BoxRec

The first one was close, I had it 115-114 Hopkins. The second one was a clear Hopkins victory to me. 116-112

The great Bernard Hopkins is/was a complete fighter, but in his best day, I could not phantom beating someone like the great Bob Foster at 175lbs. As a matter of fact, I don't see too many all-time greats of the light heavyweight division defeating him. Maybe the great Ezzard Charles or Matthew Saad Muhammad or Michael Spinks could beat him. That's about it. And still, it would be too hard to pick.

Foster at light heavyweight is like the great Thomas Hearns at 154lbs.

Hopkins was a better boxer, but vs Foster he'd be facing by far the biggest puncher of his career who also had very good speed and ring smarts (including very good countering instincts). I think Bernard does get hurt a couple of times throughout the fight, and probably once badly. Enough so that he allows Bob to win rounds with the rapier jab as he concentrates on defense. Foster may be stunned several times as well but not enough so that he doesn't recover quickly and continue his gameplan.

elmersalsa wrote:The great Bernard Hopkins is/was a complete fighter, but in his best day, I could not phantom beating someone like the great Bob Foster at 175lbs. As a matter of fact, I don't see too many all-time greats of the light heavyweight division defeating him. Maybe the great Ezzard Charles or Matthew Saad Muhammad or Michael Spinks could beat him. That's about it. And still, it would be too hard to pick.

Foster at light heavyweight is like the great Thomas Hearns at 154lbs.

Huh? Maybe Ezzard Charles?

I don't see a 175 lb Bernard beating any great light HWs. Langford, Tunney, Lewis, Loughran, Dillon, Conn, Moore, Johnson, Spinks etc. all beat him. Saad Muhammad, who you mentioned, isn't even in their class.

Hopkins having success at 175 late in his career is a testament to his great discipline and dedication to the sport, but let's not pretend the 175 lb division hasn't been sh%^ for a long time, and in the 2000s has been putrid . .

Wasnt he saying only a few could beat Foster, not Hopkins?

dempseyfire wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:The great Bernard Hopkins is/was a complete fighter, but in his best day, I could not phantom beating someone like the great Bob Foster at 175lbs. As a matter of fact, I don't see too many all-time greats of the light heavyweight division defeating him. Maybe the great Ezzard Charles or Matthew Saad Muhammad or Michael Spinks could beat him. That's about it. And still, it would be too hard to pick.

Foster at light heavyweight is like the great Thomas Hearns at 154lbs.

Huh? Maybe Ezzard Charles?

I don't see a 175 lb Bernard beating any great light HWs. Langford, Tunney, Lewis, Loughran, Dillon, Conn, Moore, Johnson, Spinks etc. all beat him. Saad Muhammad, who you mentioned, isn't even in their class.

Hopkins having success at 175 late in his career is a testament to his great discipline and dedication to the sport, but let's not pretend the 175 lb division hasn't been sh%^ for a long time, and in the 2000s has been putrid . .

Dempsey, I think the "him" Elmer was referring to was Foster, not Hopkins.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: We're talking about the Lt. Heavyweight versions of both men. Hopkins has always been an old man at Lt. Heavyweight, unless you're taking the version that lost to Clinton Mitchell in his debut. Make your pick. Doesn't bode well for you either way.

Dawson was more talented than someone like Finnegan, but I wouldn't say he was the better fighter. And I'll take Ahumada over him every day of the week and twice on Sundays. I'll take Ahumada over old man Hopkins as well.

That said, the version of Foster that faced Ahumada would be a lot more susceptible to losing to your boy.

I would pick the one that fought Tarver long before the current incarnation that you're going on about. I'm sure you would take Ahumada, that doesn't change that Dawson is the more accomplished fighter. Hopkins would school Ahumada. But I get your routine, you like older fighters and that's refreshing for a young fan of the sport. You just come off with some massive exaggerations, and Foster not having a hard time with Hopkins is definitely one of them.

The closest thing to Hopkins that Foster ever faced was Mina. Bob would struggle mightily to land on bernard, no doubt about it.

Oh yeah, you've got me figured out. I just want to fit in with the old fogies. Help me fit iiiinnnn.

Anyways, Mina may very well beat Hopkins, too (I wouldn't favour him outright, though, as I haven't seen enough footage outside of the disappointing Hank bout). I'm not the one exaggerating by questioning a 40+ year old former Middleweight's credentials against genuine high quality Lt. Heavyweights. Hopkins is a greater fighter than most of these men if not all, but he's not a better Lt. Heavyweight.

I don't think you're trying to fit in, it's just your mindset. Nothing wrong with that, I'll bet you're on a deserted island that Ahumada is better than Hopkins at any weight.

You're predicting an outcome that the results of either fighter show no inclination of happening. That doesn't make it impossible, but it is next to impossible that Foster toys with Hopkins until he inevitably knocks him flat. That's a gigantic reach however confident you may be.

Bernard doesn't rate all-time at Light Heavy, but he has fought and dominated a better one than any of Foster's defenses. It always astounds me how much credit Bob gets for dominating second rate contenders. Not to say he wasn't a great fighter, but there has never been a fighter that wouldn't have a degree of difficulty hitting Hopkins. Not one.[/quote]

I think very highly of Ahumada. I think he had fantastic ability, just didn't get the right breaks at the right times of his career. He improved quite a bit after his early career series with Galindez, and I think a fight between the two in the mid 70's would've been up for grabs.

I don't think he'd be toying with Hopkins per se, but I don't think anything less than an old, decrepit version finds a way to lose the fight. He was too consistent a performer and had the physical tools and style to offset Hopkins' strengths.

I'm not sure which fighter you're referring to that Hopkins beat that was better than any of Foster's Lt. Heavy opponents, by the way. I'm assuming Tarver, which I obviously disagree with. Masterclass of a performance against a weight-drained opponent. Not that he'd have ever beaten Hopkins.[/quote]

He was a fun fighter to watch, but Tarver definitively did more than Ahumada. Head to head would be an interesting fight though. However highly you think of him he wasn't on the level of a Bernard Hopkins. And I didn't even bother getting into the difference with same day weigh ins. You know damn well Hopkins could have went to 170 with ease in the absolute prime of his career. Not that it matters, I'm picking the early 40's Nard here. Either way, I'm certain it would be a dull distance fight.[/quote]

I thought these were prime v. prime hypotheticals . . . If that's true, the prime light-heavyweight Foster was the guy who was scoring withering KOs over guys like Mike Quarry and Dick Tiger. The prime light-heavyweight Hopkins is an old-man who has seen his best days. Prime v prime, Foster winning.

But if you are talking about the post-Ali Foster - the guy who fought Fourie and Ahumada, then, yeah, he would struggle against Hopkins (not sure he would lose, though). But prime v. prime as light heavyweights . . . it's a no brainer really.[/quote]

Fourie & Ahumada are the only challengers of Foster's worth mentioning. Mike Quarry certainly doesn't fit that bill. Tiger was obviously a very impressive win. One of the few Bob ever had.[/quote]

raylawpc wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:The great Bernard Hopkins is/was a complete fighter, but in his best day, I could not phantom beating someone like the great Bob Foster at 175lbs. As a matter of fact, I don't see too many all-time greats of the light heavyweight division defeating him. Maybe the great Ezzard Charles or Matthew Saad Muhammad or Michael Spinks could beat him. That's about it. And still, it would be too hard to pick.

Foster at light heavyweight is like the great Thomas Hearns at 154lbs.

Huh? Maybe Ezzard Charles?

I don't see a 175 lb Bernard beating any great light HWs. Langford, Tunney, Lewis, Loughran, Dillon, Conn, Moore, Johnson, Spinks etc. all beat him. Saad Muhammad, who you mentioned, isn't even in their class.

Hopkins having success at 175 late in his career is a testament to his great discipline and dedication to the sport, but let's not pretend the 175 lb division hasn't been sh%^ for a long time, and in the 2000s has been putrid . .

Dempsey, I think the "him" Elmer was referring to was Foster, not Hopkins.

Oh. Well, I don't see Foster beating those guys either.

I like Hopkins in this fight. He could take away Foster's jab and land his popshots, frustrating Foster all night long. Foster would have his moments in there and would win his rounds, but unless he lands that perfect shot like he did against Dick Tiger (and considering this is Hopkins we're talking about I'm thinking he doesn't) he's not going to outbox Hopkins. Hopkins by a convincing Unanimous Decision.

gilgamesh wrote:I like Hopkins in this fight. He could take away Foster's jab and land his popshots, frustrating Foster all night long. Foster would have his moments in there and would win his rounds, but unless he lands that perfect shot like he did against Dick Tiger (and considering this is Hopkins we're talking about I'm thinking he doesn't) he's not going to outbox Hopkins. Hopkins by a convincing Unanimous Decision.

Do you mean potshots? Or are they popshots cos Hopkins is so old? D