When exactly was Bernard Hopkins prime?

It might be now :huh :!:

 

I have Hopkins prime years as from the Glen Johnson fight to the Joppy fight. Anyone who thinks he's still in his prime is either an idiot or biased. It's possible to win big fights past your prime just as it is possible to lose big fights in your prime.

 

116-111 dosent sound too contraversial now does it. I think its fair to say America has trouble living with the fact that Calzaghe beat Hopkins, I can add that your another person having trouble living with the facts

 

The word prime and best is always used after a fighter gets beat.
Now Hopkins has scored his very best results since being at LHW ie Tarver, Wright, Pavlik a revenge win over Jones and a draw with current LHW champ Pascal that some think he won.
Now I know styles make fights but look at the form line, Hopkins loses twice to Taylor, who loses twice to Pavlik, yet Hopkins thrashed Pavlik. Now could this be that Hopkins is now possibly better due to being more hydrated and stronger, even if he has possibly slowed a bit with age?
If you run 10 miles everyday from 20 - 60 you have built alot of stamina over the years and your body is as tuned to doing it as it has done for years, if not better. You dont get to 50 and find it impossible that day.

Problem is America would argue all of this as Calzaghe beat Hopkins, sandwiched between Hopkins best wins of Tarver, Wright and Pavlik.

No doubt the reason of this thread is based on the fact that Hopkins nuthuggers cant accept that Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins

 

Hopkins is my favourite fighter and I accept that Calzaghe won their fight but it was a much closer fight than the official scorecards.

Hopkins in his prime is a better fighter than Calzaghe in his prime as clearly Hopkins was way more faded than Calzaghe was when they fought. What some Calzaghe nuthuggers can't accept is that Calzaghe could barely handle a Hopkins several years past his best.

 

His run from the Mercado fights to the Oscar De La Hoya fight, which you really saw him begin to slowdown. I mean Oscar was probably leading on the cards prior to the KO and that simply should not have happened. But his falloff has been very very slowly occurring.

 

Forgetting Calzaghe was also past his best and nearer to the end of his career than Hopkins. Due to styles and Calzaghes brittle hands he could have arguably been further past his prime than Hopkins. So many on here when I say G Johnson in his 30s couldnt compete at SMW then and now in his 40s is a top ten SMW. When I say the division has dipped many then say Johnson wasnt prime then but is now. Double standards or what

 

Against Tito.

 

What a load of hypothetical bollocks. While I will definately agree that Calzaghe was not prime he was only a couple of years past his best at 36 while Hopkins first showed signs of decline as early as the Eastman or even 3rd Allen fight, 5 years before and was 43. There is no argument, Calzaghe was much closer to being prime than Hopkins.

 

Disagree, the Hopkins who beat Johnson in 97 would have taken Tito apart in 6-8 rounds.

 

You're just a hater. He moved up in weight and beat good fighters too. Tarver was considered a top light heavy after ending the roy jones era, and an over the hill hopkins took him to school. there were lots of ppl who thought young, undefeated pavlik would beat hops as well, and bernard gave him a beating. he was a middle most of his career, and moved up to light heavy in his twilight earning some very good wins.

 

Every year over the age of 30 is significant, so when your 36, and the other guy is 43 or what ever Hopkins was, it might not appear to be significant, but in the grand scheme of things, its extremely significant.

 

Alot of people seem to have a rather biased view when it comes to Hopkins. They always bring up Hopkins best wins as being against smaller men yet Monzon and Haglers best wins were also against men from lower divisions yet they seem to get a pass.

He gets accused to ducking Jones after the Tito win, yet here was a fighter who after 2 consuctive losses jumped up 2 divisions and dominated the guy who KO'ed Jones when nobody gave him a chance.

He gets accused of ducking the best during his middleweight reign while seeming to forget all the hypothetical match ups were against opponents who were no longer middleweights. And this is a fighter who in his forties fought the then top guys like Tarver, Pavlik, Calzaghe and Wright. Yes it makes perfect sense, Hopkins avoided the big fights in his prime yet fought the best in his forties! atsch

 

Its about your overall quality rather than size imo. Take Duran, he beat Barkley, who was more like a 175 pounder who boiled down to 160, a guy who had already beaten Tommy Hearns. Thats the thing, it has nothing to do with size, and everything to do with levels, Duran was an elite fighter, Barkley wasn't, and even his extra size and power could not bridge that gap.

Tito was an elite fighter, and just cause he lost to Hopkins, Wink, it does not mean he was not a good MW IMO, as Tito even at WW, would of struggled with a fighter who had the style of Hopkins, Winky, that said, Tito could go upto MW and annihilate someone like Joppy, because Joppy wasn't elite.


Its like the old saying, a good big en will beat a good little en, but I think its more a case of, a bigger elite fighter, will beat a smaller elite fighter cause he has comparable talent AND! the size/strength to make his advantages stick, where as a big guy who is considered B class, like a Joppy, is capable of losing to an elite small because! he is not elite himself.

 

def from 1996-2001 to me