Hopkins getting better with age was/is a myth

Sammy scaff · Nov 6, 2015

Barry Smith said: ↑

Well said. Just use your eyes, Hopkins was at his best from '96 to '03, since then he has been declining. People who say Hopkins was still at his best (or even better) in his 40's havn't watched his career and/or doesn't understand basic human biology. Lets put it this way, prime Hopkins would never lose to fighters like Taylor or Calzaghe.
Click to expand...

Prime Hopkins agreed terms to fight calzaghe then doubled them to get out of the fight,there was a reason for that you know

des3995 · Nov 6, 2015

Sammy scaff said: ↑

Prime Hopkins agreed terms to fight calzaghe then doubled them to get out of the fight,there was a reason for that you know
Click to expand...

Conveniently framed. Hopkins turned down a 3 fight deal with Showtime, of which Calzaghe was 1. Hopkins was after( and did eventually land) a much more lucrative fight with DLH.

Godhead · Nov 6, 2015

tinman said: ↑

So I've been watching a lot of Hopkins fights recently. That's how I usually watch boxing, just binge watch a particular fighter. And he did not get better with age after a certain point. He just remained a very good post prime fighter.

Like George Foreman. Big George while effective in the 90s, was not as good as young Foreman. He just found a way to get it done despite being past prime.

Prime Hopkins beats Taylor. He blasts out Pascal, Calzaghe and Dawson. Kovalev would always be tough because you're talking about a 160 pounder and 175 pounder.

The Hopkins from 93-01 was a lot better than the older Hopkins. His workrate and defense was better. And he was scoring a lot of knockouts.
Click to expand...

Prime Hopkins doesn't beat Pascal, or Dawson, but he does beat Taylor and Calzaghe. I started a topic similar to this 3 years ago. Hopkins trys to land about 3-4 punches per round and hold and not get hit. His last great hurray was Pavlik. He use to be ACTIVE in the ring, now he does nothing, but what can you expect from a 50 year old.

Only idiots believe he's better. Before the Roy Jones fight, idiots were saying he's better now, then the first time they fought

Barry Smith · Nov 6, 2015

The Hopkins that Calzaghe beat would still loose to '93 Jones.

Baba Duke · Nov 6, 2015

Barry Smith said: ↑

The Hopkins that Calzaghe beat would still loose to '93 Jones.
Click to expand...

To be truthful
Hopkins would have
A 30 pound advantage
That would be useful

HerolGee · Nov 6, 2015

he got worse after 2003, thats for sure.

HerolGee · Nov 6, 2015

Godhead said: ↑

Only idiots believe he's better.
Click to expand...

pretty much.

tinman · Nov 6, 2015

BlizzyBlizz said: ↑

The younger Hopkins put so much pressure on fighters that he forgot that he could actually box. As he got older he was able to use the jab, throw a big left hook and time you with his right hand. He also uses angles now and circles something that he didn't do when he was younger.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you never boxed before. The most unstoppable thing in boxing is when you are being pressured and you don't have the legs or power to get them off.

There is nothing you can do if somebody is able to pressure you. You just cannot get them off. They're like a bug and you just can't get them off of you. It sucks.

Look at the first Leonard Duran fight. No matter how great you are if somebody can pressure you well you're screwed.

A good pressure fighter is a sign of greatness. Not a lack of skill. You don't know anything about boxing.

HerolGee · Nov 6, 2015

Saitov said: ↑

Just going through the motions & cashing in
Click to expand...

funny thing is, this describe accurately before he was doing for 10 years before he decided to make his two real defences in Lacy and Bika.

Loudon · Nov 6, 2015

dbouziane said: ↑

i agree and disagree. he did not necessarily get better physically but he definitely used what he had a lot smarter as he got older. to some learning how to fight smarter is a sign of "getting better" despite not being at the physical peak you may have been at years prior.

and yes he made his bones at mw but for a large part of his mw run it is well documented that he ate like a bird and did a huge amount of roadwork to maintain that weight. when he got with mackie shilstone he went from 160 straight to 175 and beat the sweet jesus hell out of the champ. Even shilstone said it was crazy what he was doing to stay at 160. the point is that the combination of getting smarter with the use of your tools and fighting at a more comfortable weight does give the impression of "getting better."

also, i'm probably the biggest pavlik fan left on this board. and i'll say that this "dragging pavlik to 170" is a load of ****. pavlik was a huge middleweight and fighting at 170 was not a big deal at all for him. pavlik even said he was fine at the weight and it's well documented he was killing himself to keep making 160. hopkins would beat pavlik at any weight.
Click to expand...

Great post.

Check out my thread:

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=551668

:good

BlizzyBlizz · Nov 6, 2015

Clinton said: ↑

Yes they do: Dawson, Calzaghe, Taylor, even Jones at middle.
Click to expand...

Maybe to you they do, but not me.

Clinton · Nov 6, 2015

BlizzyBlizz said: ↑

Maybe to you they do, but not me.
Click to expand...

The facts are there. All 4 of those were quicker than Hopkins and had a higher workrate. And he didn't have a size advantage when he fought them.

Clinton · Nov 6, 2015

dbouziane said: ↑

i agree and disagree. he did not necessarily get better physically but he definitely used what he had a lot smarter as he got older. to some learning how to fight smarter is a sign of "getting better" despite not being at the physical peak you may have been at years prior.

and yes he made his bones at mw but for a large part of his mw run it is well documented that he ate like a bird and did a huge amount of roadwork to maintain that weight. when he got with mackie shilstone he went from 160 straight to 175 and beat the sweet jesus hell out of the champ. Even shilstone said it was crazy what he was doing to stay at 160. the point is that the combination of getting smarter with the use of your tools and fighting at a more comfortable weight does give the impression of "getting better."

also, i'm probably the biggest pavlik fan left on this board. and i'll say that this "dragging pavlik to 170" is a load of ****. pavlik was a huge middleweight and fighting at 170 was not a big deal at all for him. pavlik even said he was fine at the weight and it's well documented he was killing himself to keep making 160. hopkins would beat pavlik at any weight.
Click to expand...

If Pavlik was killing himself to make middleweight then why did he return to middleweight and fight there 3 more times after fighting Hopkins?

Loudon · Nov 6, 2015

Brighton bomber said: ↑

It's pretty obvious to anyone with eyes that work and a mind unencumbered by bias that Hopkins simply altered his style to minimise the effect of his declining physical attributes. He was clearly much faster, more dynamic and much busier during his prime years during the 90's and early 00's.

Too many allow their bias to colour their opinion of him as it suits their agenda that when their favourite fighters faced Hopkins he was prime, when in reality he wasn't and it was a faded BHop that beat their fighter.

They will make up **** saying he was a natural light heavy despite going as low as 156lbs, no natural light heavy could make 156lbs, Dawson was drained at 168lbs, at 156lbs a natural light heavy wouldn't be medically allowed in the ring to fight.
Click to expand...

How's it going mate?

Check out my thread on Bernard if you've got the time.

I think Bernard was a natural SMW/LHW. It sounds crazy, but I think it's true.

I get your an*logy with Dawson, but when Bernard fought Oscar at 156, in 2004, his body had been used to weighing in at around 160 for 11 years. So it's a different scenario to a LHW just suddenly dropping to that weight.

Bernard was a phenom. I think that he made huge sacrifices to spend the majority of his career as a MW.

Here's the thread if you're interested:

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=551668

:good

BlizzyBlizz · Nov 6, 2015

Clinton said: ↑

The facts are there. All 4 of those were quicker than Hopkins and had a higher workrate. And he didn't have a size advantage when he fought them.
Click to expand...

The only facts that you have is that Hop lost to them. How you ****yze how Hop lost is where we differ.

Log in or Sign up

Hopkins getting better with age was/is a myth

Sammy scaff Guest

des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Godhead Well-Known Member Full Member

Barry Smith Boxing Addict Full Member

Baba Duke Guest

HerolGee Loyal Member banned Full Member

HerolGee Loyal Member banned Full Member

tinman Loyal Member Full Member

HerolGee Loyal Member banned Full Member

Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

BlizzyBlizz Loyal Member Full Member

Clinton Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Clinton Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

BlizzyBlizz Loyal Member Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Hopkins getting better with age was/is a myth

Sammy scaff Guest

des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Godhead Well-Known Member Full Member

Barry Smith Boxing Addict Full Member

Baba Duke Guest

HerolGee Loyal Member banned Full Member

HerolGee Loyal Member banned Full Member

tinman Loyal Member Full Member

HerolGee Loyal Member banned Full Member

Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

BlizzyBlizz Loyal Member Full Member

Clinton Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Clinton Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

BlizzyBlizz Loyal Member Full Member