Well, much as I like Marvin, that's a bit of a stretch, in my opinion.
For me Willie Pepp and Henry Armstrong have a bloody good argument. Armstrong was one of the most fearsome fighters ever to lace up a glove. He defended his welterweight title 20 times in 2 years knocking out all but two of his opponents, despite never weighing more than 146 in his reign, and often weighing less than 140. He would have won the middleweight title from Ceferino Garcia but for some dubious officiating too.
I notice he fought one Al Manfredo from Fresno, wonder if that is any relation to Peter Manfredo?
History repeating itself?
I felt Hopkins was an outstanding world champion when I first collected tapes of him in 1997, and I knew he was going to beat the fornicate out of Tito. I could also see why none of those guys wanted to gun for m/w glory by taking on the peak Executioner.Terence wrote:I think it is a two-way street as you can also elevate a decent fighter to insane levels and this has happened with Hopkins. Interestingly I also feel that lots of Hopkins fans justify his place negatively by saying: "Well so and so is seen as great so why not Hopkins" in much the way you have stated. If he is so great his own record and style should stand-up for the claim not the record of Larry Holmes or Eusebio Pedroza.viciousmaussa wrote:Hopkins isn't overrated.
You can pull down many a great fighter just cos he didn't beat an electrifying level of opposition. If Hopkins is a poor great then the same can be said for Eusebio Pedroza and Larry Holmes. Most ppl don't even think Pedroza beat his best foe, Rocky Lockridge and Holmes never unified his division nor did he go for any of the talented rival champs.
The man was remarkably skilled, and his longevity was quite amazing. Like JM said, Hopkins wasn't near his best when he got the big fights. Most ppl judge him on his showings from when he was a 36 year old onward.
Let's face it, none of those top flight middles, light middles and welters wanted to go anywhere near prime (1996-00) Hopkins...and who else could he have beaten? Winky (would have been suffocated), Vargas (would have been beaten to within an inch of his life), Harry Simon, David Reid, Terry Norris?
If he had beaten these guys ppl still would have complained and moaned.
Hopkins wanted to move down a division in 96 to fight Norris, but TN wanted nothing to do with it. Nothing wrog with going for smaller men, which Hagler and Monzon did. Hopkins could make 157 aged 36 and 156 aged 40!
Remarkable fighter.
I'm judging him on the pre-Tito showings also when he was a brawling, spoiler with underrated technical skills that saw him go into the Tito fight a massive undedog with only one US writer picking him. Suddenly he wins the fight and everyone thinks he is Sugar Ray when I'd say he built an entire legacy that night on a very poor foe. Pre-Tito he was nothing special, post-Tito he was nothing special. Boxing's equivalent of Arsenal's Les Invincibles, one good night (read season) and suddenly he is the mutts nuts.
It comes as no surprise that he wanted to fight Norris in 1996 as Terry was on his way down by then. Negotiations for B-Hop fights always break down and you have to wonder if he is really so difficult to deal with or doesn't always fancy the tough fights.
You could take the Hopkins record on its own and convince anyone he was a #5 middle of all time and make a coherant case. Show them his fights all the way through the spectrum of his career and I feel the case is dead in the water. If he was what people said he was - a fighter who relied on brain and not his physical skills - he'd have beaten Taylor. Taylor is good, he is also very green and tells you what he is about to do. Hopkins could never overcome speed, a great fighter would be able to. He was/is a good fighter. After Tito he beat the next part of his legacy on fighting ODH, the highest pay minimum risk fight out there for most fighters. Beating ODH the way he did could be seen as remarkable until one considers that a relative novice in Sturm hammered ODH in his prior fight. Inside and out the ring that was the best move B-Hop ever made, lots of money and a big name but down the line the fight will mean nada.
I hope he beats Tarver though.
Around this time DLH (easy fight then disappoiting superfight being the cyclical pattern of his career) and Jones (dazzling vs less than exceptional men, what's the point of tuning in?) did nothing to keep me interested in their fights, but the way Hopkins reinvented himself from a fairly cumbersome man of the Jones and Mercado I fights, to a master boxer with an impressive workrate, impeccable timing, and avery good defense got me hooked on this man's fights.
You say speed was what Hopkins couldn't cope with, based on what - the Jones fight of '93 when Hopkins had a shit balance and was no way an elite fighter, and the Taylor fights when he's neary 41? there are two common denominators, 1) Hopkins not at his best and 2) Hopkins, a scrawny middle, vs 180-lb super athlete types, which Taylor just about weighed and which Jones admitted on Hopkins v S Brown telecast, basically saying 'I knew he wouldn't be strong enough, with me packing on 20 lbs post weigh in'
Hopkins wasn't beaten by Taylor, more like the judges who were masturbating over boxing's clean cut, shoeshiner boy next door 'futuremiddleweight legend' and all that shite that is sold to us. In cases like that boxing history is being rewritten by tossers who want a load of bland pretty boys to rule the sport.
Hopkins is far more than a decent fighter. He has made so many good fighters look ordinary that his accomplishments are contantly pulled down: Joppy, Holmes, Tito, DLH, Johnson, Mercado, Echols are good fighters. The outright mastery he had over these men shows a clear gulf between the good and the great
you've gone off on one on the 'balance' theme, I'm afraid. I only applied that the the early Hopkins of the Jones and Mercado I fights. He used to lean forward in a very ungainly manner and throw horrible cuffing little shots. When did I say about his balance for Taylor?Terence wrote:I had him to beat Tito also as Tito had gone way back due to his impressive power. I also feel that Hopkins has been the beneficiary of our desperation to have a "legend" or two in this era and we've gone for the wrong guy. He has also benefited from the fact that all you have to do to be a great in this era is hold a win over ODH. Hopkins asked for Oscar after the Tito fight and then farted about waiting for his shot, he may have been afraid he'd lose and miss his chance, his difficulty in negotiating the Jones fight may have been due to his reluctance to lose every round in failing to avenge that defeat. Hopkins was a work in progress when he fought Roy? Roy looked awful too and still panned Hopkins.viciousmaussa wrote:I felt Hopkins was an outstanding world champion when I first collected tapes of him in 1997, and I knew he was going to beat the smeg out of Tito. I could also see why none of those guys wanted to gun for m/w glory by taking on the peak Executioner.Terence wrote: I think it is a two-way street as you can also elevate a decent fighter to insane levels and this has happened with Hopkins. Interestingly I also feel that lots of Hopkins fans justify his place negatively by saying: "Well so and so is seen as great so why not Hopkins" in much the way you have stated. If he is so great his own record and style should stand-up for the claim not the record of Larry Holmes or Eusebio Pedroza.
I'm judging him on the pre-Tito showings also when he was a brawling, spoiler with underrated technical skills that saw him go into the Tito fight a massive undedog with only one US writer picking him. Suddenly he wins the fight and everyone thinks he is Sugar Ray when I'd say he built an entire legacy that night on a very poor foe. Pre-Tito he was nothing special, post-Tito he was nothing special. Boxing's equivalent of Arsenal's Les Invincibles, one good night (read season) and suddenly he is the mutts nuts.
It comes as no surprise that he wanted to fight Norris in 1996 as Terry was on his way down by then. Negotiations for B-Hop fights always break down and you have to wonder if he is really so difficult to deal with or doesn't always fancy the tough fights.
You could take the Hopkins record on its own and convince anyone he was a #5 middle of all time and make a coherant case. Show them his fights all the way through the spectrum of his career and I feel the case is dead in the water. If he was what people said he was - a fighter who relied on brain and not his physical skills - he'd have beaten Taylor. Taylor is good, he is also very green and tells you what he is about to do. Hopkins could never overcome speed, a great fighter would be able to. He was/is a good fighter. After Tito he beat the next part of his legacy on fighting ODH, the highest pay minimum risk fight out there for most fighters. Beating ODH the way he did could be seen as remarkable until one considers that a relative novice in Sturm hammered ODH in his prior fight. Inside and out the ring that was the best move B-Hop ever made, lots of money and a big name but down the line the fight will mean nada.
I hope he beats Tarver though.
Around this time DLH (easy fight then disappoiting superfight being the cyclical pattern of his career) and Jones (dazzling vs less than exceptional men, what's the point of tuning in?) did nothing to keep me interested in their fights, but the way Hopkins reinvented himself from a fairly cumbersome man of the Jones and Mercado I fights, to a master boxer with an impressive workrate, impeccable timing, and avery good defense got me hooked on this man's fights.
You say speed was what Hopkins couldn't cope with, based on what - the Jones fight of '93 when Hopkins had a shit balance and was no way an elite fighter, and the Taylor fights when he's neary 41? there are two common denominators, 1) Hopkins not at his best and 2) Hopkins, a scrawny middle, vs 180-lb super athlete types, which Taylor just about weighed and which Jones admitted on Hopkins v S Brown telecast, basically saying 'I knew he wouldn't be strong enough, with me packing on 20 lbs post weigh in'
Hopkins wasn't beaten by Taylor, more like the judges who were masturbating over boxing's clean cut, shoeshiner boy next door 'futuremiddleweight legend' and all that shite that is sold to us. In cases like that boxing history is being rewritten by tossers who want a load of bland pretty boys to rule the sport.
Hopkins is far more than a decent fighter. He has made so many good fighters look ordinary that his accomplishments are contantly pulled down: Joppy, Holmes, Tito, DLH, Johnson, Mercado, Echols are good fighters. The outright mastery he had over these men shows a clear gulf between the good and the great
His timing was good versus Tito yet Tito did come straight forward and we've seen when this is not the case Hopkins has poor timing and balance so overall you have to raise question marks over both areas. You say speed only bothered him in two fights and it was due to age and balance. I'm interested in whether you think Hopkins had poor balance early on due to inexperience and poor balance late-on due to age. I'm inclined to think that once you get your balance sorted it holds you in good stead for the ravages of age. Hopkins just can't deal with intelligently applied speed and his balance relies on a guy coming at him otherwise we are treated to the spectacle of Hopkins falling forward trying to throw a right-hand and hitting the guy with his head. Shit balance is shit balance, Eubank had a similar problem (Chris also beat some good foes, another of your criteria, should we call him great?).
The Talyor fight seems to draw in a lot of crazed conspiracy buffs who think that HBO paid or influenced the judges to give the fight to Jermain. It had nothing to do with the poor balance of Hop, the fact he was out-punched early and the fact he only poured it on rather late? Yet that gets twisted into part of his genius as they say he fought for 3 minutes and had Taylor "gone", in that case why did the genius smother his own work in a very amateurish fashion much like John Ruiz does? People say that if the fight was 15 rounds he'd have put Taylor on his back yet I doubt it, when Taylor was caught clean he stepped forward to clinch and Hopkins used his "expertise" to run right into the open arms of Taylor, a truly intelligent fighter would have stepped back and tried for the finish. Taylor deserved both fights and in 24 rounds Hopkins (for all the shite talked by Sky) could not "decode" the difficult jab-rush strategy of Taylor, a novice in relative terms.
Incidently Vitali has beaten a fair few good fighters with ease, that does not make him great. Nor does that work for Hopkins. He fought Allen three times and the third was the least impressive IMO. After Tito he took on some right dross in terms of fights for a P4P #1 kingpin, tar him with the same brush RJJ got tarred with. Hopkins is lucky that this silent dictatorship has risen around him where failure to appreciate his skills means you don't get the "old-school" style. I've watched masters from the past and they show Hopkins up. A decent fighter elevated far too high.
Eubank really scraped the bottom of the barrel, opposition wise, at times. And when he faced world class men, he didn't dominate them as Hopkins did, but usually got by on close, sometimes lucky, decisions. Eubank was not great.
Vitali is a totally inapporpriate comparison. The guy wouldn't even face his top contender for fornicate's sake early in his very brief title reign. Hopkins was bent on having all the titles, going after all the fellow title holders and keeping them. You think Hopkins would quit (vs an opponent, and also pull the plug on his career) through injury? Check out Hopkins' 2nd fight with Echols. He had a separated right shoulder, was in agony, yet got up to box Echols' ears off with the left and Then after totally demoralising the man, TKO'd him.
There's no conspiracy with Taylor. His image has been built up so much that he's the next middleweight God (never mind that he probably won't be able to even make m/w much longer), that he wa sprobably allowed to win. If your face fits, get a free pass
oh, i thought you said that i said Bh was off balance for the Taylor fight.
Hopkins wasn't a particularly good or well regarded fighter at the time of the Jones loss; Jones was a budding superstar who had hammered the very tough Jorge Castro and was coming into his own. Hopkins, by contrast, was a bit of a slow learner and had feasted on too many easy fighters on the way to his title shot & clearly hadn't found his style.
I still don't think Hopkins lost to Taylor. Hopkins struggled to find his range early and obviously didn't want to get hammered by a bigger younger guy early on, but when he found his range mid fight he turned Taylor into little boy lost. First he had to slowly, sometimes awkwardly, ease himself into the contest...With 15 rounds Bernard would've been way ahead. Certainly, Taylor wouldn't have taken the 1st fight as he thought Hopkins coulnd't hurt him.
I don't think Hopkins is great just cos he beat some good fighters. He dominated quite a lot of good fighters. also, he's a very accomplished tactician and I find it interesting the way he beat dlh and tito. he was getting older by that point, but he comes into the ring a near jr middle (157 and 156), and outwits, outspeeds and offsets the smaller men used to fighting at a faster pace.
I can't agree that Jones would've won every round in a rematch. I'm not sure who would've won. A raw Hopkins made Jones look very uncomfortable, and didn't exactly get outclassed. For all Jones' amazing speed, he never was a fighter of real method, unlike Hopkins who at his best always seemed to have a solution for every problem.
I also think Hopkins should be judged as a middleweight who could have made 154 if he wanted. Jones could never have stayed at middle and had big advantages over foes the way he packed on all that weight post weigh in. where did Jones spend most of his career? light heavy. he was practically a light heavy when Hopkins lost to him. what division will Taylor end up in?
Overall, you can pick apart anyone's style. But Hagler had deep flaws ironically, when he fought the smaller, more compact men (which an old Hopkins showed he was adept at). So did Monzon, who would often do fornicate all over the first several rounds and would throw arm punches. I don't care if i take flak for this, but tjhose guys relied more on grinding ppl down to win. Neither was as adaptable as Hopkins. I rate all 3 of those men equally
Hopkins wasn't a particularly good or well regarded fighter at the time of the Jones loss; Jones was a budding superstar who had hammered the very tough Jorge Castro and was coming into his own. Hopkins, by contrast, was a bit of a slow learner and had feasted on too many easy fighters on the way to his title shot & clearly hadn't found his style.
I still don't think Hopkins lost to Taylor. Hopkins struggled to find his range early and obviously didn't want to get hammered by a bigger younger guy early on, but when he found his range mid fight he turned Taylor into little boy lost. First he had to slowly, sometimes awkwardly, ease himself into the contest...With 15 rounds Bernard would've been way ahead. Certainly, Taylor wouldn't have taken the 1st fight as he thought Hopkins coulnd't hurt him.
I don't think Hopkins is great just cos he beat some good fighters. He dominated quite a lot of good fighters. also, he's a very accomplished tactician and I find it interesting the way he beat dlh and tito. he was getting older by that point, but he comes into the ring a near jr middle (157 and 156), and outwits, outspeeds and offsets the smaller men used to fighting at a faster pace.
I can't agree that Jones would've won every round in a rematch. I'm not sure who would've won. A raw Hopkins made Jones look very uncomfortable, and didn't exactly get outclassed. For all Jones' amazing speed, he never was a fighter of real method, unlike Hopkins who at his best always seemed to have a solution for every problem.
I also think Hopkins should be judged as a middleweight who could have made 154 if he wanted. Jones could never have stayed at middle and had big advantages over foes the way he packed on all that weight post weigh in. where did Jones spend most of his career? light heavy. he was practically a light heavy when Hopkins lost to him. what division will Taylor end up in?
Overall, you can pick apart anyone's style. But Hagler had deep flaws ironically, when he fought the smaller, more compact men (which an old Hopkins showed he was adept at). So did Monzon, who would often do fornicate all over the first several rounds and would throw arm punches. I don't care if i take flak for this, but tjhose guys relied more on grinding ppl down to win. Neither was as adaptable as Hopkins. I rate all 3 of those men equally
-
Southpaw Stylist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1484
- Joined: 19 Jul 2003, 04:50
Re: History repeating itself?
you could well be right!! the only possible difference was that RJJ's extra weight was ALMOST ALL MUSCLE & that is definitely not the case with antonio!! i think MUSCLING up to a higher weight & coming back down takes more out of you than if you just put on extra weight!!jamesmcdonnell wrote:As I suspected, Tarver bulked up for the Rocky movies, and apparently was weighing around 218. Sounds like 175 might be a struggle for him, could this give Hopkins a chance?
Would make me laugh if Tarver came in horrifically weight drained and got sparked by Hopkins after all his cussing of RJJ.
-
DG.
- Heavyweight
