bernard hopkins vs jake lamotta....

Effort.....I think I know what that means. Never put much of one up though, I'm criminally lazy half of the time. Still, effort or no effort, LaMotta outdoes the old man here. I've always thought that part of the reason why the old school tricks of Hopkins, Toney, FMJ et al work so well is because too many modern fighters don't know to deal with em and return the favour likewise. It'd be interesting to see the shoe on the other foot with Hopkins having to handle a master craftsmen instead of having the advantage all the time. Jake handled some fine customers in his time in SRR, Cerdan etc and he outsmarted and outmuscled Murphy, Nardico and Satterfield as has been said. Some revisionist history seems to have painted him in a bit of a negative light.

 

Hopkins would win. He would outslick Lamotta and beat him up. Lamotta would have said, you couldnt knock me down Bernard.

 

LaMotta only ever got beat up once in his career by the greatest fighter to ever lace up the gloves, and that was when he was past his prime and very weight drained. Robinson hit twice as hard as Hopkins, was faster and better in every regard except defense and inside strength, and he had to hit a faded LaMotta with everything in the house for 13 rounds to force a stoppage. And Jake still didn't go down. He handled monsters like Satterfield and Murphy at 175 without any trouble when well past his best, so it's safe to assume that Hopkins if anyone is the one getting beat up here. No way can he match LaMotta on the inside His best punch, the overhand right, wouldn't be penetrating that possum crouch nearly as often as you think, though I'm sure would have plenty of success, pushing Jake hard for the full 15.

 

I havent watched Lamotta enough to actually retort your comments. My post was somewhat joking. B-Hop became a pretty slick guy at his best, and turned some big punchers into mince meat, although not on the level of LaMotta.

 

Sorry, I got slightly overzealous there . It's just that I expect people to say that Hopkins, who I actually rate very highly, to school LaMotta blah blah blah. Hopkins is a great fighter no doubt and does have the tools to trouble Jake. But he'd be, for once in his career, up against a fighter who was actually stronger than him on the inside, more multi-faceted than Trinidad and one who would not allow him to fight at his own pace. LaMotta wasn't really a big puncher by the highest standards either, more of an accumulation hitter.

I'll not argue too much with anyone who thinks Hopkins wins though.

 

My problem with this thread is that all are talking about Hopkins as if he always fought like he did the last few years. But he did not. Watch the fight against Glen Johnson. He was more or less a pressure fighter in there - when ignore the fact that he changed to a counterpuncher for 1-2 rounds in the midrounds. ut a preussire fighter with great defense, technical skills who set traps, feinted and always started and ended every exchange while never beeing hit clearly. Hand he set a high pace looking after the stoppage in the 11th round as if he wasn´t even in a fight, screaming "bring back 15 rounds." That Hopkins between Johnson and Trinidad would be 50/50 against any mw ever.

LaMotta was an atg, he would definitly trouble Hopkins, it would be a very even fight but in the end, I think, Hopkins edge in defence, footwork and ring intelligence wins him this one.

 

I hear you, but if Hopkins fought more aggressively against LaMotta, it would only spell further trouble for him. Glen Johnson was NOT LaMotta; he was nowhere near LaMotta's class in fact. Nor were he or Trinidad any middleweight ever. Hopkins had an edge in defence and handspeed I grant you but little more. LaMotta had different but no less effective footwork than Hopkins and was just as intelligent in his own way. His own defence was also very good for such an aggressive fighter.

Fair post though, I respect your opinion.

 

I was actually about to say this same thing. The fighter that the posters at the beginning the thread are referring to is the old version of Hopkins. On the inside, I agree that Lamotta would hold a slight advantage, but from a distance? Hopkins creates a mismatch.

So the question would come down to who could set the distance the best and control it. And Im sorry, as great as Lamotta was, he was no Bernard Hopkins when it came down to that. Hopkins moves better, is much better defensively, has the better timing and accuracy, etc. I see him circling more, only going on the inside to set traps and lay into Jake and smother his offense.

Hopkins by a CLEAR UD.

 

Reading that, I wonder if you've seen anything of LaMotta at all. He was pretty good at setting traps himself and no middleweight in history is creating a mismatch against him. The version that everyone sees of him is the past-prime, weight-drained one getting shellacked by Robinson. It could be argued that Jake's prime had actually gone by the time he won the title. And again, Hopkins fighting aggressively would only leave him more open to counters himself. Hopkins would often take fights to the inside where his superior strength and inside nous could flourish; fighting at long range all the time was never his thing. And most of his opponents never had a clue how to handle him at mid to close range, a shortcoming he thrived on and one which allowed him to bully them. Old or not, Hopkins never responded too well on the one occasion when an opponent was strong and cagey enough to bully him back. In fact, he reacted quite pathetically if memory serves me correctly.

 

Over and out george trout. I've said my piece, right or wrong.

 

First I have seen my fair share of Lamotta. Not even sure why I am dignifying the comment...but noone said he wasnt good at setting traps.

And I could say the same about your comment hinting at Hopkins being a mostly inside fighter (how much of pre-Tito Hopkins did you watch?). Hopkins, even before his natural gifts faded, was a very cerebral fighter...hardly ever fighting the same fight twice. Vs fighters who were strong in the inside, he would fight outside...same with the other way around. Hopkins, is, was and always will be a master at setting distance and using angles to take away your own strengths in offense...be that from the pocket, or behind his lead right and pawing jab from the outside.

That said, nowhere in my post did I mention that Hopkins would get aggressive. That would be the wrong fight for Bernard, so you tend to force the point that people are saying that he would (I suspect because it fits your arguement...which is fine). I mentioned that he would use his superior movement (lateral and in and out...I hope your not going to say Lamotta was in Bernard's vein in this right) to control the distance, only venturing in to set a trap, i.e. throw the lead right and clinch with Lamotta off balance...or to smother Lamotta's offense.

Seeing both fighters many, MANY times over, this isnt a tough scenario to imagine. Like I said, Hopkins UD.

:good

 

Hopkins by late round stoppage.

Hopkins with a wide arsenal, LaMotta too limited.