Bernard Hopkins vs. Sugar Ray Robinson, at 160

Yes,of course,good speed indeed for his age....

 

I did see the handspeed against Calzage though, im not saying that he outsped him at all, but when Joe was backing him up early on, he did unleash some flurries/combos that showed his underrated handspeed.

Also, he dictated the pace against Joe for a very good length of that bout, no1 else has ever come close to achieving that.

Bernard cannot be knocked.

 

I will pick bernard by SD, but realised that, that makes Bernard perhaps one of the greatest MW ever. I guess he is afterall...

 

That is the biggest load of nonsense I have read in a while

 

You may be missing the bigger picture.

Hopkins is a fighter that leaches off the opponents hang-ups. Every fighter has them, and Hopkins' punctuation towards fundamentals makes you look stupid; but you have to play ball in order for this to work.

Roy Jones, Jermain Taylor and Joe Calzaghe did not always 'play ball'.

Jones 'pot-shotted', Taylor fought safety first behind the jab for much of the fights, and Calzaghe does not commit to his punches, but rather focuses on befuddling.

They all flirted with combat, inadvertently eliminating Hopkins' strongest points of seducing and countering.

It seems silly, but simple traits, this being a lack of engagement, proved damaging to Hopkins' style, especially when hitting his 40's, unable to 'hunt' as well as he could a few years prior. Robinson had no problem with engaging the target; after all he was first and foremost an attacker.

At the top level, no, 'Sugar' Ray Robinson was not hard to figure out; many an opponent ran him close and dragged him into slug fests. Randy Turpin was hard to figure out, Carlos Monzon was hard to figure out and Bernard Hopkins is probably the hardest of them all.

Robinson's power and output gave him victory. He did have superb timing, but there's a difference between timing your opponent and handcuffing them. Of all time, he was hard to beat, not figure out.

All his best points were related to speed, power and flash, not elusiveness or a fundamentally sound defence. He made that up by being great at 'warring' but Hopkins would be the most technically gifted and likely one, if not thee strongest.

Robinson was slick, fleet of foot and all the other old sayings that attach themselves to the stereotypical image of a 'great boxer', but the fact is he was a boxer-puncher who got 'stuck in'.

Roy Jones was a boxer-puncher also, but Ted Spoon has the stylistic trajectory to be able to separate legacy from reality and comfortably say that Jones was a much bigger hurdle than Robinson at that particular time.

 

Hopkins' strengthes do lie in the fact that he capitalizes on opponent's mistakes...having a simply phenomenal defense and counter punching skills are what gets the job done. The three fighters mentioned above were the ones who definitely gave the 'Executioner' the most difficulty.

"Inadvertantly eliminated" does not give the above fighters their proper credit due. Tactically Hopkins' main weapon is a debilitating counter right hand, it is what Hopkins incurs the most damage with in his arsenal...it is usually set up with a teasing left jab, that is meant to gauge distance and temporarily blind or distract the opponent.

Roy Jones did 'potshot'...but he also fought a fight predictated on maintaining the proper distance when engaging a fighter with the strengthes and defense skills of a Bernard Hopkins. Using his speed, Jones used direction to offset Hopkins' straight ahead offense (in those days)...Jones knew the spacing and direction in the fight was the key to the fight. If you watch, he moves predominatly to his left side away from Hopkins 'range finders' not allowing hime to get fully set to fire his right hand. This was not 'inadvertant'.... he clearly won.

Jermain Taylor used strength and speed for his 'wins' (he might have taken the second fight)...Taylor wasn't able to fire his blows at Hopkins the way he had performed against his previous opponents basically due to Hopkins' defense...when Taylor did not open up, the action slowed considerably. It may not be fair to judge Hopkins on these performances due to the fact he was older. The fights with Taylor showed Hopkins was very reactive to Taylor's offense and Hopkins' superb counter punching. Taylor, at that time was a basic offensive fighter. Much has been said of his 'bow and arrow' right hand...he would fire wildly at Hopkins' evasive head with straight rights, totally neglecting the body...his left jab traveled up and somewhat across his body, giving Hopkins the time to set up his counters...That being said, Hopkins took advantage of Taylor in spurts...but not enough to convince the judges.

Joe Calzaghe? In my opinion, he simply forced a pace and pressure that Hopkins became uncomfortable with...The instance of that fight that stands out to me was when Hopkins feigned injury from a non-existant low blow...to gain a short respite. Calzaghe did not hold back...Hopkins, the consummate defensive professional was overloaded for a time, with such an active opponent.

I want to interject something here re Robinson's style. During the time Robinson came up in the ranks, America was segregated, deserving Black contenders were not given the opportunity to fight major events...Joe Louis, Henry Armstrong, and Ray Robinson made the in roads in the sport of boxing in the thirties and forties....That being said, Robinson had to win and win impressively everytime out, he had to make the people want to see him, and remember his name...Ray had to win his audience over...Hopkins was the benificiary of Robinson's efforts. A person may be critical of Robinson's style or lack of a 'fundamental defense'...But imagine, if you will, the pressure to succeed, and to be exciting doing it.

Often when pressed, Robinson would extract a harsher price than you were willing to give in a fight...This would complicate the equation. IMO.

There is no doubt Hopkins would present major problems to any middleweight in history.

What does Robinson bring to the ring to fight and beat Bernard Hopkins?

While Hopkins has looked good, the consideration should be given as to whom he has beaten.

Robinson was an attacking fighter, and he would attack Hopkins as well...but you would be mistaken,if you thought it would be reckless aggression.

As stated earlier, Hopkins' most damaging punch is the straight right counter off an opponent's lead. How does Robinson counteract this?

Robinson wins this fight,for the same reason Roy Jones did...By using the same fundamental tactic of moving to his left...Watch the LaMotta fight, Robinson fights in a tight circle moving primarly to his left. In fact, he moves to the left much more than Jones did...The reason being is that he will gain position to fire off left hooks. He will mix the attack by going to the right, for right hands to the body ( a devastating blow)

Robinson's advantages in footspeed will allow him to be in a more favorable position more often than not, and it will be pivotal...Moving to the left will offset Hopkins' measuring teasing left jabs, it will more difficult to find the distance for gauging those right hand counters...Another deterrent would be Robinson's counter left hooks in response to those rights. Hopkins' favorite move of weaving three/four times, a short distracting left, then the hard right hand followed by the shoulder bump (getting low to avoid the left counter) followed by his own left hook...It can be countered by Robinson by watching Hopkins' left leg and stance...if he brings the left foot forward (with knee bent), with a wider stance and weight distributed on the front foot... he is about to attempt his favorite move. Robinson can either move back to the right for a right hand to the body, or when Hopkins bends down low, Robinson is well versed with powerful uppercuts...Or he could back out of range.

What about Hopkins' strength in the clinches? Will he grind Robinson down? Fighting Hopkins is like walking in quicksand...In the clinches, he will get the better of it...It is Hopkins' territory, Hopkins will undoubtedly clamp down on Robinson's left and pound the body and behind the head as described. Robinson in the LaMotta fight aimed vicious blows to Jake's midsection with his right in clinches...Hopkins has a habit of getting his head lower, and driving his head into an opponent's jaw...if Bernard's head is lower than Robinson's, he could be a target for Ray's uppercut in close. It is not likely Hopkins will win the fight depending on how the clinches develop.

Can Hopkins force an inside fight? This will decide the fight IMO. Hopkins will have moments, but if Robinson moves to his left, attacking with jabs, right hands and left hooks in combination...He will force Hopkins to have to reset too much...Watch the film, Robinson moves freely forward or backward, equally adept at firing hard shots either way, and does not have to get set to do so...
Robinson by clear unanimous decision.

There are plenty of avenues for Robinson to gain this victory. The description "stuck in" holds no water...

To be continued.

 

I see hopkins taking a whoopin'.
I don't see him getting knocked out seeing as nobody has been able to. Sugar was a stronger pucnher than bernard and had better handspeed. Even though bernard is extremely patient I dont see him "luring" sugar inside for bodywork with out too much holding.

 

Concerning Roy Jones, he was able to achieve what he did, not so much due to pre-meditated tactics, but rather his natural athleticism, a feature which aloud him to hang about in corners and comfortably fight off the ropes for years.

While a better (smaller) fighter, Robinson was not the speed demon Jones was or as awkward.

Awkwardness is a blessing in disguise between the ropes.

Trainers scorn low hands + flailing punches but so do the opponents when they are unable to box well because of these bad habits having the reverse effect.

Willie Pep was the master at this ‘fighting beyond the chapters of the textbook’, fighting ‘off sync’, if you will; blending the misleading mannerisms of an amateur with the anticipation of a veteran to make for an immeasurable opponent.

An active boxer like Robinson does not have that incompatibility card to play against a fundamental guru like Hopkins, and because of the sizeable gap in strength, any tactics Robinson began to impose on Hopkins would get fizzled out when he got rough.

In a sentence, it would prove very hard for the slighter Robinson to dictate the fight against Hopkins going off the wars he was given.

Robinsons middleweight days were made stressful more so because he was trying to punch above his best weight rather than him being a few steps off his peak.

Furthermore, Hopkins the counter-puncher will not have to hunt down Robinson who would likely fancy his chances of going after Hopkins like he did when pitched against the larger Maxim.

As a side thought, Robinson’s tenor as Middleweight champion was during an era of great middleweight battlers, not commanders like Stanley Ketchel, Les Darcy, Marcel Cerdan (a better fighter than Zale, LaMotta and Graziano), Marvin Hagler, Carlos Monzon and Bernard Hopkins.

There is a line that you can draw here.

The excuse is that Robinson was cooling down a touch when he came up to Middleweight, but Ted Spoon questions his true effectiveness against the elite.

Could the Robinson who took out LaMotta out manoeuvre and out hustle the Hopkins that took everything away from Trinidad? It just seems a bit too much to ask from this perspective.

The obligation to sit on his punches, flurry, get a little rough; all of that does not fall in line with what has proven to short circuit Hopkins, and they are foundations of Robinsons ring personality.

Hopkins does not have to play Chinese whispers to find his man and then Robinson will, ultimately, begin to sink.

 

If Robinson has proven anything in a long career... it is durabilty. I suppose no one attempted to 'get rough' with him. Seriously though, the inside is a integral part of Hopkins game, and if Robinson were to win this fight...he would have to stay out of the alley against Bernard...Given his experience, I think he does.

That is conjecture on your behalf. The objective facts were Robinson did indeed carry one punch KO power to the middleweight ranks against the best of his era...and most anyone in history would be near the end of their career at roughly 10 years (at the time of the 6th LaMotta fight) and over 120 fights. Robinson came back after nearly a 3 year layoff and was good enough to win the title 4 more times fighting another roughly 14 more years!... Dare I say, Monzon, Hagler, Cerdan, etc. would hard hard pressed to accomplish the same?

Felix Trinidad is a brave fighter...not a versatile one. Quite frankly there is no comparison to Robinson and Trinidad, the only common denominator they share is power...Robinson can and will fight going backwards, does not have to set himself 'on the mark' to deliver blows, much better arsenal of punches...Is there even one trait that Trinidad excels over Robinson in the ring?...You are hanging your hat on the Trinidad fight??? Tito is a one dimensional fighter who played right into Hopkins's hands...Tito did share one other aspect with Robinson, his willingness to fight! But the difference lies in Robinson's much better overall ability.
After thinking about it, a better stylistic facimile would be the DeLaHoya fight...But then again, Robinson is faster, stronger, more durable, harder hitting et al...

That is indeed Robinson's personality and style...but the seemingly overlooked, and major difference is the caliber of opponent Hopkins performed against...Trinidad did not have the capability to strategically retreat, he had to set himself to punch, and again much slower of hand and foot than a Robinson.

If you look at Bernard Hopkins closely, he plays 'cat and mouse' with all of his opponents...Hopkins can change instantly...when he plays the mouse, he boxes using the jab, moving left to right and back, he stands more erect in posture, his legs are only slightly bent...while doing this he is drawing an opponent closer...then the cat takes over... he will weave in front of the opponent, and widen his stance (considerably), throw out a token left jab, just before firing a right hand...This does two things, it improves his leverage on the punch, and with the followthrough he gets close and low to avoid the counter left from the opponent, and initiate his rough house tactics. THIS APPEARS TO BE HOPKINS' MAIN OFFENSIVE TRAIT. This occurs over and over.

Ray Robinson in the LaMotta fight (against another physically strong opponent) fought in a tight circle going primarly to his left...Tactically speaking this gets Robinson closer to the opponent for his left hooks and it will nullify to a degree Hopkins' best offensive weapon, his right hand...By going to his left, Robinson is away from Hopkins range finding jab, a right hand without being set up is a telegraphed punch...and as stated before, Hopkins would have to reset...Hopkins does not transition nearly as quickly as SRR in the ring...If Hopkins opens up more...he leaves himself more open, Robinson is a withering counter puncher offensively. If Echols can hurt Hopkins if a single punch, how does Robinson do with faster combinations? The difference in hand and footspeed on film is clearly evident of the two fighters.

I'm not saying Robinson wins by a landslide...No, it's somewhat close. Hopkins troubles alot of great middleweights, but he does not have the overall ability and fluidity, nor the workrate to beat the best Sugar Ray Robinson at the weight.
Robinson by decision.

Ted Spoon, I need more than just 'getting rough'...
How does Hopkins overcome Robinson's firepower and workrate tactically. You cannot win a fight with only great defense. I've told you the tactics I believe Robinson would employ, moving to his left and attacking, and how it would delay Hopkins' offensive traits somewhat (IMO)...and how does Hopkins impose his strength if he is not in position to, against a faster fighter? When he was younger, Robinson moved against stronger opponents...
Cheers, Ted Spoon.

 

Robinson could still do it at 160lbs, but things got notably harder. The knockout of Fullmer was unlike anything else, but, generally, the Welterweight destroyer became a Middleweight hustler.

Much of this was to do with the fact that Robinson was now physically unable to command the weight class.

Other greats may have had a hard time trying to comeback as well as Robinson did, but the point is void as they already punctuated their time by slaying their opposition to a degree Robinson never could of; he was, after all, a natural Welterweight.

The mention of Trinidad had no bearing on the ability of Robinson but was used rather to show how easy it was for Hopkins to manipulate the smaller man; Hopkins is a BIG middleweight and lighter opponents find this out. The De La Hoya fight was more of a sparring session; Robinson did not fight like that, and so a different fight would occur.

The Trinidad fight was just a meagre parallel.

Let's talk technically then.

Hopkins is a large, measured counter-puncher going up against a quick and powerful boxer-puncher.

At the bare bones of this match-up, Hopkins shouldn't have too much problem trying to draw some leads out of the aggressively minded 'Sugar Ray'.

As you stated well yourself, Hopkins likes to keep the opponents guessing before getting down the trajectory and landing the cross, but if you've got that down to second nature like Bernard then you may land at will. The punch has proven near impossible to escape because the lead right shall for ever put a spin on the perception of delivery - the left normally comes first.

Having an arsenal of punches is not a skill, but a bunch of options. If a fighter can make one option work without fail then they are skilled. The real skill of boxing dwells within the realms of welcoming and then taming combat.

Mayweather did it to Hatton with the lead right, and similarly, Hopkins watches your body language then fires for keeps. What with Robinsons low left, trying to picture him escaping the shot is hard to say the least.

Hopkins does not have to land or even throw the jab to get his mans measure, to suggest so would be to seriously down-play his abilities. His body has often just signalled intent by stuttering before landing the honey punch.

We are talking about the best Bernard Hopkins though who was an active bruising fighter. We have all gotten to use to the pot-shotting Hopkins of the last 6 years or so and forgot when he used to pitch out tremendous exchanges against Johnson, Echols and Holmes. Hopkins had real work rate back in the day and would not be shy in those 'heated' moment.

More tellingly, Hopkins maybe favoured there with his attention to punch placement and shortness rather than power and variety like the Sugar man.

Hopkins is in possession of a frustrating level of fundamental maintenance. His hands are always high ready to pick off those looped hooks of Robinsons; the same cannot be said of Robinson who ran himself ragged in those middleweight wars as he drooped with tiredness and lost form.

There was nobody like Robinson, but here we place the man who battled it out with Gavilan, Fullmer, LaMotta in the blood n' guts style that 1950's boxing encouraged and square him off against a 6,1 economic strategist.

Dare Ted Spoon say that Robinson will find it harder to understand Hopkins than vice versa?

The one man who shared many of Hopkins' frustrating traits was Randy Turpin; straight punches, high hands and a sharp duck.

Like Turpin, Hopkins forces speed bumps. He is a destroyer of rhythm and eagerness. When Robinson fought Turpin, let’s be fair and say in the rematch, his smooth form of boxing kept hitting walls with the sharp changes in commitment.

Now Hopkins was not as unorthodox as Turpin, but more than makes up for it with the fact he would never be left stranded on the ropes.

Hopkins is the dictator here and that is were Robinson's little stylistic scars and nature would get exploited through the fights distance.

 

I cant see it either. Hopkins not in same class, not as talented. Trust me, Robinson is taking this UD. 9-6, 10-5, 10-4-1

 

I'm in agreement that Robinson wasn't quite the force he presented at welterweight. But regardless, in his reigns as middleweight champion, he dispatched his opponents as easily or better than the great champions you have previously mentioned while in his early thirties, for the most part. While not the most physically imposing strong fighter, Robinson's power cannot be denied. If you look at Robinson in clinches with LaMotta at the start of their fight, Robinson turns Jake by not matching him head on, and then shoving him back...also in the final round of that fight, both fighters come together in a clinch...Robinson will slightly bend both knees, just enough to gain separation, and fire a short right uppercut, then two very short left hooks...Robinson was well equipped to handle himself in either weight class.

If you cannot impose your style on an opponent, you cannot, in large part, impose your strength against that opponent. Hopkins did indeed impose his strength against Trinidad, but then again, as said before, Trinidad was not a versatile fighter...He played right into Hopkins' hands. It is easy to be in command when your opponent cooperates with you.

De La Hoya was mentioned, because he did incorporate some use of movement against Hopkins. But with that being said, he stayed 'straight on' with Hopkins as well, the same can be said of all the opponents who allowed Hopkins to shine...Echols, Johnson, De La Hoya etc. An interesting video on the general forum has Freddie Roach talking about how DLH did not know how to effectively cut off the ring, and how Pacquiao could lead him into his straight left hand, because he followed him...and also during his fight with Floyd Jr., how Oscar effectively neutralized his own left jab by following Floyd, taking himself out of position to use his most important asset( something a Robinson would never do)...It is funny that one of the P4P best of the ninties, did not grasp the basics of positioning in the ring. It should be noted that in comparison to Hopkins' other opposition, DLH's footwork was much the better, than a Trinidad, Joppy, Echols, or Johnson. Perhaps the 'blood and guts' style of the fifties had better overall craft than given credit for...

Yes, let's continue to do so.

Hopkins DID use his left jab (or a teaser) when fighting orthodox fighters. He employed using his straight right lead (without jabbing) more when fighting southpaws. This is mainly due to the fact that he did not want to leave himself open on his left side to a southpaw's right hook when throwing his right cross...and most times a southpaw will be moving to their right...Against a fighter of Robinson's caliber, a lead right without setting it up will get you in trouble. In the 7th round of the second Turpin fight, Turpin fired a lead right hand, and Robinson countered before Turpin retrieved the hand with a vicious uppercut, and 5-6 punch salvo to the head and body.

Why do you suppose a 14 year verteran of over 120 fights (at the LaMotta fight) would hold the left low? Perhaps, this deserves looking deeper than the obvious...Robinson's left hand position would allow him more variation on the left hook, he would be able to turn it under or over from this position, the left jab would also be varied...He could incorporate an 'up' jab according to Emanual Steward...and also he may be able to draw an opponent into throwing a lead right and then counter it. You don't have to look very hard at all to find Hopkins doing the exact same thing against various orthodox fighters in his title fights.

When Hopkins 'fires for keeps' with the right, his stance is tell tale. It is wider than usual...if he is attacking he will widen it by stepping forward with the left foot, or backward with the right, if he, himself, is being pressed and wants to counter. It is his best punch, but almost invariably, he will widen his stance before throwing his right with conviction.

To consistantly attempt to fire right hands without a jab would be a grevious error by the tactical Hopkins. As said in another post, Robinson's movement to his left while firing will make it difficult for Hopkins to establish the jab. Robinson has superior footspeed and will be able to make adjustments faster, to be in position before Hopkins. If Hopkins gambles, and fires his right lead without jabbing, he is open for counters because he will be completely forsaking his defense on his right side. Can he land a right hand everytime? I don't think so...When Hopkins takes a step forward with the left foot, Robinson will need to jab with Hopkins, or fire a left hook while moving to his left, thereby making Hopkins defend with the right...This way Hopkins' offense is somewhat checked because he will have to reset each time. Hopkins will be forced to being reactive than being able to be proactive. As staed before Hopkins' opponents are no where near the level of a Sugar Ray Robinson...Hopkins will not forsake his cautious nature...If the deck is stacked against him, he will choose not play.

This is the story of the fight.

Robinson by decision on workrate.

 

This content is protected