How Good Was Bernard Hopkins In His 1993 Loss To Roy Jones?

Not much difference in age between Jones and Calzaghe {3 years} and Hopkins was 95% prime when he fought Calzaghe as per his results either side of the Calzaghe fight.
Its all a matter of record, away wins for Joe Calzaghe against a near prime Bernard Hopkins and the taking apart of similar aged Roy Jones.
Dont forget Calzaghe was far closer to retirement than Hopkins or Jones, and Calzaghe hands were shot to bits but it made no difference as Calzaghe proved to be superior to Hopkins and Jones.

 

Bums and old men. :hi:

 

Read it and weep, Calzaghe beat a near prime Bernard Hopkins and took apart a similar aged Roy Jones.
Wales helped beat the Germans in two World wars, like I said read it and weep, sour Kraut.

 

Bums and old men. :hi:

 

Lewis always had flaws, never became a really technical boxer. He just improved a bit in the second half of the '90's.

 

I don't think it's reasonable for the people who knew who Hopkins was at the time. Like I said, local press (Washington Post, Washington Times), and even some AP writer thought it would be an excellent match up, the best on the card. They would hardly think so about a mismatch, that the odds you quoted imply.

 

The German army, if you say so

 

You really think you get me with comments about Germany?

Calzaghe fought only bums and old men.

 

His balance, clinch and punch delivery improved ten fold. Hopkins never showed the type of flaws that he had to improve from like Lewis did, thats the overiding point here.

 

Neeehh...

There you have a point.

Those of you who think Hopkins improved very, very much, in what areas do you see this vast improvement?

 

Gil Clancy during the fight with Jones: "Hopkins is a very, very solid professional fighter. Moves well, punches well, side to side..."

 

Gil was senile by that point Bokaj.

 

What a thing to say about o'l G-Man!:!:

 

Gil Clancy was an excellent analyst, but you guys must remember Hopkins was a blue collar anti establishment fighter. He didnt come up with a lot of fanfare and hype.
Things would have been different had Hopkins come about now.

 

I just watched the fight again.

In Jones' case I think that some of his shots, especially with the right, was more wild and unbalanced than I have seen in his later fights. It could have of course have to do with the opponent, but I don't remember many wild shots against Toney.

In Hopkin's case the only issue I have with his technique is that he is, just like Jones, too hesistant with his jab (doesn't step in with it properly), but that is always likely to happen when you're in with such an extremely quick and dynamich counter puncher like Jones. Otherwise his technique and fundamentals are excellent. It's just that Jones spots the openings quicker and is quicker in taking advantage. Tactically Hopkins probably could have fought a better fight, though. But that's always easy to say in hindsight. It's extremely difficult to implement a solid gameplan against someone who's so extremely tricky and fast. But if Hopkins could have improved anything in a rematch some 5 or so years later I'd say it would mainly be tactically.