Hopkins is / was a strategical genius

I would seriously be concerned for Hopkins heath if he fought Kovalev..

 

Because Calzaghe at that stage of his career was a adjustment fighter like jmm. He went into the ring with a general outline, rather than a fixed fight plan, which he changed mid-fight if necessary. Hopkins could not do the same which is why he resorted to his usual antics

 

So a boxing genius can't ever lose?:huh

The man fought a young Roy Jones, Jermain Taylor, Joe Calzahge and Chad Dawson, all while not at his very best...

I don't get your point at all.

I think the fact that he can still compete with the elite of the sport through his 40's speaks for itself.

The Hopkins that knocked out Glen Johnson and Tito Trinidad, I only think prime Jones beats him of that list.

 

Hopkins is an all time great, unlike that bum Calzaghe who lost to Hopkins despite Hopkins being 43 years old. Luckily for him the judges were blind and only paid attention to volume punching instead of effective punching

beat prime Trinidad easily, finished Oscar in better fashion than overrated boxers such as Floyd and Manny, and that was a better version of Oscar than the one that faced those two, beat Winky Wright on a 12 fight streak, finished Glen Johnson (only man to do so), beat Pascal twice, undefeated Pavlik, and moved up 2 classes to beat Tarver.

much better resume than bums like Calzaghe (who is not close to top 100 all time), Floyd and Manny (barely top 50 all time), etc

 

in picking guys he was much bigger than, as he masqueraded as a middleweight. He beat blown up welters, while in reality being a light heavy.

Picking big punching, slow footed guys with low work-rates, takes genius????

Archie Moore was a strategic Genius.

why didn't the strategic genius beat Dawson?

great fighter yes, great tactician yes, but genius is going too far.

 

U mad?

Like I said you don't have six losses if your some master genius boxer...


Psssh.... Joe Wasn't in his prime when they fought and Bernard was looking for a way out that night

 

Why would I be mad?

Most of B.hops losses came in his 40's... It takes a genius just to compete with the best at that age.

Ali lost 5 times, most consider him a genius.

 

Well.... He beat "The Genius"!:good

 

The only thing genius about him is his ability to pick and choose certain fights..

 

Trinidad wasn't in his prime. He was in his prime as a welterweight, and was better as a light-middleweight.

Oscar had no business at Middleweight and clearly couldn't handle the weight. He had to rely on a gift decision against Sturm to even make the fight against Hopkins. It was not great win for Hopkins.

I find it interesting that you use Hopkins' victories over Pascal, Pavlik and Tarver to prove his greatness yet started your post using his age as a reason to knock Calzaghe struggling against him. That's called "having your cake and eating it to".

 

Bernard Hopkins raped other men in prison.
Everybody knows it.

 

Hopkins is a very crafty ring general, but he is a low output fighter. He also has great defence, including hitting and holding and all the questionable tactics he uses. That means he has never really been badly hurt and he has never been knocked out. His low output and great defence has helped him have a long career and he hasn't accumulated as much damage as some boxers years younger than him.

Calzaghe managed to win a fairly close fight through his good movement and high output, and his ability to adapt during fights, but neither fighter could really claim they dominated this fight.

 

slappy calzaghe didnt beat him he got a political gift split dec

 

Calzaghe made Hopkins look like a fool. Calzaghe came into Hopkin's territory and beat him, he also beat Jones who also beat Hopkins. Taylor beat Hopkins and Hopkins ran from Kovalev, refused to fight him when Kovalev was his mandatory and Hopkins refuses to fight Kovalev for unification fight as well, Kovalev by knockout!!!

 

and Calzaghe......:rofl:rofl