When was Bernard Hopkins ACTUALLY in his prime ?

His style aged very well and was suited for longevity. He had natural size. He was very physically strong. And he was on PEDs.

Basically a big Mayweather.

 

Between seven and forty-nine. The man is an alien. Boxing norms simply do not apply to him.

 

The man seemed to thrive being written off as finished. I view his prime as any time he was a significant underdog. Roughly 2001-2009 in my opinion as he accomplished several impressive feats...

1: He was the underdog versus Tito in 2001. Bernard won.

Hopkins then lost to Taylor twice and the boxing media wrote him off as finished or a gatekeeper.

2: He was the underdog against Tarver in 2006. Bernard won. Beats Winky Wright in his next match.

Hopkins then loses to Calzaghe in 2008. Media again writes him off.

3. Hopkins schools Pavlik in 2008.

The oldest man (49 years 94 days) to win a major (WBA Super light heavyweight title) belt in 2014. His technique, ring IQ and footwork served to extend his prime far longer than he should have been able to.

 

This was Hopkins at his absolute peak IMO. His performance against Glen Johnson is his most complete showing.

This content is protected

 

Still surprised he lost twice to Jermain Taylor. I guess Taylor just had his number.

 

I'd say his peak was something like mid 90's to around the run of the millenia. Just compare his second and third fight against Allen, and a certain amount of decline is already visible.

In his prime he was a high activity, fairly aggressive fighter, but turned into a more low activity counter puncher/spoiler as he started to decline physically. Unfortunately, it seems that the later version is what people think of when it comes to Hopkins today.

 

I would say about 1998-2001. That was the middle road between when he was more active early in his career and more conservative later on. I believe that was the middle ground to his quickness, too. Maybe I am wrong, but he appeared slightly quicker against Johnson in 1997 than, say, Daniels post-Trinidad. He also had a good amount of world class experience under his belt around 1998-2001, too.

 

Mid to late 90s. Hopkins prime age was the same as everybody else. Anywhere between 25 and 33.

 

About 1993 to 2001
Age 28 to 36.
A little older than average.

 

Low output + spoiling style = longevity.

 

He was 40 and lost to a good fighter who was at his all too short peak. Nothing strange with that at all. Froch admitted that he probably would have lost to Taylor if Taylor had been properly prepared. That was Froch in his prime.

Against old Hopkins Taylor was prepared and won two razor close decision. It's really a "nothing to see here" kind of thing. Hopkins did well to keep it so close if anything.

 

I might stretch it to 2003, but basically I think this is right. He had clearly declined by Allen.

 

Well the reason people think Hopkins prime was late in his career is mostly because they never saw him in his actual prime. Hopkins spent his entire prime fighting overmatched no hopers on low budget cards. And was on the losing side of a lopsided extremely boring decision against Roy Jones.

He beat Tito and was already over the hill and that's when he started getting some fame. And then he beat DLH and then he solidified himself as a decent draw.

Basically his actual fighting prime was spent toiling in obscurity.