diffenrence in Hopkins looking good again in the ring when he fought Kelly Pavlik and would of done the same if he was training him against Calzaghe? I thought Hopkins beat Calzaghe in a close fight and I personally think Nazim would of made a big difference if he trained Hopkins for Calzaghe because he knows B-Hop better than anybody, same like Kevin Rooney and Mike Tyson.
i understand where your coming from, but im not sure if it matters if nazim is in the corner or nor. im not bernard hopkins so i cant speak for the guy. but you could be right.
Just something that I analized. It sure seems that way cause he looked exceptional with Nazim against Tarver and Pavlik but didn't look as good against Wright and Calzaghe with Roach even though he did enough to win.
Yes, Richardson seems to be a perfect fit with Hopkins. As good as Hopkins is, you cannot discredit the value of a cornerman you're comfortable with.
at this stage of his career i couldve trained Hop to fight Pavlik and the result would be the same,Nazim isnt going to teach Hopkins something he doesnt know already. Pavlik just isnt the same fighter as Calzaghe thats the real reason for Hopkins looking better against Pavlik than he did against Joe and not who trained him,cause he basically trains himself the others are there to help him do it.
Yea but he didn't look all that great against Winky either and Nazim wasn't training him. I'd say it does play somewaht of a factor.
He looked better with Nazim training him in the second Taylor fight than he did in the first Taylor fight and you can't say the same about him.
he was far from impressive in that fight but if you believe hes better cause of Nazim i dont have a problem with that.
I don't think it amtters much who trains B-Hop. Hopkins knows the ins and outs of the game as well as anybody. I suppose that Nazim is better than Roach though. I'm one of the few who is not particularly impressed with Roach as a trainer. He's not bad, but It seems that sometimes he doesn't give great insight when in the corner.
