This stupid f* age thing

Hopkins is it great shape so it really does not matter.

 

It's not irrelevant but a drawback for Hopkins. You can fool Father Time to a certain extent and Bernard is a young 43, but you can get old in that ring very fast. Bernard has not been honest to say that he is a little bit beyond his prime - he is way past his prime if you compare the Winky fight with the Glen Johnson fight... So I don't understand how can he say that Calzaghe is a Mercedez and he is a Ferrari, he must not be talking about speed. The main thing should not even be speed of hand and foot - Hopkins has to be able to decelerate his breathing and heart beating without getting drowsy and weak, and to sustain body shots and fire back as hard as Freddie says he still hits... I have seen great warriors go like Moore ( against Clay), like Norton ( against Cooney), like Leonard ( against Norris and Camacho), like JCC ( against Tszyu). There were exceptions in Tommy Hearns, Roberto Duran ( before the accident), Larry Holmes and even Hopkins against Tarver and Winky. Age is a factor and that has to do only with Hopkins, he knows that and that's why he's saying that he wants to leave the Game as a MAN for all the common middle-age men out there.

 

agree age is not irrelevant, but it's possible IMO to be fairly close to prime even at 43, depending upon health and habits during those years. Hopkins with his disciplined lifestyle over the past 15 years has done a pretty good job in that department. He didn't drink or eat too much and he didn't take too much damage in too many fights and i don't think he's had so much stress over those years (thanks in part to an easy division). He's probably got as much left as most guys 8-10 years younger.

 

That's not true, he just fights differently to different opposition. Had he been able to fight someone as good as Mikkel at age 30, he'd have either been able to do his swarming routine with his superior speed, or he'd have lost a round big and then adjusted to boxing, which he's had this type of boxing skill as a back up his entire career, just never needing to use it due to his superior speed, superior power and opposition that had no chance.

There is no way he's better now with his weaker hands, lessened speed and general overall decline physically.

 

You gotta say his age is always gonna be mentioned as he nears the end of his career,regardless of his ability....I wonder if he gets beat by Joe,how long it will be before his fans say that if they'd fought 5 years earlier he would have beaten him.....

 

Would he have dominated Lacy or Kessler even more had he had slightly more speed and slightly better reflexes? I don't think so. I think it was his experience and wisdom that made the biggest difference in these two fights, rather than his physical skills, impressive as they still are, of course!

 

Please, please listen to me carefully. Not only did he have seriously better reflexes and speed, he also had real KO power and very few hand fragility problems, with the SAME boxing skills only with less experience.

Lacy would not have seen round 6 and would have taken the same kind of 1 sided beating, I assure you.

Kessler would have countered him silly one round and then he would have adjusted and would have ended up stopping him late.

Hell, Lacy was stunned by a left hook in round 1, imagine if that was a similiar left that Eubank took = Lacy getting floored.

You aren't experienced enough with Calzaghe to make a call, I've seen all of his fights since Eubank and even several prior to it complete with several amatuer matches.

Experience against Kessler definitely helped, but against Lacy, he literally just fought his routine inside fight more carefully, which he would have done had he gotten a big hyped fight back in 2000-2003(his peak years).

Do you think he would have been wreckless against a majorly hyped opponent.

Here mate, we have an opponent that a peak Joe fought and a Joe that was starting to decline fought in Veit.

Peak Joe TKO'd him in 1. Declining 2005 Joe dominated him and TKO'd him in 6.

Apply that to the Lacy and Kessler fights, he came in well for Veit first time around because Veit was percieved as a very good opponent.

 

It all has to do with how much wear and tear your body takes, Bernard started boxing late because he was in prison. while he might have started fighting at like 23 other guys are worn down by 23 because they've been boxing forever and they're hands have been broke and they've been popped in the head a few too many times. We just saw Campbell vs. Diaz so we all know age has nothing to do with it.

 

The reason I hold that view, for example, is that the Calzaghe who beat Kessler would have won a wide UD over the Calzaghe that beat Reid, when Calzaghe was 27, at the beginning of his prime (but before his peak), on his 26th fight and two fights after Eubank.

 

Nard has been boxing since he was a teenager. Furthermore, it's a scientific fact that your speed and reflexes are slower 43 than say even at age 35. To say that age is irrelevent is ignorant. Nard is certainly in better shape than your average 43 year old and he certainly has less wear and tear on his body. However, he's nowhere near his best.

 

No Doubt That If B-hop Loses To Joe Every B-hop Fan Is Going To Call It Do To Age. I Wont As I Think B-hop Is One Of Those Guys Who For The Lack Of A Better Term IS Special. At 43 Except For His Face He Looks Young. Sure He's Slowed Quite A Bit. But He Has So Many Tools. We Know What The B-hop Fans Will Say If Bernard Loses, But What Will The Calzaghe Dudes Say If Bhop Wins Is A Better Question I Think.

Ps I Dont Want To Hear Oh That Wont Happen Joes To Much 4 Him. Cause Honestly None Of Us Know Till After Its All Over.

 

Five years ago this fight would have a better fight, but not necessarily a different one. Any time you get two guys who are this technically superior in the ring, it's going to be a clash of styles before it's going to be a war of attrition. I'm still fascinated by this fight because even though it will be "boring" to the uneducated, seeing who outhinks who and how should be very interesting.

I think some of you Calzaghe fans need to calm down a little with the "everyone will say" drama. How many fighters hold clear, "no doubt about it" wins over Bernard? That's right, two, and only one of note. Anyone who says in the aftermath that handing Old Man River a true loss is somehow insignificant shouldn't be pretending to know jack about the sport.

 

not long,joe would have beat bhop 5,10 years ago just like he will next month.

 

The thing is Calzaghe is not as good as he was, yes he's winning bigger fights but he hasn't the snap in his punches anymore and is a little slower. After all he is almost 36.

Age does take it's toll but it leaves behind experience, if a fighter can accept and understand the slowing down process and adjust tactically then their career won't suffer too much, unfortunately most fighters think they are as good as they were in their prime.

Hopkins and Calzaghe while slightly past their fighting primes are both intelligent tactically.

 

Agreed. It took Roy about three years to get this memo.