How can there be any doubt over when Hopkins's prime and peak were???

I saw it coming. I knew he would do what Dawson failed to do, and that was to up the tempo when Pascal tired. But the early knock-downs which threw him in a deep hole, made him that little more aggressive, though.

 

You stand in the minority then. I knew Hopkins would outsmart Pascal at times and he did many times but I didn't know he would outfight him. I agree that the early knockdowns lit more of a fire in Hopkins. It's not talked about but he may have possibly deserved the decision in the first Mercado fight(last fight he got knocked down in) but I'll watch & score it soon.

 

It's obvious that many people on here have only seen the tail end of Hopkins career and not from the 90's onwards. By 2003 it was clear his speed, work rate, punch out put, stamina and power were on the slide and the fact the only person he has stopped since then is De La Hoya is testament to this.

Even in defeat, the fact that at his age, the losses to Taylor and Calzaghe (plus the draw with Pascal) are all highly debatable just reaffirms why he is ATG.

 

As I've said many times ... the end of the 90s ...

He was past his physical best well b4 the Trinidad bout. That said, everyone (who was old enough to have followed his career since the very beginning) knew Tito had zero chance.

After the end of the 90s, BHOP was comparatively weaker at the weight. Middle age necessitated a move up to maintain power. He remained at middle weight for another near six years but was a weakened fighter for the duration.

 

Why? Hopkins has been kicking ass since way back in the day. He still is. You think PBF and Pac will be doing the same 6 years after their prime??

 

he began to go downhill after that epic trilogy with the great robert allen

has there every been a worse need for a trilogy??

 

Yes i understand thats not the only criteria but if you compare the 3 they have all ruled the p4p list for some time. so they are equal in that regard and Hopkins longetivity is what sets him ahead of the 2.

 

the confusion is an absolute credit to hopkins.

when he puts in performances like he has done vs pavlik and tarver, it is hard to imagine hopkins of 10 years ago fighting a better fight.

would hopkins of ten years ago perform better rounds 4-12 vs pascal then hopkins of now did do?

 

He looked the best against Johnson (1997) and Trinidad (2001).

 

for a better understanding

if hopkins prime was a "10" for example , 10 being what the peak or prime is

he has been an 8 or a 9 since then...while some guys go from 10 to 7 to 2 overnight