Bernard Hopkins vs Ezzard Charles

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Vic-JofreBRASIL, Nov 2, 2010.


  1. Vic-JofreBRASIL

    Vic-JofreBRASIL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,900
    5,255
    Aug 19, 2010
    Light Heavyweight bout
    15 rounds

    Who and Why ?
     
  2. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Charles. Hopkins was old and wouldn´t be able to go a high pace. And Charles simply was the better fighter. Now prime Hopkins against a young Charles at mw would have been a different kettle of fish.
     
  3. Jorodz

    Jorodz watching Gatti Ward 1... Full Member

    21,677
    51
    Sep 8, 2007
    yes but while i think hopkins would give a better account, the middleweight charles (who defeated charley burley) was still a physical dynamo by all accounts. slightly green but still significantly better than hopkins in almost all areas. hopkins knew some tricks though and could snatch victory from a young, middleweight charles

    at 175, it is barely competitive. charles UD in the area of 12-3
     
  4. kmac

    kmac On permanent vacation Full Member

    5,005
    15
    Jul 29, 2010
    charles would be a little too much imo. i think he's the bigger and slightly better fighter.
     
  5. Swarmer

    Swarmer Patrick Full Member

    19,654
    52
    Jan 19, 2010
    160 with a raw charles would be a solid bout

    175 hopkins has basically no chance
     
  6. Boxed Ears

    Boxed Ears this my daddy's account (RIP daddy) Full Member

    56,086
    10,493
    Jul 28, 2009
    Abso****inglutely.
     
  7. techks

    techks ATG list Killah! Full Member

    19,779
    701
    Dec 6, 2009
    Lt hvy was Charles' best class.

    MW was Hopkins' best class.

    Do the math, Charles wins in a technical fight for the purists. Maybe even a beatdown as Charles was a monster at light heavyweight.
     
  8. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    52,816
    44,483
    Apr 27, 2005
    Simple - Charles wins at 175, Hopkins at 160.
     
  9. i agree absolutely