Harold Johnson vs Hopkins

I like Johnson by UD

 

Hopkins is becoming egregiously overestimated imo.

All the "old school master ring general, impossible to figure out"stuff is getting tiresome and will only take an old fighter so far against the genuinely great fighters that were natural at a higher weight.

Its also often easier to look like a master ring-general when you are well-schooled and come up against one track non-technicians and punchers for most of your career.

Who were the best boxers Hopkins ever fought, the most adaptable?.Well at light heavy you have a similarly aging, physically out of his depth Winky Wright....the most technically sound and that fight was an appalling clinch, punch n' grab fest and pretty damn close.Then you have Calzaghe, not too technical, but natural adaptable and while i sympathise with the debate Hopkins arguably won, both looked like **** for a large chunk of the fight and it was actually Calzaghe that did the more efficient adapting, with Hopkins far superior punching technique and defence being what brought him success.


The basic tools and athleticism Johnson brings to the table are going to be far too much.He's quicker, stronger, has a much better outside game for piling up points with that great jab and one two, compared to Hopkins counterpunching on mistakes and pot shotting right hands.He hits much harder and i dont think Hopkins has the offense to crack his D.

There's no shame in it and Hopkins is overall a great fighter of course, but taking on a primed Johnson at light heavy is far, far too much.Not a competitive fight unless harold was off-form and in tuneup mode.

 

Some thought must be given to this question... Are we talking about pound for pound ? Or are we talking about about catchweights ? The Harold Johnson at his normal weight of 175,who whipped Jimmy Bivins, Arturo Godoy,Bert Lytell, Archie Moore, Clarence Henry
Bob Satterfield,Nino Valdez, etc whips any version of Bernard Hopkins easily.He beat a slew of guys that would lick Bernard Hopkins, as they were strong ,normal light heavies
fighting in a much superior era than Bernard did. Harold Johnson,too big and strong for
Hopkins at their best...

 

Got your premise B.He moves up to 175, gets stopped,by a stronger Johnson, jimmy Bivins,Archie Moore, Clarence Henry, and moves back to
160 where he can win. End of premise ! A different era and calibre of fighters fought in the Harold Johnson era...

 

I'm not sure about this statement. I see where you are coming from, though. I think Johnson was pretty clever in there with creating traps and angles, he wasn't stuck to the textbook, he rather expanded on it and used it. I think his adaptability and innovation is slightly overlooked.

By that token, controversially, I would say Hopkins is slightly sounder technically. I know, bold call.

IMO he wasn't throwing as he could not find a targte on balance.

Agreed here.

I'll have to watch it again pal.

It has been a while since I seen it. I think I had it really close to Pastrano, all on the last if I remember rightly. I do not think it can be construed as a robbery though.

I don't think Hopkins is too far behind these guys in ability.

 

Agreed.

We just disagree on the extent of Pastrano's success.

I'd be interested to here your thoughts on my comments on Hopkins being the sounder technician.

 

What are people's thoughts on Hopkins comparisons to Moore, in terms of a technician, speed, defense.....obviously Archie packs more of wallop

 

On film Hopkins looks better in all three departments. Some people will argue that Moore was better defensively, but the frequency that he was being hit proves otherwise.

 

It is, I better clarify this, by sounder I mean, better rounded. As in less weaknesses.

Agreed. I think Johnson is much more of a 'traditionalist' whereas Hopkins is a bit more unique. I mean both guys are outstanding technically, but Johnson tends to stick to the basics, whereas Hopkins seems to have grasped and adapted them slightly better for himself.

Not saying he is any more effective with it, just the usage of them differs slightly.

I'd say Johnson's offence is better overall. If you have seen the bout with Von Clay (McGrain may have uploaded it), he really shows some superb punching technique and lets some hard combo's go. I think Johnson is much more consistent in his attack and uses more combinations.

Hopkins on the other hand, I feel, is slightly stop-start with his offence. It can catch opponents off guard, but IMO he does not sustain it often enough. Saying that when Hopkins does sustain he looks usperb, but it is not the calibre of opposition of Johnson's adversaries.

I like that, I really do. You are sort of expanding on my point of Hopkins adapting the basics slightly better. I feel, yes, he is slightly more adaptable but less forceful. Johnson looks to play his own game, Hopkins tends to feel you out and play a counter-game.

The biggest point though is Hopkins IMO has no real, glaring weakness. Whereas Johnson had a bad tendency to be hit by right handers, there just isn't that 'hole' in Hopkins game IMO.