in slo mo and you can see how he rolls with punches, and then counters. Varying light punches to gauge reactions and distance, then firing a hard punch...This works to maximize his effectiveness in the fight and conserve energy too (at this stage of his career) Effective mobility just enough to make angles left and right...never a set target. This will offset a faster opponent, or an overly aggressive one.
    This may sound like heresy on this board...but I think Hopkins just may be slicker than the Mongoose! Maybe we should see how this next one goes before that statement is taken seriously!
     
    dpw417, Mar 28, 2008
    dpw417, Mar 28, 2008
    #9
  10. teeto

    teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,075
    54
    Oct 15, 2007
    I agree, his ring-generalship is of the greatest ever , especially at this advanced stage of his career
     
    teeto, Mar 28, 2008
    teeto, Mar 28, 2008
    #10
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,065
    Mar 21, 2007
    I think if he can use these skills to beat Calzaghe there wil be a serious case to answer. For now...heresy ;)
     
    McGrain, Mar 28, 2008
    McGrain, Mar 28, 2008
    #11
  12. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,232
    Feb 15, 2006
    If the next one goes well for him then comparisons with the mongoose are inevitable.

    If it dosnt then close but no cigar.
     
    janitor, Mar 28, 2008
    janitor, Mar 28, 2008
    #12
  13. dpw417

    dpw417 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,461
    348
    Jul 13, 2007
    Yep.:D
     
    dpw417, Mar 28, 2008
    dpw417, Mar 28, 2008
    #13
  14. teeto

    teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,075
    54
    Oct 15, 2007
    The reason why Taylor beat him imo was because he was so up for it, that along with his ability. When i first saw Taylor i was so excited about seeing him again and again, jusr goes to show how boxing can prove you wrong! Man , his natural ability still is very good, but a determined Kelly Pavlik type may always win out against him because there are massive question marks about Taylor's heart. I thought he lost to Spinks. For the record though, i cant remember my card but i give Hopkins the first Taylor fight, so hard to scolre, it may have been a draw, but i thought B-Hop won it.

    B-Hop's never gonna just go all out on a guy and give it his total offensive best, this is why Taylor won imo, he had the time to do his good work and get just enough points for the win, wheras Pavlik , Monzon, Hearns (i know their styles are different) would beat Taylor becaused imo just a matter of time
     
    teeto, Mar 28, 2008
    teeto, Mar 28, 2008
    #14
  15. dpw417

    dpw417 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,461
    348
    Jul 13, 2007
    I'm not making any excuses for Hopkins..just an objective question. Do you think getting down to 160 lbs. against a strong, much younger, athletic opponent made Hopkins think twice about going straight to Taylor in both of their fights? BTW I thought Hopkins clearly won the first fight, and narrowly lost the second fight.
    I think Hopkins may have felt he would not have had the reserves if he engaged with Taylor early in the fight(s)
     
    dpw417, Mar 28, 2008
    dpw417, Mar 28, 2008
    #15
Page 1 of 2