Which fight to you consider to be Hopkins greatest masterpiece?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Jeff M, Jan 20, 2009.


Page 1 of 5
  1. Jeff M

    Jeff M Future ESB HOF Full Member

    27,003
    132
    Nov 22, 2008
    I'd give a slight edge to what he did to Pavlik because he was 43 yrs. old but it's very close with the Trinidad fight and hell, Bernard was 36 when he demolished him. Tarver hasn't been the same since what Bernard did to him as well. I don't think it's ODLH because B-hop wasn't as aggressive until a few rounds before he KO'd him. I think it's amazing his best work is between 36 and 43 yrs old.
     
    Jeff M, Jan 20, 2009
    Jeff M, Jan 20, 2009
    #1
  2. Blue145

    Blue145 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,060
    1
    Sep 3, 2008
    I'd go with Pavlik

    Man hopkins always beats up the smaller guy.. except for Tarver of course
     
    Blue145, Jan 20, 2009
    Blue145, Jan 20, 2009
    #2
  3. unsentdemon

    unsentdemon Active Member Full Member

    1,422
    0
    Dec 9, 2007
    The only person that he actually beat in their natural weight class was Tarver. I don't consider beating smaller men that come up in weight to fight a man that started his career in higher weight classes a masterpiece. He was supposed to beat, Tito, Oscar and Pavlik. Tarver wasn't even that good. Hopkins uses to many dirty tactics to be considered a master boxer, he should be called a master opportunist that takes advantage of stupid refs.
     
    unsentdemon, Jan 20, 2009
    unsentdemon, Jan 20, 2009
    #3
  4. Jeff M

    Jeff M Future ESB HOF Full Member

    27,003
    132
    Nov 22, 2008
    or maybe he's just a lot better....?:think
     
    Jeff M, Jan 20, 2009
    Jeff M, Jan 20, 2009
    #4
  5. Jeff M

    Jeff M Future ESB HOF Full Member

    27,003
    132
    Nov 22, 2008
    What are you talking about? He was picked as and underdog against Trinidad, Tarver, and Pavlik! Not just on betting but by a lot of fans and boxing people.
     
    Jeff M, Jan 20, 2009
    Jeff M, Jan 20, 2009
    #5
  6. Jeff M

    Jeff M Future ESB HOF Full Member

    27,003
    132
    Nov 22, 2008
    He didn't even used those so called "questionable tactics" in those fights so you're point is null and void.
     
    Jeff M, Jan 20, 2009
    Jeff M, Jan 20, 2009
    #6
  7. Blue145

    Blue145 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,060
    1
    Sep 3, 2008
    I rate Hopkins highly, but it is clear his resume is built off beating smaller men.

    He did what he had to do though, and in style.

    Not forgetting Pavlik and Tito were favs to beat him
     
    Blue145, Jan 20, 2009
    Blue145, Jan 20, 2009
    #7
  8. Jeff M

    Jeff M Future ESB HOF Full Member

    27,003
    132
    Nov 22, 2008
    He didn't beat them because he was bigger, he was a lot smarter and took away all they're firepower. They were all fighting at the same weight no matter how you look at it. You can also take the other side and say B-hop was at a disadvantage trying to even make 160. He had to train like a maniac to do it for years so the odds should have evened out if you look at it that way.
     
    Jeff M, Jan 20, 2009
    Jeff M, Jan 20, 2009
    #8
  9. TommyV

    TommyV Loyal Member banned

    32,127
    41
    Nov 2, 2007
    Pavlik. He shouldn't of been the underdog though, I knew he'd do it. Not in that style though, he completely dominated a top 7 P4P fighter, who was hungry and unbeaten and was made a 4/1 favourite to beat Hopkins, and most people thought he'd knock him out.
     
    TommyV, Jan 20, 2009
    TommyV, Jan 20, 2009
    #9
  10. Blue145

    Blue145 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,060
    1
    Sep 3, 2008
    Being able to take away Titos left hook was pretty nice, he left him clueless, Pavlik was miffed in general.

    Hopkins is a great fighter, but being bigger was an advantage against Tito and DLH.. DLH couldn't hurt him.

    Pavlik had fought at 168 before so its less of an excuse.
     
    Blue145, Jan 20, 2009
    Blue145, Jan 20, 2009
    #10
  11. unsentdemon

    unsentdemon Active Member Full Member

    1,422
    0
    Dec 9, 2007
    Anybody who actually knows about boxing knew that Hopkins had the advantage against Trinidad, Pavlik is a stiff come forward fighter. Hopkins used dirty tactics in both of those fights, You should rewatch the Tito fight and count how many hip punches he threw.
     
    unsentdemon, Jan 20, 2009
    unsentdemon, Jan 20, 2009
    #11
  12. Blue145

    Blue145 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,060
    1
    Sep 3, 2008
    I thought Hopkins was going to get brutally stopped.. just his workrate against Calzaghe made everyone think he's lost it.
     
    Blue145, Jan 20, 2009
    Blue145, Jan 20, 2009
    #12
  13. LoveMuffin

    LoveMuffin Active Member Full Member

    788
    0
    Nov 11, 2008
    I went with Tarver cause it just seems like this fight he was the one stepping up and challenging where as I always felt with other fights the opponent was doing the stepping up and challenging.

    Plus its always sweet to watch Taver getting schooled :yep
     
    LoveMuffin, Jan 20, 2009
    LoveMuffin, Jan 20, 2009
    #13
  14. SHOWSHOOTER

    SHOWSHOOTER Active Member Full Member

    789
    0
    Oct 13, 2008
    the undoubted highlight of bernards career was when calzaghe bent him over and did the boogy woogy behind him :D
     
    SHOWSHOOTER, Jan 20, 2009
    SHOWSHOOTER, Jan 20, 2009
    #14
  15. Jeff M

    Jeff M Future ESB HOF Full Member

    27,003
    132
    Nov 22, 2008
    Trinidad was a dirtier fighter than Bernard. You are simply looking at it through biased eyes.
     
    Jeff M, Jan 20, 2009
    Jeff M, Jan 20, 2009
    #15
Page 1 of 5