better defense hopkins or floyd?

Both have the best defense in boxing pound for pound

If i would choose one, i would base it off two things

1.) The way it looks (swagger, special effects)
2.) Effectiveness (energy efficiency, warranty and long lasting)

Floyd's defense is definitely flashy and beautiful to look at, his cat like reflexes will make you like "WHOA" and he looks good doing it. But he gets vulnerable sometimes and gets hit. He might still be able to fight in his late 30s or maybe early 40s at a top level because of his philly shell defense like James Toney is doing now, he will most likely lose his footwork when he ages which might make him vulnerable to some shots


Hopkins defense is a lil bit boring but he is more effective at defending his entire body, his ring generalship, footwork and pawing with the jab is very efficient in almost everything he does. His style might not be pretty to look at like Floyd's but B-Hop's defense IMO is more effective. B-Hop's defense allowed him to fight top level competition until now at age 45 and still has the footwork to defend his torso/face.

Some things to remember
- Both guys had never been knockout or stopped
- Both guys got very good recovery skills
- Both are well conditioned

B-HOP

Pros
- Never been wobbled/shaken
- Never been cut or bruised up (defense)

Cons
- Knockdown 4 times (but not hurt)
- Not pretty to look at


Floyd

Pros
- Flashy and pretty to look at

Cons
- Been stunned/wobbled before
- Footwork isn't going to be there forever because speed/reflexes diminish as he ages


If i were to choose.....

I would go for effective defense and longevity with B-HOP

I would go for looks/flashy and swagger with Floyd

 

:good

 

Hopkins is better at stopping his opponent's offense before it actually happens with his footwork and is - or at least was - quite a bit better defensively when on the offensive.

 

I would have to say mayweather, he just barely gets hit. But saying that I would like to see him fight when he is 46 so I can make a fair comparison.

 

Floyd's defense, imo, is more based on his reflexes than Hopkins' style of defense. I would say he defends slightly better than Hopkins does right now, but B-Hop's defense would prove superior over time.

 

Care to elaborate on the last part? Not having a go at you i would just like to hear the train of thought surrounding it. Obviously much of Mayweather's defensive ability is to do with how cagey he is, but there isn't exactly much of a counter punching window against him, and i am not sure he is any easier to hit than Hopkins whilst throwing punches. Though he does obviously think less about his defensive posture/tactical positioning whilst attacking, which i would guess is your main justification.

They are polar opposites which makes it a particularly interesting comparison. Hopkins is the best passive defender in the sport, his ring generalship is brilliant, but in terms of simply who is the hardest to hit, i think Floyd wins out.

When you say over time, do you mean as in post-prime career longevity? As in a Roy Jones vs Hopkins type defensive comparison? Because Mayweather has been around for a fair while and doesn't exactly get hit a whole lot, his defensive capability is arguably more proven than Hopkins over there respective careers to date. It is also much less reactionary than someone like Roy Jones, who used more exaggerated movements and was far less reliant on parrying. Although Mayweather will probably become more hittable than Hopkins if he fights to the twilight of his physical capability, i wouldn't expect it to deteriorate like Jones' style.

 

just a matter of time before his reflexes are gone and you'll see floyd getting knocked silly. a new RJJ with no power

dont like hopkins but his defence is much better than floyds

 

Floyd

And its not even close

 

Floyd without a doubt. Hopkins is a master of not getting hit cleanly, but Floyd is a master at not getting hit at all.

 

Floyd is much better at it than Hopkins. Mayweather rarely needs to hold or use illegal means as much as Hops to get the job done.

 

Those saying Hopkins has the more technical defense are kidding themselves. Just cuz Floyd looks flashy or has swag doing it doesn't mean he isn't technical. If you look at who gets hit more, and more cleanly, its a no brainer.

 

Both have amazing defence, but I'd say prime Hopkins, because: (a) he never had Floyd's athleticism. Floyd can run and outbox when he feels danger (see Castillo II), but B-Hop had to rely on his defensive skills all the time, (b) this is just an opinion, but I feel like Floyd has been hit cleanly more. Off the top of my head, Mosley, Corley, Marquez, Castillo, have all caught Floyd with flush haymakers. Echols is the only guy I can remember hitting Bernard with a flush hook when B-Hop was prime.

 

Athleticism doesn't really have any relevance to effectiveness though, it might make it more appreciable, but certainly not better, you would also be mad to write off Floyd's defense as purely reflex based like a Roy Jones, as his ability to parry is as good as anyones and he reads punches very well.

You could also argue that Hopkins has a better chin and therefore when he gets hit clean its less memorable, whereas Floyd has been hurt once or twice by not so dangerous punchers. Hopkins got hit plenty in his physical prime, more so than Mayweather, though when he entered his peak as a more conservative intelligent defensive fighter it is much more close.

 

Who wrote off Floyd's defence as purely reflex? :huh Certainly not me. As I said, I think Floyd has an amazing defence, but his athleticism allowed him to change his defensive style against an opponent who proved successful against his A-game, like Castillo. B-Hop never had to do this. His A-game defensive style has been effective against all different types of opponent for a long, long time.