Archie Moore vs Bernard Hopkins

the Ol' Mongoose, even when he was old!!!

 

all moore, all the time

 

I'll take moore but this has the potential to get real ugly.

 

Moore..All day long.

 

I would give Loughran a better shot against Archie, than I could give to Bernard

 

i feel ridiculous for picking hopkins over johnson at 175. hopkins as a whole is a bit overrated at times and often VERY overrated at light heavy

 

I don't find Hopkins over Johnson far fetched, and think that would be an interesting fight, and I would hedge my bets on that one....on the rest of the post...

As much as I like Hopkin's I kinda agree with this although I don't like to. Hopkins was able to look fairly good at 175 against the modern era, even with his advanced age. Had he tried to move up earlier in his career when the MW ranks were a little thin during his reign we might have a beter idea of how he would fare. He was a little long in the tooth by the time he moved up, although still in solid shape and of ahigh quality skill level. Be that as it is, he was also placed against largely hand picked opponent who did not have the work rate or aggressive natures to pressure him.

With careful management Bernard was able to look great, Archie would not allow him to sit back and pick his spots.

 

bang on post. at 175 he beat pavlik (a middleweight), wright (a light middleweight) and tarver (a solid light heavy but the most overrated light heavy of the last decade and he's not that highly rated). he also managed to squeeze in a loss to super middle calzaghe. this is all until his two wins against pascal which are impressive due to his age not his performance. he's a great tactician and amazing spoiler but he gets thrown into the all time great mix at middle and light heavy often without cause.

to this day i don't think he beat jermain taylor and that's saying a lot, no matter his age

 

I agree w/ your assessment at LHW, but will have to disagree at MW. Personally I felt Nard drew w/ JT in fight 1 and edged it in fight 2...however he has no one to blame but himself. He started to slowly in fight one, and did not assert his will in that fight. In the 2nd fight you would have thought that someone as universally acknowledged as a brilliant technician, would have come up with something different the 2nd time around....Yet Hop's came with largely the same fight plan. It was no robbery either way, but I do feel that he underperformed.

As far as ATG's a MW...I don't find him some unbeatable beast, but I can't think of any MW who I would call Hops an easy out for. At 160 I think he gives all of the greats all they could desire and more.

 

this is as fair and accurate an assessment as you'll find. the moment his physical skills started to dimished he adopted an overly negative style that costs him workrate and aggression. he's not an easy fight but he can, and was, outworked at 160 and past his physical prime (96-01) he was more into not losing and making his opponent look bad than truly winning and dominating with only a few exceptions (ie: pavlik, tarver).

 

Oh goodness. Mongoose twice on Saturdays.

I like Hopkins against the best middleweights instead.

 

glad to see BHop recieve the correct accolade here, which of course is overated!!!

 

Which Johnson ? Harold ? Harold decisioned bigger , stronger and better fighters than Bernard .

If it's Glen I expect Glen 2 win . Glen was drained against Bernard in their 1st fight , along with inexperienced . Still he was stopped on his feet and would have remained on them even if he was allowed 2 fight until d end .
I think it was Hopkins' greatest win still , but not a good 1 .
BTW Glen also achieved far more @ old age , colored boxrec lines aside .


Regarding Reggie whom i bet u didn't mean , Reggie had everything 2 beat Bernard , including some dirty stuff of his own , despite Bernard is this era's greatest in this aspect .

 

Archie Moore every time...