Question for Stonehands89

Why are you keen to compare Hopkins to Robinson? Are you talking as far as middleweight goes? As an overall fighter, Robinson is on a different level to Hopkins. As a middleweight, they should be compared.

 

The ESB adolescent is still at it I see. These obsessions you have for men is unnerving -I'd guess that you have daddy issues. Either way, must you show your pimply ass on line every day?

Robbi is posing a veiled challenge, you fool.

 

You're one smart cookie

 

Even if Hopkins was as fundamentally sound as Robinson or even more fundamentally sound, that does not mean that he was as good a fighter in a head to head sense.

Hopkins was more fundamentally sound than Roy Jones, Jermaine Taylor and Joe Calzaghe. Fat lot of good that did.

 

He would have been a helluva lot harder at his peak tho, which he sure wasn't for any of those three. He all but beat Taylor twice WAY past peak and gave Joe a fine fight too. I wouldn't doubt he'd beat the pair of them at all. Granted Jones would have been a much harder proposition but there's no shame there. Jones is a special talent.

Deep down what Robbi is flirting with is that he thinks quite a few fighters from say 1990 on are better than they are often given credit for in the Classic Section. Hopkins and Whitaker are just top shelf random names he pulled out. Fighters i think he would have heavily in mind might be those two, Mosely, DLH, Trinidad, PBF and the likes.

I'd say overall fighters from the 90's on are a bit underrated in here, which is inevitable given we are the "Classic" Section and the fact history shows us fighters are mostly more appreciated later on.

Of course individual milage and opinion will vary.

 

I strongly believe that in general those fighters who were considered "great" in the 1940s were better than their counterparts today. They fought more often against tougher competition. There are modern greats who approach their standard, and we call then "old school" -which confirms the position here. Greats from the 40s often deserve an edge against their modern counterparts in my estimation unless you are willing to discount key factors like experience.

Hopkins is considered an old school fighter, but his greatness was really not discussed until after he beat Trinidad -a victory that while a clinic, was in fact against a one-dimensional WW after all. He took out De La Hoya who's ego simply reached to far. After these, he had some good performances against Tarver for example, but I am not convinced that he was quite as great as Monzon or Hagler.

Whitaker is a great fighter with an extremely complex style. He was also tougher than he looked and tougher than his style would have you guess. I think that you have seen him -in blazing color on film and so cannot imagine that any man was as great. Pep was riffing before Whitaker was born and all of the amazement and tribute that Whitaker got in today's instant information age still cannot compare to the glory heaped on Pep for his artistry. The heart, skill, strategy, and innovation that Pep demonstrated in the second Saddler fight may outdo any performance before or since. Whitaker has no achievement and no performance that rivals that.

The Ramirez revenge was impressive by any standards -but styles do make fights... and Ramirez's style was not to Whitaker what Saddler's was to Pep. Whitaker's got some big wins against serious competition, but could he have maintained that level of performance had he fought six times more often? That's an open question.

Chavez, Barrera, Marquez, and Pacman are great examples in terms of old school standards and skill. Chavez was 80 -0 at one point and fought often and anyone. The last three fought each other multiple times along with Morales (who I'd consider a bit below his 2 great rivals). Barrera fought over 70 times and Marquez and Pacquiao are still fighting...

In brief, the edge I give to greats from the Golden Age is not rooted in nostalgia but in real factors that I consider most important to excel in boxing -experience and it's children.

 

I agree. I'm not saying that the likes of Taylor and Calzaghe are better fighters in an all time sense, just making a point about sound technique not necessarily meaning being better, becuase Hopkins even when he fought those guys, had better fundamentals.

Sure some modern fighters get the short end of the stick when it comes to praise compared to the oldies, but I wouldn't say Pea or Hops are underrated at all. To have Hopkins considered an equal to someone like Hagler, as many here believe, is LAVISH praise. To have many pick Whitaker to beat Duran, as some people do here, is LAVISH praise.

 

Wonder if they thought the same thing after seeing a soft-belly, waddling Winky walk him down and outland him.

 

I actually think experience is one of the key factors, or i should say, differences between them.

The boxing fundamentals, i.e. combinations, glove blocking, keeping distance, etc, were all already known from roughly the 30's.

Hopkins showed a fantastic performance against Trinidad only when he was 36... Watch how he throws a left uppercut while keeping his right glove up to block the left hook as late as round 12, before landing the knockout punch. Amazing to see technical perfection despite 12 pretty active rounds at higher age.
Because he fought a lot less than the fighters of the old days, it took him longer to become a "complete" fighter. Experience is a big factor.


You could say there was more talent in the 40's, but with guys like Hopkins, Jones and Whitaker, there is no shortage of top end talent now, either.

 

McCallum
Barrera
Marquez
Chavez
Pacquiao
Whitaker
Holyfield
Hopkins
Toney
Tyson

The guys in bold really stand out for me. Don't make me give reasons for them all. The reasons are varied. Suffice it to say I like technicians who'll fight anyone. I don't like guys who are reluctant to accept real challenges.

I'm not so sure that Whitaker would get a win either. Saddler was demonstrably murderous on small defensive specialists.

... just something to be mindful of before getting effusive.

I have argued strenuously against several posters about how we need to take caution before being so certain about turn of the century fighters with no film. I am not convinced that the vast majority of guys active in 1900 them could really compete in the modern era.

No film or brief clips of film continued to be a problem through the 1920s -but it is not insurmountable. There is enough film to satisfy me that Langford's style is not really very distinguishable from modern fighters. He was exceptional, which explains why such praise was heaped on him by fight guys we know and trust. Greb too. And the records go far in speaking on their behalf. So, I put both in my top 5 or 6.

 

Now that is an excellent point.

This may be semantics... by "talent" do you mean "skill"? Talent transcends experience to a degree. It's God-given. It's not taught, only streamlined.

I am not so sure that most modern boxers from America at least are as great as they seem to be. Guys like Jones and Mayweather and De Lay Hoya (three of the biggest names of the last 15 years) spend as much time choosing the "right" opponent as they do honing their skills. Many modern "great performances" are really "showcases".... A great performance is dependent on threat, not on how skillful a great fighter looks against a hand-picked opponent.