devise a strategy to defeat Bernard Hopkins

I agree, he has everything that has in the past troubled Hopkins and is a naturally bigger man to boot.

However, his chin has shown to be some kind of weakness (still not enough to determine how badly if at all), and he does have holes in his defense and struggled a bit on the inside against Johnson. I also didn't like how he took full rounds off against Tarver.

Hopkins could pull it out, but I would not expect it at all.

Because of these problems and Dawson's not yet Big PPV level name, I highly doubt that Bernard will choose to make one of his final fights against Chad.

 

Not better, stylistically well suited.

Yet i NEVER EVER gave up the chance that Hopkins could win. Roy has that potentially suspect chin ya know.

I mean lets get shallow, Hopkins flogged the **** out of the guy that flogged the **** out of still champion Jones, no? Oh, and the next guy that flogged the **** out of Jones. The haters write this off as a shitty Johnson but the plain fact is Johnson was 32-0. His balls didn't suddenly drop.

Yes i make Jones a 7-5 fave over Hopkins peak for peak. 7-5 faves get whupped every week, especially vs Hopkins

 

When one was 1 year from his career best performance while the other man was 8 year remove from it. Should say you something.

 

JT. You said on another thread that Hopkins was "WAY past his best against Taylor". I disagree, and the the use of the word "WAY" more so. IMO the style clash and Taylor's approach meant that Hopkins lost both fights, rather than Hopkins' dramatic decline over the two fights. If you don't mind me asking. When in your opinion was Hopkins' prime? It's not a two part awnser I'm looking for. Physical prime being seperated from his normal prime.

Just his prime when he was at his absolute peak and his effectiveness and performances were at their best.

 

Lets cut to the chase.

Do you think the Hopkins that beat Tito would have lost or/and drawn to Taylor?

 

Awnser my question.

 

And my question can be awnsered straight to the point. Like, eg; 1980-1984.

 

op op I love the Classic forum.

 

To add my opinion on Hopkins prime, I see it as from about '97 to 2003. I think his overall best performances were in this area, and afterwards he started to clinch much more and throw fewer combinations for the most part. I was not as impressed by his showings against De La Hoya, Allen 3, Eastman, Taylor, Wright, Tarver, etc after 2003 as I was with his performances against Trinidad, Johnson, Echols, Vanderpool, and Joppy as the final fight, in the time span from '97-'03.

 

I thought he looked superb against Eastman. Typical Hopkins performance. Cautious start with a low punch output, before moving through the gears and dominating. His counters were 'bang on the money' and he's only ever been on par when moving freely around the perimeter of the ring and countering effectively prior to that fight. I'll also nail my colours to the mast with confidence and say his handspeed was on the same level compared to the Trinidad showing. He wasn't particularly busy with his hands, but he sure made up for it with his accuracy. Reflexes, speed, timing, co-ordination, athleticism, and foot movement all came together for that fight. His efficiency was as good as ever.

 

I have the utmost respect for Bernard's skillset and boxing mind. The best way to beat him is to be stronger and faster -- and not let him outfox you still. Having Eddy Futch in your corner would go a long way to being able to cope with whatever adjustments Hop cooks up.

 

I hit him more than he hits me.

 

Against that type of fighter, his efficiency was as good as ever, I agree. But his slow start twice cost him against Taylor and his low output cost him against Calzaghe. Whether that was his own fault for choosing to start slowly both times and for choosing to keep a low activity level or because he could not maintain that level of activity (or if at least he believed that he couldn't), I don't know. But starting slowly and keeping a low output were not traits of the Hopkins of '97-'03. He would pick up the pace as the fight wore on as he later did, but he never started as slowly as he began to do after '03. Taylor and Calzaghe's styles would always be more difficult for Hopkins to beat than that of Trinidad, Echols, Vanderpool, Johnson, etc, but if he didn't have a slow start against Taylor I don't see how he loses those matches, and if he mainted just a slightly higher activity level and was more willing to go forward at times against Calzaghe, then he wins that one as well as I see it. The Hopkins from '97-'03 did not start slowly to the degree he did against Taylor, and he had a much higher workrate than he did in either of those bouts or against Calzaghe. If we are going by accuracy and effective punches, then he got the better of both Taylor and Calzaghe, but each man threw considerably more and therefore landed more, they rightfully won the very close decisions because of that. I don't see those problems in what I consider to be a prime Hopkins.