Hopkins getting better with age was/is a myth

A shame about Pavlik. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Pavlik show up to the Hopkins bout sick or hungover? It wouldn't have mattered, so conprehensive was the thrashing, but with Pavlik you always wonder how much more he could have accomplished.

 

yeah hungover is more likely from what i've been told but it wouldn't have mattered. he actually fought martinez 2 weeks after getting out of rehab. they were actually looking at a rehab facility down here in florida but b/c it was tourist season bumping up to spring break time they didnt even trust him to make it through. that's how bad it was and it's probably worse now. then again, it's probably always been as bad as it is now there just isnt a team of people anymore to cover it up.

 

Bernard was already past prime at the Trinidad fight. Good post .. and exactly right about BHOP.

Prime for prime .. he would have stomped Taylor, Calzaghe, etc. by stoppage.

 

Well there's two sides to this argument.

The first is that Hopkins' athletic peak was probably in the late 90's. I remember his fight against at the time an undefeated Glen Johnson and it's amazing to see how fast his combination punches were and just how fast and athletic he was in general in his early 30's.

The flip side is by the 2000's he accrued a lot of ring experience and his ring iq just kept building and building. He became a much more savvy ring technician by the turn of the century.

That being said, I'd favor a late 90's version of Bernard over say the Bernard who fought Jermaine Taylor twice.

 

So you're saying he should be entering his prime any year now?

 

True that. But nor is it just about ring smarts either, which would be the ONLY advantage older Hopkins coild claim. A younger Hopkins was much more aggressive, stronger, faster and much more active. Older Hopkins was much more savvy, but for more economical with his punches. I think 99 Hopkins would have beaten Taylor comfortably. At LHW, who knows how a younger Hopkins would have fared really. The higher weight class changes quite a few variables.

 

Exactly, no other fighter was in their primes in their 40's, why is Hopkins the exception.

Too many focus on his change in style and use that as a basis for saying he was still prime in his 40's when losing to Taylor and Calzaghe. Hopkins was forced to fight in a more conservative and defensive manner because of his decline, it allowed him to not decline as fast as many other fighters have but it didn't stop the decline, if it had he would have been able to raise his work rate in the Taylor fights and won them convincingly but he simply wasn't physically able to.

Foreman in his comeback was also a more conservative fighter, relied more on his jab, paced himself better, was more defensive which allowed him to perform at a level other heavyweights at his age could not, but nobody is pretending Foreman was prime when he lost to Holyfield.

And it's not like Hopkins suddenly gained new skills at a later age, everything he did in his late 30's and throughout his 40's he was capable of. In his prime he had the head movement, the defensive savvy, the footwork, the sneaky right hand, it was all their already but because he was faster, more powerful and could throw a ton of punches he fought in a more physical manner.

 

You must either be in denial or have never watched the fight. Calzaghe far outlanded on Hopkins. Fantastic, educated pressure displayed by Calzaghe that had Hopkins hanging on and looking for timeout.

 

A fighter like hopkins, who was never very fast or powerful, relied more on his ring IQ, and fighters like that can sustain it longer than athletically gifted fighters that rely more on speed/power like Jones Jr for example. And while Floyd was always very fast, he's a very smart defensive fighter and he was also able to sustain good form after his prime, and even after he has slowed down a degree or two, mind you he also wasn't facing good enough opponents that may have been able to expose his slowing down. I would love to see him face crawford at this stage of Floyd's career. That would be a very tough test.

 

Watch some old Hopkins fights and tell me he wasn't faster, stronger and far more aggressive. He was a different fighter back then.

 

I'll take your word for it as, obviously, I'm not someone with inside info on the matter. But I'm curious. If he was killing himself to make 160 and felt comfortable at the higher weights, why fight at 160 3 times after Hopkins, instead going to 168? It doesn't sound healthy or logical. Bad business advice, perhaps?

 

it wasn't healthy but it was kinda logical. you saw how less effective at higher weights he was. at mw his size and strength worked very well and his 1-2 was very crisp and effective against smaller guys. at higher weights the guys were just as big if not bigger than he was and it wasn't the same. the jack loew double jab straight right didnt get the same respect at smw and above.