People Fault Hopkin's For The Jones Loss...

Yet he's still nominated as a great win. Why? Because he had good success in this one fight. A good example of awesome power not being enough when opponents got better.

 

It all boils down to personal perception and interpretation. You will say Tarver was really no good and weight drained etc while i point out his good points. This will happen with numerous sub topics.

The bottom line is you don't think much at all of Hopkins and will take the negative route on every point, i will go other. I think highly of Hopkins, you think lowly. I think Hagler is mildly overrated you think other.

Each to their own of course. That's the beauty of debate.

 

Tarver had just weighed around HW standard just prior to fighting Hopkins for the Rocky movie, it showed in the fights, though Hopkins was better overall anyway, because aside from his one shot win over a fading Jones he didn't prove much in the way of skills outside of power. Hopkins had been fighting successfully at the MW limit for years, I don't see how his situation compared to Tarver's, he was just aging and thus his stamina was faltering.

 

I can't believe Hopkins gets ragged on for controversally losing to Taylor the heir apparent at 40 YEARS OF AGE when he had notably declined far more than Hagler ever declined (who retired at 32)

 

Fair enough. But he was obviously "very green" at the tender age of 28, so when was his prime then? A couple of weeks before his 34th birthday?

 

The problem for Hopkins is that his 160 pound career is bookended by defeats to the 2 best MWs he faced. And no, I don't buy the 'green' Bernard losing to the younger Roy. As 'Nard is fond of saying 'it is what it is'. He couldn't beat the best Middleweights he faced.

 

Hopkins entered his prime at 30 and it definitely went thru to at least the Trinidad fight at 36. An undoubted and 100% proven late bloomer and a rarity. A modern day Archie Moore in this respect.

 

Sweet Pea seems to have nailed this one ... that being said it really was a very close fight from a competition standpoint ... Roy won but in no way dominated ...

 

Hopkins did not start boxing professionaly until he was in his mid-20's, and he had virtually no amateur career, so by the time he became an experienced pro and had reached his absolute peak, he was in his early 30's. You can tell by his performances, the best showings he ever gave were from '97 to about '02.

 

Hopkins lost early in his career, just like Hagler and Monzon did, and lost very late in his career when he had shown obvious signs of being past his best, just like Hagler did. In between that 12 year period, he never lost. Hagler went unbeaten for a decade, Monzon for 13 years, Hagler in 13 title fights, Monzon in 15, and Hopkins in 21.

 

I don't think he was green at 28, he was pre-prime and inexperienced and not as savy but physically he was prime

I think that Jones Jr would have owned any version of Hagler and won convincingly against Monzon.

 

I always thought Hopkins had a good amatuer career before he went to prison then boxed some in prison before going pro. I thought his lack of amatuer experience was after he left prison he went straight to the pro ranks but before prison he was a good looking amatuer.

 

So Hopkins is considered far more declined at age 40 despite the fact that Hagler had been boxing longer by the age of 32(some say older) than Hopkins had? That's ridiculous, as has been said Hopkins was just a late bloomer. You can't fault Hagler for not continuing on as long or I'll fault Hopkins for not starting nearly as early and accomplishing what he did then.