Bernard Hopkins vs Nathan Cleverly

nono:nono

Sorry but I stopped reading at this point. That is a huge misconception and the comparisons between Calzaghe and Cleverly are frankly ludicrous at this point. Calzaghe was a quicker, far more well rounded fighter than Cleverly will ever be with a greater range of punches and a far better understanding and use of angles and movement than Nathan has ever shown. We saw with the knockdown in the 1st in that how uneducated pressure is ruthlessly seized upon by Hopkins and to be honest, that's what Cleverly has won his last 2 fights with. When fighting the likes of Hawk and Karpency you can be as sloppy as you want and not be punished.

Even in his best performance to date vs Murat IMO, he shipped a considerable amount of punches but just outmuscled and outfought someone whose own defence was a world away from Hopkins. I've yet to see Cleverly ever show the intricacies associated with good pressure fighting that, along with a high workrate which he obviously has, can affect Hopkins. Calzaghe adapted after that 1st round because he was talented enough to do so and won the fight as a result. Cleverly hasn't shown he can do that, even against mediocre opposition so honestly it's an insult to both Hopkins and Calzaghe to say a Hopkins-Cleverly fight may reflect their fight.

People may see 'oh well that was years ago, Hopkins has aged further' but just look at Saturday night and tell me Hopkins can't still outmanouevre a good, but not great fighter? You can't. Cloud is a more accomplished aggression fighter than Nathan at the moment as he's proven in wins over an aging Woods, a very close decision against a still dangerous Johnson and fringe World level fighters like Mack. He may have had poor performances like Campillo along the way but he's proven on the World stage, as Cleverly still has yet to do, that he can grind out winds with his relentlessness. Yet all that aggression and pressure was stunted by Hopkins and he wasn't able to do anything to prevent it. Cleverly doesn't have the big punch, glaring hand/foot speed or physical dimensions (as Dawson did) to take B-Hop out of his comfort zone. A good engine is just not enough. Boxing just doesn't work like that- if it did John McDermott would be an ATG (slight overexaggeration maybe!) But thr point remains that despite having more stamina and being younger, Cleverly has to have the necessary boxing brain and skill to beat Hopkins and there's no evidence to suggest he has at all.

So please, please stop saying that workrate would win the fight for Cleverly!

 

Well if you have had taken the time to have read my answer to the question you asked you might have saved yourself the effort of putting words into someones mouth mate , COULD does not = WOULD , you asked a question and I offered up an opinion of " how anyone thinks Cleverly could beat Hopkins " .

 

Hopkins would pick Cleverly apart, easily.

 

Well it COULD win him the fight. In the same way as Ovill McKensie COULD beat him by sparking him with a one punch knockout.

Both are still highly unlikely though.

 

It's a tricky one imo Hopkins is obviously the smarter more skillful boxer but he was smarter and more skillful than Calzaghe and lost due to Calzaghes workrate

 

Not necessarily true. Calzaghe was a very smart fighter tactically whose style was skillful and effective in its own right. Calzaghe's ability seems to be massively underrated on this forum. His opposition may have been wsak over the course of his career but you can't knock his quality as a fighter.

And once again if we're referring this back to Cleverly, if you think that Hopkins was better than Calzaghe tactically or technically, that's fair enough. But the margins between the two were slim. There is a much wider gap between Cleverly's and Hopkins' abilities and that's far roo much to bridge IMO, even if he has a greater workrate.

 

Fighters with high workrate tend to play into Hopkins' hands, unless they have the technical ability to back it up. That is what separates Calzaghe from the likes of Cloud or Pavlik. You can't just throw punches at Hopkins, the same way you can against lesser opponents because he's far too tricky for that. If the opponent throws 4, he'll miss 3 and yet Hopkins will land flush and at ease. Most fighters who are busy have made that into their strong point and overwhelm other opponents by outworking them. That's fine against basic opposition but it's a dangerous strategy against Hopkins because he's far too good to just be outworked. You need to be clever against him, offer different angles and be unpredictable, or just straight up outbox him.

Eventually, Hopkins will get too old and when he does, he'll be beaten by fighters who can just outwork him. As long as he's still fresh, he'll prove far too much for young fighters who think workrate alone is enough.

 

Finally, someone who is seeing sense :happy

Thank you Jack!