devise a strategy to defeat Bernard Hopkins

Ok I'm not an expert hear but I think the way to beat a skilled boxer is to box rather than fight. What I mean is to use movement and the jab. Also if your opoent feels no need to make the fight exciting neather should you. Stick to the plan it will take a while to start working. If you don't have the engery to contunusly flick the jab and move than be ecnomical but not too economcal. Hit something. The head and body being scoring blows are best, but shots that land on the shoulders and back might not score and mabey cost you a point. However they can have an effect latter in the fight. I am not avocating fighting dirty but youn need to make contact. Hopkins dose have a repuation for being a little dirty himself, mostly elbows. I am not sure what is best to do when a fighter gets dirty with you. The choices seem to be 1. Do nothing and fight clean. Show that he can't take you out of your game plan. 2. Fual back right away harder and dirtier than him, let him know what ever he dose you will do worse and are not woried about losing a point or DQ'd. I think if i were a boxer i would go with plan 1 but that is just my personality. However with Hopkins plan 2 might be best. Hopkins likes to use his tough guy image. How many times do we hear him talk about being in prison. I don't think he would talk about it so much if he didn't think it would get in to his opoents heads. Plan 3. is to wait a round or two to get revenge but I'm not sure how effective that would be.
to sum things up as best as I can.
1. Box don't fight
2. Hit something (anything)
3. Don't be afried to be dirty IF he gets dirty first
4. Good Luck this plan is not foolproof.

 

Trinidad was also predictable and easy to hit and Hopkins started off pretty slowly in that fight as well for 4-5 rounds. It was another case of 'moving through the gears'. He was good against Eastman. And not because Eastman was a terrible fighter, he wasn't. He could have pushed Hopkins more though, thats for sure. It's all to do with styles. Trinidad's style was perfect for Hopkins as was Eastman's for that matter.

JT asked about Taylor fighting the Hopkins who fought Trinidad. First of all, Hopkins is in with an entirely different fighter. So the styles gelling changes the entire complextion of the fight. Taylor has athleticism and swift movement around the ring by the bucketful compared to Trinidad. You could argue that when Hopkins became aggressive and took risks he was successful against Taylor. So, if he becomes aggressive earlier he wins?. Doesn't work like that all the time. Taylor could also argue from his side that he got taken out of his gameplan and defensively was sloppy when Hopkins began to take control. I think Hopkins' natural caution during the early stages of most fights combined with Taylor's strategic approach was just that way it was. And when Hopkins was beating Taylor down the stretch he was fighting close to full throttle by his standards. He'd never be fighting like that for 12 rounds, no chance.

Looking at Hopkins' reasonably low punch against Trinidad for 4-5 rounds and being faced with a different look altogether, not sure he wins decisively against Taylor on that night. You have to mind that Taylor was circling behind the jab, doubling it, ocassionaly being aggressive for brief periods, and moving in and out. Like 'chalk and cheese' in comparison to Trinidad's one paced robotic approach through the entire duration. Taylor took Hopkins right out of his comfort zone. Mentally he evaporated in terms of having confidence to do the things he normally done well. Taylor's style and tactical gameplan must be credited here, although Hopkins' strategy must be questioned for the rematch. Same approach, same workrate, and that was after hurting Taylor and closing the show in their first fight.

I'd slightly favour Hopkins to beat Taylor the night he beat Trinidad. But I wouldn't bet my house on it.

 

The point being that not only against Taylor, but against Eastman, De La Hoya, Allen, etc he kept a low workrate and threw combos less frequently. I agree that Taylor always troubles Hopkins, he deserves full credit for how he troubled Hopkins and the style that he presented him, but all 3 fights he has lost in the past 5 years were very close, Hopkins landing the cleaner/more effective blows but being seriously outworked and outlanded by both men. It wasn't just these fights, but against the other men he beat these problems were still there. To me he looked better against Trinidad, Echols, Johnson, Joppy, Vanderpool than he did against De La Hoya, Eastman, Allen.

What time span do you see as Hopkins' prime Robbi?

 

So Hopkins was a better fighter at 35+ than Jones. We know this, he wasn't as good in his pomp as Jones was.

Just like the arselickers write off Hopkins's easy defeat to, what was at the time called, a "very disappointing" Jones. :good

 

It doesn't matter, what matters is that you thought Jones would probably win, just like you think (for example) Robinson would beat Hagler. There's a reason for this.

 

Well, many would say it was a decade from Jones 'career best' performance. So, if Hopkins did indeed 'peak' at 36, then fighting into his 40s isn't quite as impressive as we're now meant to believe.

 

I did say "I think Hopkins' natural caution during the early stages of most fights combined with Taylor's strategic approach was just that way it was"

Anyway, regarding his prime. Thats a hard one. Hopkins took three or four years to get into his stride as a complete fighter after the Jones defeat. Looking at how effective I see him when he fought Eastman, I'd say his prime ended there. It started just before the Trinidad fight IMO. JT said he was way past his prime against Taylor. I don't have a problem with others saying he was past his prime at that particular point. Not many fighters will be considered to be in their prime at 40 years old and having suffered back-to-back defeats. But using the word 'way' as if he was past his best by a large margin, I can't live with that.

Looking at Hagler against Leonard then going back to the version of the early 80's, I can see a massive difference. Handspeed and reflexes stand out with Hagler's decline.

However, if you watch Hopkins against Eastman, the same can't be said. And this fight took place around 5 months before the first Taylor fight. As I have said previously, athleticism, speed, timing, foot movement, co-ordination, everything was working as well as ever. His workrate wasn't great with his hands, but it was the opposite with his feet. While it wasn't the Hopkins of the Johnson fight regards to volume, he was equally as efficient with his shots and just as quick with his hands. Not as many combiantions as you rightly said. But his overall efficiency was as good as ever. He wasted nothing.

 

A 100% Pavlik is a completely different animal than the one who was on intervenous antibiotics and fluids just 3 days before the fight.

 

Pavlik got his ass handed to him thoroughly, he was outclassed in every which way. I'm a fan but I am very dissapointed with how the'yre reacting after the loss, the excuses are sickening. He never does better than he did.

 

Just viewed your profile Cobra. I see we both have a few things in common when it comes to favourite fighters. Duran is my #1 of all-time. And looks like you're pretty much a Hopkins fan as well. You a Whitaker fan by any chance?

 

Massive Whitaker fan. If I had to make a list of my three favorite fighters those are most likely the top 3. I never use a Whitaker avatar though because Sweet Pea always has one and you occasionally do as well.

BTW, Arguello would probably come in at #4 on my favorite fighters list.

On Hopkins, I meant to ask you this. How did you score both Taylor fights and the Calzaghe fight as well? I had Taylor winning 115-113 in the first fight, Hopkins edging the 2nd one (haven't watched it lately so I can't remember exactly the score but it was most likey 115-113 as well), and Calzaghe up 114-113. what's your take on the decisions?

 

Well, the guys who beat Hopkins all had very good or tremendous hand speed. I don't know about the guy who beat him in his pro debut though. Would be nice if someone could come up with that fight and post it.

 

Good man. I like fighters who are refined and tidy in a technical sense. Never been a fan of come forward punchers. Foreman, Frazier, Tyson, Trinidad, Tszyu, etc. I'm more inclined to be attracted to a pure boxer with a tight defense. Hearns, Holmes, Hagler, Locche, McCallum, Lewis, Marquez, etc.

Yeah, Pea's a good lad. A student of the game.

Good choice.

Same as you. 115-113 for Taylor I. I'll need to score the second fight. And the Calzaghe fight is another that needs penciled. I generally watch fights for enjoyment without 100% concentration thats needed to judge a fight. On initial viewing anyway. I did score Marquez-Pacquaio II live early this year. 115-112 Marquez.

I completely went off Hopkins after both Taylor fights. His bitching with the scores really pissed me off. But he did win me over after beating Tarver. I never thought he had a prayer to pull of the upset. Not many people were on his side of the fence that night. His attitude and demeanour during the post fight interview with Merchant was class. Very low key considering he just dominated a fighter who was marked down by many to hand him his first knockout defeat

 

I didn't watch the Hopkins-Taylor fights live, so being a fan I had to see them and decide for myself who had won. The bitching of the scoring didn't bother me none though, it was close and pretty much every fighter who loses a close fight feels he won (granted he went on about the scores a bit too much).

I haven't watched Pacquaio-Marquez II since the inital viewing, I think I had JMM up by a point but I was just watching for entertainment and not focusing primarily on scoring (I had Pac winning the first fight by a point as well).

I have the same view of which type of fighters I prefer to watch (I am a fan of Trinidad, Frazier, and Tyson though), looking for details as to why one man is dominating such as footwork (the little turns here and there, side steps, etc), how he controls the distance, how they create angles, is always more of a joy for me to watch then one man crushing another with sheer power and brute strength.

 

Here's what you had to say to me just the other day when i asked you to answer a question

I think you'll get the drift

:hi: