Bernard Hopkins vs Charley Burley

I largely agree with this, but like Flea said, not the bit about modern fighters reaching a higher level - in general, perhaps, mostly with regards to physical condition (tying in with what you've said about injuries and preparation), but when those old timers had a bit longer to get ready, that difference I consider negligible.

Not so negligible is the difference in craft; I agree with Surf-Bat's assertion that number of fights x quality of opponents = experience = skill.

My addition to this leans away from that slightly; we have to remember that humans are still human and that most (not all) great boxers today would likely adapt to the parameters set and rules by which they governed, therefore I believe such a consummate professional such as Bernard Hopkins would fit right into the '40s. To me it's obvious the man is both talented and hardy and would shine in any era, if not as a single standout then at least as part of a top tier elite, even if his own times didn't test him as much as we'd have liked. Two other examples of the same kind of fighter; Bob Foster and Larry Holmes.

 

I think a lot of the best fighters from 24 hour weigh in's onwards would adept well, their career paths would likely be unrecognisable to what they've carved today (or strolled through)

 

I agree completely that experience is a key ingredient in craft and skill. However, boxing is also a physical sport, and the decline of age is often hurried by miles on the clock and ring wars with competitive adversaries.

The old timers tested themselves more often against better competition often in less than ideal circumstances -- it should be reasonable to assume that wear and tear is a natural consequence. Even in todays environment we see fighters in their twenties deteriorate, although I do admit that performance enhancing drugs and more prevalent dehydration is partly to blame.

But anyone after 100 or so fights should experience a physical drop-off, and there is a cut-off point where that matters more than in-ring experience.

 

I blame 24 hour weigh in's for early burn outs we often see nowadays (in terms of number of fights) most fighters seem to cut a stone upwards.

Lamotta would be a monster welterweight today

 

"and may the bigger man win"

 

Hmm...I dtilll think that being at your own natural weight you can overcome any size disadvantages as the bigger cutters compensate by not working in their yehbiqur enough I.3 Pacquiao clotted and margarita and quahog mehhhh

 

This is true...sometimes. I have found that it usually depends on styles. Guys with give and take style like Ad Wolgast, Battling Nelson, Terry McGovern, Joe Frazier, Jeff Fenech, etc. tend to have a shorter shelf life due to this. But it doesn't apply to guys who weren't as easy to hit and dished out more than they took, as evidenced by the careers of Archie Moore, Johnny Dundee, Harry Greb, Benny Leonard, Willie Pep, etc.

Back then you were considered a mere novice if you hadn't had at least 50 fights with several losses sprinkled in there (losses were considered learning experiences then, not things that make them shred your multi-fight deals with Showtime like today, hence why they pamper fighters in the modern age). Nowadays they think you're ready for a title shot after 20 fights. In earlier eras this would be absolutely UNTHINKABLE.

 

I completely agree with this. Hopkins wouldn't be anyone's punk, that's for sure. And H2H I might take Foster over almost any LH in history.

 

ODLH is/was bigger than Burley, heavier at the weigh in, heavier in the ring, taller with a wider reach

ODLH was not outboxing Hopkins either, it was about even with Hopkins taking over at the age of 38 at a 157lb catch weight

 

He was not bigger than Burley at all. Just a little taller. Burley was a natural 155 lb fighter. DLH had to grow into the WW range and looked awkward and out of his league fighting at Burley's natural weight . Burley had a longer reach, too. He was a naturally larger fighter.

 

Burley weighed 150 lbs for his pro debut. DLH weighed 133.

 

DLH was a career weight drainer, for some of his 147lb fights he'd come into the ring at 160lbs. Burley fought at his natural weight

 

I was playing devil's advocate here. Old-school Bernard Hopkins is in a way our window into the past. Hopkins was fit his entire life in and out of the ring, and a premiere example of craft, and he has shown amazing longevity to the point where people aren't even sure when his prime was.

We can see firsthand that while he has physically dropped off, he has compensated with his craft. That class has seen him win over a punching workhorse like Pavlik, and a primed physically gifted Jean Pascal.

The lungs of Pavlik and the physical presence of Pascal couldn't bring them victory over this wily old man. Their numerous physical advantages were not enough, in Pavlik's case not by a long shot.

My honest opinion is that while athletes are definitely physically sharper than athletes in the past were on average on match day, that doesn't negate the wealth of experience they possessed. Boxing is funny that way. Seems so physical, but in reality it's such a mental sport. True toughness, the grit to see through to victory, the discipline to do the work in the gym, the craft to exploit your opponents weaknesses and the mental game to be a step ahead of your opponent.

This is what I love about the sport.

People look at me funny when I say I dislike Micky Ward against Arturo Gatti. It turns my stomach at times. Barrera against Morales, now we're talking.

Sorry /rant

 

this is all very true and you have offered some very sound observations in this thread, but one thing still remains equally true and not often met!

Hopkins would NEVER have been a MW in those days, so it is a very valid question can he make a career of it at the Top with all those great L-HWs???

it's a very real consideration and demands real perspective regarding him and most other modern fighters for the same reasons (???).

 

Charley is always described as being similar to Jones Jr. Footage of him is good but does it paint the picture of someone you could favour over Hopkins?

I say yeah slight edge to burley.