What fight would you say Hopkins reached his overall prime? I have not seen enough of him, but the Echols II fight in 2000 he put an absolute beat down on him. He was very active then unlike later on around 2005+ where his punch output has been low.
I haven't seen all of his fights, but in the ones I saw he looked best against Glen Johnson. High punch output, hard to hit, power and accuracy. Heck of a show. The rematch with Echols might be my favorite Hopkins contest to watch. It wasn't a boxing match; it was a FIGHT.
I thought bhops dismantling of tito, who was on a huge roll, was very impressive but like you guys the echols rematch was a back alley brawl between two hard nuts.
Yeah the hagler-hopkins thread got me thinking about this. Because during his prime hopkins was mostly fighting mandatories at 160 and not big matchups. By the 2000's for all his big HBO fights with the likes of jermain, tarver ect. he was already well past his best. Some of his best competition he faced when he was older and we didnt get to see a prime hopkins fight any really good top level fighters. So its this which makes the hagler-hopkins harder to think about, because we have seen hagler face really good competition but hopkins didnt have the best competition in his prime. I guess what I mean is that in the Echols and Johnson fights, Hopkins looks really good but also that it is easier to look good against them than top level fighters.
Based on what Johnson has achieved past his own prime, I would say that win is HUGE, given the fashion Hopkins did it in. Johnson also nearly beat (he did on my card) Chad Dawson, the man most perceive as the next big Light Heavyweight.
Good point. I also think that's why Hopkins win over Trinidad is so big. Tito was the number 2 pound for pound guy on most lists, and had just destroyed Williams Joppy by brutal KO. Hopkins, at the time past his prime at age 36, not only beat Tito but beat him up and KO'd him. Prime Hopkins probably ends that fight around round five in my opinion. Good thread, El Terrible. I'll be interested in seeing the thoughts of others.
i think the Hopkins that beat Tito would be very hard for anyone to beat,he also looked great against Johnson but he probably still wasnt as ringsmart as he was when he fought Tito.
What Johnson would accomplish many years later at LHW after gaining the experience to fight at a world level has absolutely NO bearing on his fight with Hopkins. He was a mediocre fighter at the time, with as padded a record as possible, and it was shown by how he performed against every top level fighter he faced after Hopkins as well. Those losses did however, allow him to gain the experience he would bring to the table when he became a world class LHW in his later years. Not the case when he faced Hopkins though, where he was basically a punching bag with nothing to offer the entire fight. Even stylistically, he was nothing like the fighter he'd become. This myth about the Johnson fight being one of Hopkins's best wins has to stop, he was middle of the pack as far as Hopkins's defenses go, which isn't saying much. Guys like Vanderpool, Eastman, Echols, and Joppy were all better at the time, despite the fact that none were really exceptional themselves. However, Hopkins's performance that night was top notch, even if he wasn't really tested.
had to be vs. prime anwun echols, who was a premier puncher in his day. in their rematch, echols and b-hop clearly disliked each other and b-hops showed tremendous heart by fighting with only one hand and proceeded to beat echols, the most feared puncher in that division at the time. classic. u get a primal feel to it like if b-hops is fighting for his life. echols was not a combination puncher like tito, but he easily hit as hard if not harder and he was known to send guys flying out the ring constantly
Anywhere from the Johnson performance to the Joppy fight is peak Hopkins IMO, Trinidad probably being his best overall showing.
I find it hard to discount a win against an undefeated opponent who went on later in his career to score some quality wins of his own. Johnson wasn't then what he is now, but I don't see why the win should be downplayed. Also, Hopkins was the only man to stop Johnson.
He was undefeated because of the completely hapless opposition he'd faced up until that point. He really wasn't even worthy of a title shot, and showed his lack of worth at the world level in subsequent matches against every fighter of note he went up against, despite his claims of a robbery against Ottke (everyone I've spoken to who's seen the fight has had Ottke winning clearly, Johnson was simply playing off the myths of Ottke's gift decisions to gain support). He just wasn't a quality fighter when he faced Hopkins, and thus it can't count as a good win, unless you're taking into account Hopkins's performance rather than the worth of the opponent.