better defense hopkins or floyd?

Yeah i wasn't saying you in particular said this i was more addressing the dangerous precedent of using natural ability/athleticism as a mark against a fighter in a discussion about effectiveness, especially in a case such as Hopkins vs Mayweather where Mayweather is clearly a better technical defender of a thrown punch.

You are now blurring the line between overall effectiveness including offensive package and pure defensive ability.

 

Mayweather´s defense is more one dimensional, Hopkins has more variaty. Mayweather is better in this one dimension than Hopkins´ is in any of his diensions but overall I think Hopkins is more effective.

 

mayweathers defense it levels above hopkins only guy that levels above floyd it sweetpea

 

hopkins defense is more versatile. Floyd just uses the shoulder roll and thats bascially it.

 

By far one of the stupidest things I've seen you write.

 

Both guys are very good at landing flush with one or two shots while leaving themselves virtually impossible to counter. What I'm talking about is in exchanges, when genuinely on the offensive, attacking their opponents. Floyd hardly ever exchanges with his opponent's, so its difficult to compare, but I think what I'm talking about is part of the reason for that. For instance, much of the Trinidad fight was fought at close range, on the inside, elbow to elbow. Hopkins was in with one of the more accurate punchers of recent memory, and if you watch the work done on the inside, You'll see some outstanding exchanges (the fight is generally underrated in this regard. It was one-sided, but an exciting kind of one-sided). Anyway, Tito rarely ever actually lands against Hopkins, and never once lands more than one at time - again, this is while Hopkins is trading shot for shot in some intense exchanges against one of the best punch placers of all time. As he lands a short right hand on Tito's skull, he blocks the left hook to the body with his right elbow. As he splits Tito's guard with an uppercut, he blocks the overhand right with his shoulder, and so on. Each of these things happening within a fraction of a second of each other, and of course, all the while Hopkins is turning Trinidad and keeping him off balance.

It's a part of Floyd's game I haven't really seen much of. His defense in the middle of exchanges, not just on the inside blocking or slipping punches until he can create space to counter and move away, but actually throwing with his opponent and making them miss. Hopkins, like Duran, could be nearly impossible to hit while hunting his opponent down and throwing vicious combinations.

I do agree with you that Floyd, all told, may be the slightly more difficult fighter to hit in the same way a prime Roy Jones was (though I do feel Mayweather has typically fought in a more defensive manner than prime Hopkins did). I certainly agree with Bodhi in the sense that Hopkins has the more varied defense and that has helped him in every situation against every opponent at any stage of his career, even if Floyd's defensive skill and athleticism might make him just a shade more effective at making guys miss.

 

That explains why Whitaker has slurred speech and got stopped in his last fight that retired himatsch, and don't use that excuse about him being old either because he was born 1964 and got TKO'd and retired in 2001 which will makes him 37 years old. Better defense than Floyd and B-HOP? GTFO

Bernard Hopkins at age 45 almost 46 still hasn't been cut or bruised up or ktfo

Even Floyd's defense is way better than Sweet Pea

The only thing Sweet Pea had was the way he was dodging and ducking so low to avoid punches

 

Whitaker was a step above both Hopkins and Mayweather in just about every aspect, including defense. Posts like that just make your ignorance obvious.

 

Hopkins has great defense with offence and smarts. Floyd has great defense by slipping punches. Hopkins is the much greater fighter.

 

RIIIIGHT '' dodging and ducking '' is a defense in its own right and therefore he was ****ing brilliant ,

 

Undoubtedly what makes Hopkins good defensively translates better to offense than Floyd, as they aren't solely defensive techniques, more generalship, tactics and a great read on the situation. I feel Hopkins early career (30 odd fights) is relatively ignored, which is a bit of a cop out in an argument such as this (focusing on defense in relation to aggression). Yes there is no shame in losing to vintage Roy Jones, but he got caught clean plenty of times whilst admittedly dominating journeyman level opposition with his relatively relentless boxer-puncher style of the time.

Looking at the early aggressive Hopkins, even if you disregard the obvious fact that Mercado hurt and knocked down Hopkins, he hit him flush plenty of times throughout the fight, even though he was overwhelmed by Hopkins offense. Even in less competitive fights with slightly better than journeyman opposition like Joe Lipsey and Wendall Hall, he gets hit in a fashion that would be particularly uncharacteristic of Mayweather. This isn't really isolated to his early to mid 90s career either, closer to his prime than people might care to admit, pretty average opponents like Echols managed to tag him more than they probably should have.

Mayweather turned to potshotting when things didn't go his way, and Hopkins returns to offense-as-defense aggression. Taylor is athletic but pretty basic when it comes down to it and he couldn't miss Hopkins for the first half of their first fight with power shots, and Hopkins failed to adapt decisively enough to get the decision. Obviously the fight was a tossup but he still got hit left right and centre. He effectively adapted through increased aggression in the rematch, his go to plan B. Even against Pascal (well past his peak admittedly), when things weren't going his way early defensively, he returned to a more aggressive former self to effectively solve his problems, the same thing he should have done when he was battling away against Calzaghe.

Its easy to ignore Hopkins early career as green and also his latter career as past it and focus on a little golden period where his opposition wasn't spectacular but he looked relatively complete, but its not fair to disregard everything outside those parameters. Picking that period is a case of having your cake and eating it too. Getting the best of both worlds without the bad, early boxer-puncher Hopkins, and late conservative ring general Hopkins, the thing here is that the young Hopkins was further developed as a fighter than people give credit for, and also much more hittable.

Much of what makes this argument interesting though is also what makes it particularly difficult to agree on, the link between aggression and defensive ability is hard to accurately compare. Mayweather has never been as aggressive as Hopkins was at his best, so it is particularly hard to claim who is defensively better at a certain level of aggression and activity.

Though a big part of this argument may be that i am arguing who has the better defense, while others are arguing who is the better defensive oriented fighter.

* The link i was trying to make between Hopkins from his early career being more developed than people acknowledge, and that he was also more hittable than one might think, is that it is the evidence we have of him fighting super aggressively. I think it gives and indication into how he could not integrate Duran-like defense during raw aggression against elite opposition at the weight.

 

I was going to write a lengthy response to Konaman myself, but I can't top this post, so I won't bother.

:happy

 

Agree completely. Pea is an even higher level fighter than either of the two ATGs Hopkins and Mayweather. Pea could do just about everything, both offensively and defensively. Who else in boxing history has produced both a defensive masterclass like Ramirez II, and an offensive masterclass like McGirt II?

 

You could call it having your cake and eating it to or you could call it judging a fighter based on his performances and making the clear distinction of when he was at his best. Was he a crude, reckless brawler during the Jones fight? Of course not, nothing even remotely close. He was, however, far less hittable against better fighters during his prime run ('97-03 for me) than he was earlier against lesser competition. That's clear as day just by watching the fights.

First, let me say that Taylor missed all the damn time against Hopkins, particularly with power shots. His jab landed from time to time, but there was virtually no contact in the early rounds, Taylor just being busier. Hopkins defense was perfectly fine in that fight, but his offense was abysmal and virtually non-existant. When he did seem to go on the offensive, he seemed to always beat the crap out of Taylor.

I think Floyd is the more defense oriented fighter, and thus, he seems to slip more punches than Hopkins. B-Hop has the more varied defense though, at least its more proven to be varied. His defense is going to be more reliable against a wider variety of opponents and situations. Floyd bases a lot of his defense on his athletic ability, and there's nothing wrong with that, but if he is pitted in some kind of weird P4P match up against that Roy Jones Hopkins fought, I think he's going to get hit all the time, and quite a bit more than even that more aggressive version of Hopkins did. Mayweather's defense is based a lot on reacting to the situation and going from there. Its something that could potentially cost him against someone who is very fast, great at feinting, and throws weird punches from weird angles like Jones...or someone else. He's so quick at doing it, but Floyd switches from offense to defense and plays them almost exclusively. Its usually a burst of offense here and there between mostly defensive posture, with the bursts becoming more frequent as the fight progresses. Hopkins never had to worry about reacting to his opponent's attack because he was always in perfect defensive position, even when he was beating the crap out of people. Very, very few fighters in the history of the sport were better at being defensive while offensive, and Floyd isn't one of them.

 

Neither were Felix Trinidad, Glen Johnson, William Joppy or Keith Holmes, and later in his career neither were Joe Calzaghe, Antonio Tarver, Kelly Pavlik, Jean Pascal, Jermain Taylor, Winky Wright, Oscar De La Hoya, etc etc etc.

Fail. Hopkins has proven his defence against some of the very best. :good