Could Eubank's unique style have given Hopkins big problems?

The only one out of that bunch that I would pick Graham to beat is Collins. The rest either knock him out or bully him.

 

Bernard Hopkins had 20-21 defences of his Middleweight World Champion..?

Chris Euabnk had 20 constitutive World Title Fights, from Middleweight to Super-middle..?

Who on earth did Bernard Hopkins beat him his championship reign, that matches up to Nigel Benn, Michael Watson...?

Chris Eubank would of beaten Bernard Hopkins. Bernard Hopkins resume is overrated! Chris Eubank hit harder than Bernard Hopkins, his speed..? he was marginally faster than Bernard Hopkins out foot and of hand. And he was by far tougher than Bernard Hopkins, what type of punishment is Bernard Hopkins gonna dish out....? That Chris Eubank would of not been able to take, and fight through.

Nigel Benn, Michael Watson, are better fighters than anybody! ANYBODY!!! Bernard Hopkins has EVER beaten during his middleweight career.

 

We are not agreeing much tonight , I think Graham is so underated and beats Benn , Collins and would give Hopkins nightmares.

Hopkins struggles with fast fighters .

 

I agree with you to an extent. I think the problem is people remember there were a lot of talent in the middleweight era of the 90's like. Nigel Benn,Gerald McClellan, Julian Jackson, James Toney, Mike Nunn, Reggie Johnson, Steve Collins, Micheal Watson etc... And Hopkins by passed all of them except Roy Jones in a lost. Hopkins resume does lack and his level of comp could have been much better. Hops did benefit from waiting to all those talents went up in weight and then dominated the WW's years later. Even in the MW tourny i always questioned why Hops didn't fight Joppy when he was the WBA champ.

 

there is no contadiction egghead, its not that trinidad was lighter, its the fact that trinidad was
- a lower level fighter than hearns
- less suited to middleweight than hearns
- got his head completely boxed off by winky wright at middleweight confirming that he didn't belong with the best at middleweight, whilst hearns proved himself at 160, 168, 175 showing how suited he was to fighting at higher weights

comprende?

thats shows how **** people thought hopkins was, that a fighter that had already been knocked down 7 times at 140, already been beaten by oscar (robbed), and went into the fight favourite because he had beaten william joppy - whoopie-do, who the **** as joppy ever beat, name joppys 5 best victories?

we got to see how great trinidad was v winky wright :rofl

you must really rate calzaghes win over lacy considering lacy was favourite and 20 out of 22 american boxing writers voted lacy to win :rofl

i won't admit that hopkins win over trinidad was of the same importance as haglers win over hearns because it wasn't - simple as that for the following reasons :deal
- hearns natural size and body frame was suited to putting on weight and going up through the divisions
- hearns was an elite level middleweight before and after he lost to hagler after hagler
- after hagler, hearns went on to win a middleweight title, a title at 168 and a title at 175 showing his undoubted calibre for fighting at heavier weights.


start a poll in the general if you think it was of the same importance :nut

again, you have schooled nobody, your just a bowl of scrambled eggs waiting to be eaten :rofl

 

Benn and Watson being better than anyone on Hopkins' 160 resume does not translate to Eubank beating Hopkins head to head.

Hopkins is technically superior and he was a busier fighter in his early days at 160lbs. He was a level above Eubank and that's the reality.

Having said that I respect your opinion!

 

ok so we can agree, that i haven't tried to build up victories over duran and mugabi - good

so who were trinidads best victories at 160 or above?

put a poll up in the general asking "was trinidad suited to fighting at 175?"

that maybe you first decent point of the entire day

no because hearns not only proved himself at 147, 154, he proved himself at 160, 168, and 175 - you see the difference between hearns and trinidad? - comprende?

cool story, add the bit about me turning your fragile egghead into scrambled eggs and you might make it big on youtube

 

Briscoe,Monroe are better then anyone Hopkins fought at Middle.

Hamsho was very strong and had a great chin and had some great wins-just couldn't get pass Hagler.

Its just no comparison really.Different time that had ALOT more talented boxers then Hopkins era.I mean look:

Hamsho twice Rober Allen ...3 times
Unbeaten John Mugabi Joe Lipsy

Thomas Hearns Oscar De La Hoya
Alan Minter John David Jackson
Tony Sibson Simon Brown
Juan Roldan Glen Johnson
Vito Antuofermo Felix Triadad
Willie Monroe Carl Daniels
Benny Briscoe

Now who fought the better competion?Not to mention that the majority of Hopkins title defenses are just plain crap.Was there a need for Hopkins vs Allen 3?What did Simon Brown do at middle to deserve a shot at Hopkins?
Im telling you Hagler would have dominated Hopkins-different league.
What does Hopkins do better then Hagler-maybe headbutt?

 

Of course Eubank's style and ability would cause Hopkins or anybody problems. He was awkward, unorthodox - gloves held together at stomach height, relying on uncanny reflexes, smooth upper body movement and either six-inch shots or out-of-distance punches, flashy flurries or freaky flexibility. He just wasn't normal!

Bernard is clearly taller and more upright, and in the 90s was more of an aggressive attacker than anything else, while Eubank boxed out of a crouch and looked uncomfortable initiating. I would see Hopkins trying to overwhelm Chris, but finding it difficult early doors, probably losing the early rounds, before finding his range, getting his timing down, and working out that long left hooks followed by right hands would be his key to (narrowish points) victory over Eubank.

 

:rofl:rofl TG1 brutally pwned and destroyed by ATG ESB Titan HEADBANGER in front of a global audience of millions.
:vonnecunt:censored:****off:lamawha:

 

no

 

I don't see Hopkins beating Rocchigiani at light-heavy. Rocchigiani was a giant Winky Wright! Completely robbed against Maske and Michalczewski.

 

Eubank did jab a lot more post-Watson, instead of leading off with leaping right hands. But apart from that, and being bigger (due to weigh-in rules), he was the same.

 

have you actually watched the 1st Mercado fight?

 

Silencer/Gained what the fuk was that post about? that was one giant whiny rant. where do you actually support your claim that Eubank would beat Hopkins? have you actually ever watched either fighter?