Was Bernard Hopkins still elite in his forties ? Vote !

Non-snarky question: Were Jermain Taylor and Chad Dawson elite when they beat Hopkins? Was Pascal elite when he drew with Hopkins?

 

Again, depends on your definition. None of them is a great fighter but at the time, probably.

Dawson was ranked p4p and seen as the best lhw. Taylor was a solid contender and after his wins over Hopkins was seen as the future dominant mw champ and potential p4p fighter. Pascal was a belt holder and a Top5 lhw. So, I'd argue at the time and in their division they were.

Gesendet von meinem LG-H815 mit Tapatalk

 

You are beyond full of ****. I wont argue with someone who just lies to save face. Quarterly ratings my ass. Look again. How many ****ing times do I have to own you? Now you just make **** up because your "brain fart" excuses have worn thin. Yeah, I dont have a film of Pastrano-Moore. Those are just cleverly edited still photos taken in sequence using actors to portray the exact instance of the fight in order to match it perfectly to other verified still photos... jesus your nuts and thats exactly why know-nothing asshurt clowns like yourself will never see it. You wouldnt know what you were looking at anyway. Lol

 

I challenge you to name a single lie in that post.

4 ratings in 1958 that show Harold Johnson was NBA #1. 4=quarterly. But this isn't about semantics or your ass.
The issue is you been vigoursly claiming Johnson was his mandatory for 5 years!!! Which you have failed to do.

The only proof of Johnson being his mandatory after 1956 was ironically provided by me in the Sports Illustrated article. Johnson was his official mandatory for 6 months in 1960, which led to Moore being stripped. That's it.

You failed to back up your claims of Moore "huffing and puffying" and "eeking out a draw via a knockdown." My Associated Press articles contradict your claims and hilariously your LA articles contradict your claims.

You are now asking that you be recognized as ultimate authority on the fight, that you know better than the eye witnesses and professional writers because you have in your possession this super rare fight, but nobody else can see it. Stills uploaded on the net, are just that. For all I know..those stills are all you have. Call me crazy.

 

Just a couple of years ago him and Kovalev were inarguably the two best LHWs in the division.

And in his last fight he fought the WBC champion.

Id say he was.

 

Calzaghes whole legacy is based on piggybacking on a man in his 40s who he had a SD with.

 

Sure whatever. You and the rest of the flatearthers can go on believing that if you want, I'm all for free speech no matter how dumb it might be.

Also nice see to the still obsessed Herol liked your comment - the hallmark of any anti-Calzaghe comment on these boards. It's the only thing I see from him these days.

 

I personally don't agree when people bash Joe C .. He's 46-0 (beat B hop , RJJ, Manfedo JR, etc.) .. Joe had an aggressive style. Outpunching his opponents with both hands, landing more punches and scoring more points.. Not his fault that his opponents weren't skilled enough to come up with a strategy to beat him .. they all knew what was coming ... Can you pick apart his resume?? Probably .. Can you pick apart Floyds resume .. Probably ...

 

Calzaghe looked awful against Hopkins though.
Hardly landed a proper clean punch.

If you want to big up Calzaghe, probably best to stick with the Lacy and Kessler fights.

They WERE the "elite" of the 168 and 175 pound divisions at that time though. Obviously not a height point in boxing's timeline.

 

That's the thing though, I'm not especially keen to big up Calzaghe. I was just pointing out why people like to play down Hopkin's ability at that point in his career.

It's the same with Fury. Yes Wlad was past his physical prime when Tyson bamboozled him but he was certainly still operating at a very high level. It's not Wlad they're trying to denigrate but his opponent.

 

Well, I'd guess they were both past their primes.
I'd also say they both might be overrated by their admirers at least as much as they are underrated by their critics.

But, yes, Hopkins was good enough to beat the best of the rest, it seems. At 175 at that time.

True.
The funniest thing about many of the Fury critics is the insistence that Wlad were past his prime badly against Fury but somehow 'turned the clock back' against Joshua, since they have to fit the way the fights went into their "Love AJ/Hate Fury" world view.

Wlad was past it. Fury shouldn't be immune from criticism in his performance either.
But I don't think it was even a close affair. That's where Fury deserves credit. He never looked hurt and he won almost every round by doing very little, simply out-boxed and out-thought the old fella.

Hopkins-Calzaghe was an even match. Should have been called a draw. Luckily we didn't get a rematch though !

 

Yeah the key difference - other than Fury Wlad wasn't close - is age I guess. Calzaghe was also 37 with a style that isn't prone to aging well. It was a horrible fight to watch as were so many of Nard's fights so I'm similarly glad we didn't have to sit through it again.

And yeah it is funny how he AJ fanboys claim Wlad was underprepared and shot against Fury before taking a long lay off and rolling back the years 18 months on. It's beyond ridiculous. I criticise Tyson quite a lot as you know but for me that's ludicrous. Wlad was clearly world class wins for both of them and in different fashion. It's a real shame we'll prob never see Joshua vs a Tyson resembling anything like the one we saw in that night in Germany.

RIP SAUNA TYSON!

 

Yes, I think Calzaghe deserves to be regarded as a fairly "old" fighter against Hopkins too, and that should be taken into account.
The problem for Calzaghe though is that almost his entire reign as 168 title holder, almost his entire prime, is stacked full of embarrassingly poor opposition.

 

Dude youve been lying in every post you make. Being intentionally disengenuous is lying. Sorry assclown it is.

Dumbass, look at my posts. Read them before vomiting your nonsense all over your keyboard. I posted five seperate ratings released by the NBA in 1958. Jan, Feb, April, May, and Nov. Are their five ****ing quarters in a year? Do you find four quarters in the first half of a year? No. Notice how January and February's postings mention the ratings being released "yesterday" and "today." Do the first two months of the year encompass two quarters in your bizarro world?? Dont be intentionally obtuse because you are wrong. Just like you were wrong about how the NBA ratings are structured (a lie by you because you blasted and blasted and blasted an untruth out of pure ignorance). Just like you were wrong that Rinaldi was a LHW champ (which you repeated over and over out of ignorance). Just like you claimed Moore was stripped AFTER he fought Rinaldi the second time. Just like you claimed numerous times there was no film of Moore-Pastrano (out of complete ignorance and refusal to admit you were wrong). Just like you continued to claim Pompey was Moores #1 (again, out of complete ignorance).

Just like you lie and claim I have posted no proof of Johnson being his mandator when Ive posted years worth of ratings showing that Johnson was indeed Moores mandator. And frankly, for the record I found out yesterday that Johnson actually gained the top stop in June 1957, three months before Moore fought Anthony who I had previously thought was Moore's number 1. Which means the ONLY number one contender Moore fought from 1954 until his retirement was the fight with Johnson who Moore was forced to fight. Period.

More lies. Every article I posted barring the one that originated the wire report stated that Moore was the one tiring and that Pastrano was the one who finished strong. Directly contradicting your keyboard warrior boxrec limited research. Ive posted photos and stills of Pastrano down from independent sources and from the film. Whether you believe it or not is neither here nor there. It happened and whether the papers refer to it as a stagger, or Pastrano being knocked into the ropes, they all agree that it was a turning point which slowed Pastrano down and forced him to come on strong late i.e. it was significant enough in their minds to POSSIBLY swing the decision to a draw. Whether you believe Moore wasnt a sluggish, fat, huffing puffing, ineffective, outpunched and outboxed old man in that fight is meaningless. He was. Criticizing Pastrano for being a boxer is like criticizing water for being wet. Pastrano fought his fight and Moore didnt, unless you think Moore was lead footed inept bumbler who couldnt cut off the ring and who only threw one punch every 20 seconds. Thats not the Moore I know.

You might be crazy but your definitely stupid. I have no interest in asking you anything. I dont care what you believe because its worthless. Your lack of knowledge makes you worthless. Ive done you a favor on these threads. Youve learned something, or would if you werent so concerned about being "right" that your reject anything put in front of you. Let me lay this out for you: You are a clown. You know nothing. Your lack of knowledge on the subject and the era is beyond deplorable. Your stupidity disgusts me. Typing this has been a waste of my valuable time because if Archie Moore himself told you he ducked Johnson, Johnson was his mandatory, etc youd deny it. Thats how ****ing deluded you are. I have no time "fans" like you. Its all about the personality with you idiots. And once youve set yourself on a personality to worship that person can do no wrong. Through that prism youve convinced yourself that three bums who were basically regional talents from nowheresville were better and more deserving of a title shot than HOF fighter who was criminally ducked for years. Sorry pal but it doesnt take an idiot like yourself to look at Moores record and latter title defenses and see the myth of his longevity is just that. A myth. Its a house of cards. He took the path of least resistance and used his title as pension. After Patterson embarrassed Moore he did nothing. NOTHING. His career was a bad joke after that. His legendary fight with Durelle is a joke. No all time great should have been bounced off the canvas like a yoyo by Durelle. No legendary champion should have been outboxed by Pompey. No HOFer should have lost to Rinaldi. Thats a fact. And no great, fearless, feared badass should have ducked his number one challenger for years. A prime Moore wouldnt have I dont think. But a fatass old man who was taking advantage of his celebrity did. Thats indisputable. Yet you dispute because at first you didnt know better and now that youve been enlightened you refuse to believe it because you are part of the cult of personality. Enjoy your stupidity dumbass. Im going to go watch more Archie Moore fights that you never knew existed.

 

They did different types of ratings. I supported my claim with a link which you have chosen to ignore.

I think I said it just twice and once you pointed out my mistake, I owned it like a man should.

No, I don't believe YOU have the fight on film.

No, and I've explained this FAR too many times.

This contradicts your own link:

[url]https://www.flickr.com/photos/147785928@N03/36397039813/[/url]

Frank Harvey does not note any fatigue.
Jim Murray does not note any fatigue.
Bill Miler mentions Archie slowing in the Eighth.
And Associated Press notes Pastrano was more fatigued.

This is a complete fabrication as none of the writers you actually quoted mention a knock down or that it was a turning point.

You claimed Moore eeked a draw via a knockdown and failed to show any evidence of that.

Here's what your own link said:
"Pastrano spit out his mouthpiece and gave it all he had in the 10th and that sports perhaps saved him a draw. "

Why would I believe this when nobody who was at the fight reported this. Once more you are asking to be the sole authority on this fight and I don't believe your claim of seeing it or even that you are capable of being as unbiased as the reporters. Your entire last paragraph is just a hate rant against Moore.