why is hopkins a overated bum

Flux :-(

Trinidad beat both Joppy and Mayorga at middleweight.... Two of his most potent displays so that discounts that statement.

De La Hoya BEAT Sturm pretty handily for me it was subjective fight and was not impressive but theres no way he won the fight... Don't get all german on me!

Hopkins was prepared to fight De La Hoya at light middleweight but De La Hoya wanted to move up.

As for the Winky and Tarver fights.... Hopkins is a thorough professional and shut Taver down by leading with the right hand and constantly keeping on the move away from Tarvers left. Tarver wasn't at his best because Hopkins punched his head in...

Hopkins wasn't pretty against Wright because his gameplan was to drag Wright into a rough maul so that Wrights awesome jab and water tight defence were practically ineffective at the range Hopkins was engaging. Hopkins is a master tactician- write him off all you want but I gurantee he will suprise all those who write him off come fight night.

 

:good Lets see if the newbie knows his stuff first!

 

Flux for me he is a legend I could go into why Mayorga is not quite as bad as you think but lets just leave it as you don't rate Hopkins but i do!

 

I see Pete Doherty is at the Hopkins bashing again. I have neither the time nor inclination to read your various anti Hopkins rants in this thread, however, it's so obvious you are nothing but a Calzaghe fanboy you merely discredit yourself. I'm pretty confident where historians will place these two fighters in relation to each other regardless of the outcome of their fight. I think you know this hence your incessant derisory comments.

Frankly I think it's sad mate. I have intentionally refrained from getting involved in any of these sorts of threads recently but seeing your little anti Bernard tirade irked me enough to renage on that policy. Keep it up, it's obvious you have an agenda & I will continue to find amusement in your ignorance. I think you, and many others on here, live vicariously through Joe. Lets hope for your sake he doesn't let you down.

 

Ahhhh good old Dan-B and his excuses for not entering a debate.

If you seen my other posts in this thread you will see I acknowledge and respect the opinions of others in terms of the Bernard Hopkins, Joe Calzaghe debate. I just don't happen to agree with it and I put forward my own opinions to see what others think.

If that upsets you, fair enough. What I found amusing was how you managed to contradict yourself in your response by first saying that my so called 'rant' annoyed you then stating later on that you found such 'ignorance' to be 'amusing'. I think you try to cast yourself as the role of some patronising boxing expert that looks on patronisingly with a slight knowing smile at all these JC fan boys who know nothing about boxing.

Mate, you ain't that guy. You can't even properly debate on the subject of your favourite fighter because you run for the hills whenever anyones says something you don't like. You wait for other more knowledgable fans that happen to admire Hopkins to refute any criticism that comes his way because you can't do it yourself.

That is amusing. Also, I thought we had a truce on this subject and we were going to wait until after the fight had taken place to speak any further on it? Ive been ignoring your posts despite their obvious bias.

 

Why does he call you Pete Doherty

 

The avatar I believe. :yep

Dan B really gets flustered over the Joe Calzaghe, Hopkins debate.

He just can't stand when people have the audacity to question Hopkins resume and/or speculate that JC's might just might be on par or even better!

When you try and have a little friendly debate with him he runs for the hills shouting as he goes about you being 'an irrational, ignorant Calzaghe fan boy'....when hes the one who never ever backs up his point of view at all.

 

Seeming as newb has unsuprisingly ignored this challenge I'm going for it.... Having watched practically all of Hopkins fights I would say that Hopkins' peak is very hard to define. Early Hopkins was just a reasonably capable boxer who was largely reliant on his strength to overcome his opponents.

His fights were usually messy and he seemed to lack the confidence to stay on the outside and box his opponets- he would get involved in mauls and blind exchanges and was not at all a thinker. It was pretty much do or die right up until the first Mercardo fight. In this fight he set a good pace before wilting towards the end. It was a gruelling battle and Hopkins suffered two knockdowns- I actually thought he deserved the verdict despite the kd's.

Hopkins was much more reserved in the Mercardo rematch and he dominated from start to finish from then onwards Hopkins was the unfashionable middleweight champion his performances were largely boring he would domiante his opponents but in an unimpressive and non-eyecatching way. But the guys he was beating were fairly competant certainly not as bad as some people on here make out.

I would say that Hopkins prime is now based on three factors.

1/ His style. He is not and never has been a incredible puncher, blindingly fast, or flashy. He's not going to wow you with his punch selection or his ali shuffles- he is a clever, canny operator who uses the ring well and is very adept at adapting his style to take advantage of his opponents weaknesses and negate their strong points. He does this a variety of ways- hand positoning (see the difference between the de la hoya fight and the Trindad fight), use of movement (look no further then the Winky fight and the Tarver fight) and his lead punches (throughout his career he has suprised many opponents with his lead punches-see the Simon Brown Kayo or the numerous different leads he used to offset Tarver). Therefore Hopkins is only going to improve with experiance until age sets in.

2/Fitness. Is there a fighter who can match this guys professionalism? He has always been in great shape and has gained plaudits from various experts for the way he goes about his training. Couple his fitness with his experiance and you have a fighter who is always going to be a handful.

3/Confidence. Hopkins confidence is sky high. He believes he is unbeatable and that the Taylor losses were robberies. I'd say this elite mentality can be traced back to when he beat keith Holmes and Trinidad. Befor that I'd say he was just a title holder.... after those wins he was the WORLD champion and it shows in quality of his peformances. The De La Hoya win just affirmed this self belief.

I think Hopkins peak will last as long as he can go to the well and drive his body into impressive shape. If Hopkins were a singer he's be Tom Jones as opposed to Vanilla Ice- Longevity and Experiance as opposed to a one hit wonder. :hi:

 

atsch didn't see it lol

 

Good analysis.

Very interesting that you believe Hopkins prime to be right now.

Not too many are of that belief....but you have backed up your points very well.

 

:good Thanks. Could have gone into more detail but i'm at work. Don't mind debating with someone who knows what there talking about.

 

:good

 

**SIGH** Sadly I've been too busy at work to respond so there has been no "running to the hills". I have only been posting in the evening recently. You contradict yourself from time to time & you know full well I put thought & effort into my posts. People can check that for themselves.

If you wish to ask me some specific questions please do & I shall answer. Let me make it clear not once have I compared Hopkins to Hagler or Monzon. You know full well why I stopped having the debate but I'll happily continue on the more selective British forum.

As for the character assasination, I guess I deserved that for the way I attacked you earlier. I apologise, you are a knowledgable poster so no hard feelings?

 

Yes mate i didn't say you in particular compared him to Monzon or Hagler others within the forum and the wider boxing community have though and I think thats wrong.

I don't think I contradict myself but in my haste to get my point across I sometimes perhaps don't make it clear enough or else confuse it in amongst some other stuff of this there is no doubt...

And thank you for the apology. I also said on another thread that you know your stuff and I stand by that. Sometimes its hard to be objective as far as your favourite fighter is concerned and given that Bernard is Joes next opponent I may go a bit over the top with any criticisms I make of him....which is a bit silly of me really because I want Joe to get the credit for a huge win(which it would be) should he come out victorious in this contest.

In this thread, Jeff described what he thought was Bernard Hopkins prime. Seeing as your a big fan as well, I would like to ask you when you believe this began and when you feel it ended(if you do believe that it has ended that is.) Hopkins is somewhat of an enigma in this regard and what I will say has adapted to the onslaught of age better than any fighters in the modern era than I can think of (Virgil Hill did well but was hardly elite in his advanced years in the sense that Hopkins is.)

Your thoughts would be appreciated.