i saw some of cerdans fights and he sure is a powerfull guy. but skillwise, hopkins was way better. and hopkins was also way taller, with cerdan only being 5´8......short for a middleweight. cerdan would pressure him and land some good stuff, but hopkins wiskers were made of stern stuff. he´d simply use his hight and jab and box box box....all the way to a clear UD. by the way, nice avatar. always had a thing for rosi.
Cerdan is to short and, for Hopkins, would be easy to hit. Stoppage on accumalation of punishment in a good but one-sided fight.
Hopkins by decision His size, footwork, defense, and counter punching would see him through to a clear victory
Cerdan was on another level. much more tenacious, better puncher, all of that. Take my word for it, Cerdan wins easy decision.
Cerdan was better, but too short, Cerdan's the MW here, BHop is by comparison a L-HW! in each others era they would never meet. Cerdan today would be a LW cum WW, or BHop in Cerdan's time would be a L-HW cum HW. simples!
Cerdan was no more than a 5-6 blown-up welter, without one-shot pop, who's best days were behind him in the early '40s. Turn it around: How would B-Hop do against Cerdan at welter?
that's why I say JG, in each others time never the two would meet. boxing has changed so much in size & weight it's different facts completely that wouldn't be transferable in different era's!
I think that Cerdan was an excellent, fast moving fighter. He looked to my eyes to have quicker hands and feet than the 36 year old Hopkins. I think this is an even match that I would favor Hopkins in but not by much, and on top of that I have not seen Hopkins under 15 rounds of fire. Tight match, but I go with the stronger, meaner Hopkins on points.
