devise a strategy to defeat Bernard Hopkins

It's still opinion.

Tho you and i share the same theory and agree Jones was well past his best form, many a fine poster in here says Jones simply got found out vs Tarver and claim it would have made little or no difference no matter what version of Jones fought against him. Many claim the same of Tyson - Douglas. You would have seen the posts, and possibly me debating against them as i've done it a handful of times.

We are in the same camp, but many would disagree with us.

Yet so many now try to say what a great fantastic win it was after looking at what Hopkins done later. Jones himself talked of how dangerous Hopkins was. Blind Freddy knows Hopkins later peak style wasn't even close to what he worked with vs Jones. Jones style however remained much the same, very reliant on extraordinary reflex and speed as well as a very dangerous dose of power.

Jones gets more than enough credit beating a green Hopkins.

 

Well here's my reply to you all the way back in 2007 mate

Quote:
Originally Posted by My dinner with Conteh
This is true. But great technicians almost always lose to intiuitive speedsters. That's why they don't fight them again.


I never said Hopkins would definitely beat Jones at any stage. The slight odds are he wouldn't, tho i think latter Hopkins would test his durability plenty more. The X factor is the chin, was it or wasn't it always suspect. Me, i'm not sure. Hard to see barely anyone outpointing peak Jones, including Hagler and Monzon.

It's not like i was burning around picking Jones without question, that's for sure.

With a gun to my head i'd probably pick Jones, but jeez i'd be jumpy

Hopkins is certainly a live one at his best vs Jones, and many now realise it.

Oh well, we've got to have something to argue about don't we? Not like we disagree on much else

:good

 

Middleweight Jones of 1993 and light-heavyweight Jones had very different styles. Especially Jones of late, who's lacking footwork entirely.

 

I don't even look at Jones post Tarver and co.

 

True mate. Many apologies for calling your answer 'awful' yesterday. I was at my mum's and fixing something on the PC for dad- then mum kept shouting that my "dinner was ready and going cold". I think I was getting agitated trying to type too fast and answering my old girl. :good

 

Not? You can peak late and become past your prime or shot pretty fast at that age. And only because he had his peak fight then doesn´t mean he was bad before.
So, you think the Ruiz fight was a better performance than the Toney one?
I don´t understand why it´s so hard for you to appreciate Hopkins?

 

If you knew many of my posts you'd know that I'm not a bloke that talks about 'peaks' often. To me, greats rise above peaks and often produce their best stuff after their prime. In regard to Hopkins- well, read the threads of late, especially you not accepting he lost to Cazlaghe. It's going overboard a tad don't you think?

 

Many apologies if i had a bit of a tone too. I had 6 Corona's and 3 Bourbons under the belt before the posts last night (my time)

Usually it's Saturday night but golf dictated Sunday for me this week. You could very well say anything on impulse and i'd not let it worry me. We know where we stand

:good

 

Definitely mate.

 

I agree some people are a bit out of their mind after Hopkins´ win but I had Hopkins edging Celzaghe since fight night and not since the Pavlik fight. Imo Hopkins landed enough cleaner, harder punches than Calzaghe, showed the better defence and was the ring general for the majority of the fight. Combine that with the knockdown and you have a close win for Hopkins. Calzaghe made it close with his workrate, Hopkins´ fading late and himself adjusting lter in the fight but imo his flurries did not land clean and hard enough - and when somebody misses 11 punches from a 12 punch combination I think the guy with the defence should get more credit than the guy with the high workrate.
See, it´s not like I always score close fights for Hopkins. I thought Taylor won their second fight while Hopkins won the first. Also I can see arguments for Hopkins winning both, Taylor winning both or both fights beeing a draw. It was that close. Similar to the Calzaghe fight. What annoys me are the people who say it wasn´t even close. Those guys must be very impressed by workrate and missed punches or must have an agenda.

 

It's not the fact that you scored it for Hopkins it's the fact you labelled it a Hopkins 'win' last week. There's close fights down the years we all may have scored differently but we at least accept the decision, especially when we're part of the minority.


Take, an example off top of my head, Ali-Shavers. A close fight no doubt and there's nothing wrong with scoring it for Shaves but 'harping on' that Shavers was robbed makes people look idiots- it was close but the consensus scored for Ali and it was no robbery and they got the right winner. Whereas, Ali-Norton III is different, the moral majority go with Kenny being jobbed, therefore shotuing out about the verdict deserves to be listened to. If you get my drift. :good

 

Well, that´s a special situation with Calzaghe. I always have problems with extreme nuthuggers. Those guys make me oppose a fighter even when I like him - that´s why I have a problem with the Hopkins thing getting out of the hand - and that´s the case with Calzaghe. So, there´s a close fight with one fighter beeing one of my favourites and the other fighter beeing one of the guys I like but oppose due to some of his "fans". And just to even these guys out I sometime overstate a bit. Things must be balanced out a bit :bart

btw. in another thread in the general forum I wrote that I´d wish that there still would be no decisions because this fights didn´t deserve a winner and a draw wouldn´t have been the right outcome also.

 

Yeah, ya have to love it around here

 

I awnsered yours in earlier posts. :good

How was your weekend JT?

 

Jermain didnt need a gun, Sweetie. The answers to this are simple.

1. Neutralize the Clinch. This is about 80% of Hopkins' gameplan, the ***goty clinching. Shots to the back of the head are effective, as are lowblows, and hitting on the break.

2. Cutting off the ring. Hops loves to use a lot of movement, but is worthless fighting off of the ropes.

Joe Calzaghe wrote the Blueprint for defeating Snaggles, and it is a high volume of punches thrown and landed, per round. :hi: