HEARNS. HOLYFIELD. M SPINKS. HOPKINS. Who was most effective at their peak?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by DINAMITA, Jan 7, 2009.


Page 2 of 2
  1. DINAMITA

    DINAMITA Guest

    I don't find it hard to determine. 1993-1997 Hopkins was green/pre-prime, still finding his own style and rising to his physical prime. 1997-2003 he was prime/peak. 2004 (I think Hop began to look slightly past-prime with the DLH fight, he was not as dynamic as he had been in previous years) - 2009 he has been past-prime. Not shot, absolutely nothing like shot, but clearly past-prime.

    Only a past-prime Hopkins could have lost to Taylor. 2001 Hopkins dominates Taylor and Calzaghe.

    Hopkins is past-prime only in that he now no longer possesses the stamina/fitness/conditioning/workrate/activity etc that he used to, that's why he was unable to maintain the sporadic quality work done in the Taylor fights and to a lesser extent v Joe Calzaghe.

    He was able to succeed against Tarver, Wright and Pavlik because while they are all (IMO) better fighters than Taylor, they fight at a slower pace, thus allowing Hop to fight at his own pace and show the superb qualities he still possesses. Hopkins was past-prime for all 3 fights, but due to the particular circumstances of each fight, he was still able to produce top-class performances. Many past-prime fighters have found fights and opponents where they were able to show they still had the skills - Pernell Whitaker v Oscar De La Hoya, Roberto Duran v Moore/Hagler/Barkley, James Toney v Vassily Jirov, Thomas Hearns v Virgil Hill, Mike McCallum v Toney/Harding, Azumah Nelson v Gabe Ruelas & Jesse James Leija, etc etc.

    Taylor and Calzaghe set a high pace and maintained it, so while they cannot match Hopkins for skill or quality, they were able to earn judges' verdicts by outworking the 40+ version of B-Hop.

    For me, Hopkins' progress has been pretty much linear:
    93-97 green/pre-prime
    97-03 peak/prime
    04-08 past-prime
    Shot = ???


    What's your take on it mate?
     
    DINAMITA, Jan 7, 2009
    DINAMITA, Jan 7, 2009
    #16
  2. the cobra

    the cobra Awesomeizationism! Full Member

    12,028
    106
    Jun 30, 2008
    They were all very close in ability, tough to really say who was most effective. For me though, I'd probably have it come down to Hopkins and Hearns. Those two could be argued either way, and I'm a bit bias for Hopkins, so I'll just go with him, even though there isn't much in it.

    There is obviously no definite answer here, I just prefer Hopkins over the others, however slightly.
     
    the cobra, Jan 7, 2009
    the cobra, Jan 7, 2009
    #17
  3. booradley

    booradley Mean People Kick Ass! Full Member

    39,848
    16
    Aug 29, 2006
    What about Spinks? My decison was between him and Hearns. At LHW Micheal was a BAAAAAAAD MAN.
     
    booradley, Jan 7, 2009
    booradley, Jan 7, 2009
    #18
  4. Sweet Pea

    Sweet Pea Obsessed with Boxing banned

    27,199
    93
    Dec 26, 2007
    If it came down to Spinks and Hearns you'd have to go with the latter, purely from an aesthetic point of view. Spinks was a great fighter, and about as effective as they come, but what an ugly, awkward stylist.
     
    Sweet Pea, Jan 7, 2009
    Sweet Pea, Jan 7, 2009
    #19
  5. booradley

    booradley Mean People Kick Ass! Full Member

    39,848
    16
    Aug 29, 2006
    Hearns did get my vote, but sometimes it seems that people have all but forgotten how effective Spinks was at 175.
     
    booradley, Jan 7, 2009
    booradley, Jan 7, 2009
    #20
  6. DINAMITA

    DINAMITA Guest

    Not everyone though. I included him in this poll because I view him as a legitimate answer, and Sweet Pea seems to concur as his preference for Hearns was purely aesthetic. Spinks was magnificent at 175, anyone who has seen him fight there must surely be well aware of this.
     
    DINAMITA, Jan 7, 2009
    DINAMITA, Jan 7, 2009
    #21
  7. imp4pdabest

    imp4pdabest Guest

    I'm not even gonna vote, but I am gonna give you props for coming up with great threads
     
    imp4pdabest, Jan 7, 2009
    imp4pdabest, Jan 7, 2009
    #22
  8. DINAMITA

    DINAMITA Guest

    Cheers mate, but I would prefer it if you joined the debate with a vote and a comment! That's what it's all about after all!!
     
    DINAMITA, Jan 7, 2009
    DINAMITA, Jan 7, 2009
    #23
  9. the cobra

    the cobra Awesomeizationism! Full Member

    12,028
    106
    Jun 30, 2008
    As was prime Holyfield.

    Like I said in my original post, they all were on a basically similar level of effectiveness. I personally see Hearns and Hopkins just a shade higher, and I simply prefer Hopkins over the others. Not much else in it.
     
    the cobra, Jan 7, 2009
    the cobra, Jan 7, 2009
    #24
  10. booradley

    booradley Mean People Kick Ass! Full Member

    39,848
    16
    Aug 29, 2006
    I kow what you mean. Like I said in my first post, it's like asking which is better, chocalate cake, or apple pie. The poll is about "effectiveness at their peak" and there isn't but about a frog hair between them.
     
    booradley, Jan 7, 2009
    booradley, Jan 7, 2009
    #25
  11. Sister Sledge

    Sister Sledge Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,129
    27
    Jul 24, 2004
    Of course, everyone is gonna pick Hearns, but guys like Spinks and Holyfield were undefeated in their prime. They were also dominant. I picked Hearns, but Spinks was unbeatable at 175, just as Holy was unbeatable at Cruiserweight.
     
    Sister Sledge, Jan 7, 2009
    Sister Sledge, Jan 7, 2009
    #26
  12. EL-MATADOR

    EL-MATADOR Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,760
    2
    Sep 25, 2008
    Excellent as usual. Agreed. Taylor and Calzaghe's workrate proved to be the difference in all three fights(though you can make an argument for Hopkins in every three). This is why I wouldn't like a matchup with Dawson at this point. With that said I've learned not to pick against Hopkins anymore as he's proven me wrong time and time again.:D
     
    EL-MATADOR, Jan 7, 2009
    EL-MATADOR, Jan 7, 2009
    #27
Page 2 of 2