Bernard Hopkins vs Tommy Hearns @ 160

:rofl:rofl what a bunch of garbage

 

Hopkins was 40 years old fighting a 27 year old A level fighter. By 40 Hearns was fighting bums like Jay Snider, and having trouble doing joined up speaking due to punch drunkenness.

Hopkins brutal stoppage with Hearns eyes rolling around in his head inside 10 rounds.

 

Roldan's bum ass wouldn't be ruling at 160 if he were there instead of Hopkins. Same with Barkley. They wouldn't be separating themselves from Holmes, Joppy, and Abraham. At best, they'd win titles in a musical chairs fashion. Abraham would put Roldan in the hospital though.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Good thing the fight is between prime versions of Hopkins and Hearns.

 

Jones was perhaps the quickest fighter ever p4p. I can't think of any fighter that wouldn't be troubled by that speed. He was also 180 lbs in the ring and had a brutal KO ratio at the weight, so I'm far from convinced Hearns was a heavier puncher as a MW. And it's not like Jones came remotely close to stopping Hopkins either.

Not sure why you bring up 40 year-old Hopkins (against Taylor) in a prime for prime discussion.

 

Yeah, many here seems to see Hopkins only as the spoling counterpuncher he turned into when his physicality started to wane in his late 30's. That was a necessary adaption to diminishing speed and stamina, nothing else. Prime Hopkins was usually aggressive and very active. Seems like many here haven't seen him in the mid to late 90's.

Just the fact that the Taylor fights are being brought up so frequently...

 

Spot on. Remember too he's got a sizable hate squad.

 

So your arguement is because he is still a very good fighter and has been for 20 plus years it is somehow a knock against him that he lost 2 fights to a prime title contender. At age 40. Who would you pick in a fight Hopkins at 27 or Hopkins at 40? Time comes for us all. Hopkins was just able to, in true Hopkins style, tie it up and nullify it better than anyone ever.:deal

 

So you feel that Robinson's loss to Paul Pender is relevant for assesing him at his MW best too then?

If you know your boxing and watch his fights you'll see that Hopkins wasn't the same fighter at 40 as he was 5-10 years earlier.

 

Actually, Barkley and Rodan had a much more aggressive style than Hopkins (even a younger Hopkins). They were also bigger punchers than Bernard.

Hopkins was a more technical fighter. Hearns has NEVER been outboxed in his entire career.

 

Yes he wasnt a face first brawler like those two, but he often went on the offensive. And he was a high activity fighter. Just watch his fights from the 90's. The Mercado rematch for example.