Tommy Burns vs Bernard Hopkins

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by LSDarthMaul, Mar 11, 2012.


  1. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,359
    21,805
    Sep 15, 2009
    Burns was a great lightheavyweight. The best in the world for a while.

    That being said, as a lhw, hopkins, by my card, has victories over tarver, winky, calzaghe, pavlik, jones, pascal (x2) and he's due to fight dawson.

    That's a decent top 7 and it shits all over burn's resume.

    Burns had a very nifty right hand but, to date, hopkins has never come close to being stopped and there's no way burns can outpoint him.

    Hopkins by a wide ud. Maybe 9-3.
     
  2. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,727
    29,077
    Jun 2, 2006
    :nutcase
    There's a lot of us nutters on here then.
     
  3. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,063
    Mar 21, 2007
    Interesting point of view.

    :lol:
     
  4. LSDarthMaul

    LSDarthMaul New Member Full Member

    42
    2
    Mar 9, 2012
    Yeah despite being a fan of Tommy Burns,I can agree that with his modern boxing he could probably use too many jabs and outwork Burns,but Tommy lasted 14 rounds with Jack Johnson,would you agree that Bernard Hopkins could last that many rounds with a ATG like Johnson?
     
  5. LSDarthMaul

    LSDarthMaul New Member Full Member

    42
    2
    Mar 9, 2012
    btw do you guys think that Modern Boxing(50-2012) is superior to Old School Boxing(1900-1950)?
     
  6. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,359
    21,805
    Sep 15, 2009
    I wouldn't argue that date.

    For me, it seems to be much more (1880-1925) as old school. (1925-Present) as modern school.

    I'd argue that modern school is superior to those from the old school in general (level of contenders, journeymen etc) BUT the guys who stood out from the old school era, did so (by and large) because of qualities that would have seen themselves very well aquitted in a latter era.
     
  7. Nightcrawler

    Nightcrawler Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,432
    32
    Dec 18, 2011
    i tend to use benny leonard as the start of the modern era so close to those dates myself
     
  8. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,359
    21,805
    Sep 15, 2009
    Good shout :good

    It seems to me that right around the time of Walker Law the skillset in boxing generally (from top to bottom) had a big improvement and I'm not overly sure why.

    Prior to this, the sport was sometimes unrecognisebale with fights being fought to different rules etc.

    Bit like comapring Rugby Union to Rugby League really.
     
  9. kingfisher3

    kingfisher3 Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,438
    1,821
    Sep 9, 2011
    in general the pre 1920's guys spent more time in the clinch. i think burn's has more experience there, and can move weight an generate power well. i underestimated how long hopkins had been at lhw when i did those odds.
     
  10. Drew101

    Drew101 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    29,769
    8,298
    Feb 11, 2005
    Hopkins was surprised by the sheer force of Pascal's attack, even it the case can be made that he deserved to win both fights. Burns' offense can probably match that level of force, and honestly, he's not really that far removed from most modern offensive fighters in terms of punching technique and hand speed.

    That being said, I think Hopkins would find a way to neutralize Burns' attack on the inside after a while, and eventually carve out a closer than expected UD.
     
  11. dpw417

    dpw417 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,461
    348
    Jul 13, 2007