who does he beat/lose to in history prime for prime? drop any name you want past or present. Plenty of middleweights but I've found it's really hard to distinguish a fantasy matchup with a prime Bernard if you're trying to put him in with super middleweight or definitely light heavyweights. That's because a prime Bernard never ventured past 160 and even his destruction of DLH had Hopkins only scaling 156 pounds. He had that legacy of 20+ defenses in his sight so the only real gauge to determine Hopkins higher than 160 was against Tarver. And even though he systematically broke Tarver down, that was a post prime Hopkins Very tricky fantasy stuff on dissecting "prime" Hopkins! The guy was learning on the job and so late, his prime physical years don't exactly match his prime years in terms of smarts and experience which is a big part of his game so like i said its hard to decide what was really his best years...I would say maybe that period between Glen Johnson and Tito Trinidad was his best days. Around 2001 when everything came together for him. So if you take that Trinidad fight and move outward to fantasy Boxing matchups, I think Hopkins struggles with Roy again but gets a SD as he would always struggle with sheer athleticism and workate, Ray Robinson would definitely cause him problems goes without saying, maybe Ray Leonard, & definitely Toney. I think his best chance against the greats would be against Marvellous and Monzon, styles make fights and i think he could frustrate them. Other than that, Hopkins would own 160 in fantasy play.
Interesting post. The part I bolded is a key point. It is why Calzaghe should get more credit than he does. When people say he only beat 'a 43 year old man', whilst factually correct they are being disingenous because everybody knows full well Hopkins is still one hell of a fighter, not the average 43 year old shot fighter. I'd never take Hopkins against a prime Roy, simply because his sheer athleticism forces Hopkins to lead. It's not a good matchup for him. I'd take him over James Toney comfortably, there is a noticeable difference in footwork and footspeed and Hopkins would have his way from the outside quite easily, and would compete inside. I'd take Monzon over Hopkins, Hopkins himself admits he wouldn't like to fight Monzon. Others from this era that fight give problems are Mike McCallum (though I'd favour Hopkins close) and Michael Nunn. Michael Nunn might present some of the problems Taylor did, albeit a southpaw. Obviously he'd be favoured over pretty much any super middles because its a new division, Calzaghe is the best of the bunch and would always be a close messy fight. Light heavies is a different ball game. I wouldn't like his chances against a Bob Foster or Matthew Saad Muhammad.
every time i imagine a toney/hopkins match up i come up with a different winner McCallum and 2nd to Nunn were nice, but they have no business in this company, no way Nunn beats Bernard the dude didn't have the pop, inside game or output McCallum was better at 154 and the guy was outboxed by that african dude salambay (spelling)
Yeah but Taylor should have got nowhere near Hopkins. He's not even as close to being as skilled, he's not a good infighter, he's not got a high work-rate and he's never knocked anybody out. Know what I mean? There is something about athletic fighters with handspeed that just give him a problem or two. Nunn had that in abundance. McCallum is such a great technician and smart fighter that at his best he would find a way to make it close with anybody, though I agree Hopkins should be favoured as he has more variety inside. Toney is the easiest matchup of the three, I'm surprised you don't notice that. Watch Toney against McCallum and then Hopkins against Trinidad, or watch the current Hopkins but focus on their feet alone and try to work out how Toney is in position to ever win enough rounds.
Yeah Kalambay was a match for any of these names at his best. Great, great technician, he often gets sold short in these types of discussion.
Toney was so good sitting in the pocket that coupled with his lazyness meant he decided he didn't need footwork, it doesn't mean he didn't have none of it or couldn't cut the ring down, watch his fights with littles when he's got an alien on his eye like Rahman and the urgent footwork he shows, watch his fight with Nunn. A prime fight with Hopkins woulda been fought mainly on the inside and i think Toney dominates more there then Hopkins does range. Toney was the master of bait-n-switch, top 5 greatest chins EVER and a master equalizer. I could see Bernard maybe staying close or dominating early and eaking out a close decision for a part 2 rematch but YES a focused Toney was that damn BAD.
Are we all unanimous on Roy vs Hopkins post first fight and pre Roys Heavy advanture? I don't know, I saw an Hopkins that actually won the last 3 rounds of their fight in 1993; a fight where one had Olympic pedigree and the other had county orange pedigree. Hopkins was/is damn brilliant with muscle memory and if they coulda fought at 160 some 8 years after 1993 bringing us to 2001, maybe Hopkins has more chance? But no question the video game speed of Roy coulda bagged the first 7 out of 9 rounds giving Roy another close but UD. Why didn't we see it again?!?
in that case we gotta call someone like Buddy Mcgirt a great technician right? seeing the clinics he put on against the likes of simon Brown. I think the word great is overused period!
Damn! Roy was throwing 10 piece combos and lead rights like hollow points lol The speed was off the chain and wasn't fair for a middleweight to have more speed then a light heavy. that **** just wasn't fair
