Hopkins-Wright - Does anybody care?

[manchester-mexican]

Does anyone care?

I do!! To be honest I am actually looking forward to this fight. Hopefully it will turn into a interesting chessmatch type of fight, with plenty of clever moves and intelligent Boxing to watch.

I think I will be in the minority here but I really enjoyed Hopkins - Tarver and Wright - Trinidad.

Of course I love an explosive slugfest as much as anyone but there is so, so much more to Boxing than the likes of Hagler v Hearns, Foreman v Lyle, Gatti v Ward etc etc

At times it can be equally enjoyable to watch two fine Boxers trying to outhink and outsmart each other rather than just going nuts and trying to destroy each other.

suppose u love trainspottin as well?

[KOJOE90]

Does anyone care?

I do!! To be honest I am actually looking forward to this fight. Hopefully it will turn into a interesting chessmatch type of fight, with plenty of clever moves and intelligent Boxing to watch.

I think I will be in the minority here but I really enjoyed Hopkins - Tarver and Wright - Trinidad.

Of course I love an explosive slugfest as much as anyone but there is so, so much more to Boxing than the likes of Hagler v Hearns, Foreman v Lyle, Gatti v Ward etc etc

At times it can be equally enjoyable to watch two fine Boxers trying to outhink and outsmart each other rather than just going nuts and trying to destroy each other.

suppose u love trainspottin as well?

No, but I do enjoy watching Boxing.

There is a lot more to Boxing than KO's.

[lowersmiths]

watched the kastidis fight then the larios fight then went out to see one of the wife's friends graduate.

life is too short to watch bernard hopkins.

[manchester-mexican]

giv me gatti v ward any day, that farce last nyt is y ppl r turnin away frm boxin in the states.

[Max Molyneux]

Damn Katsidis's face was busted up!

[glahn]

I definitely understand why people like to watch technical boxing displays, but as effective and talented as Bernard Hopkins is his fights are nearly always stinkers. I've lost count of the number of times I've been suckered into pre-fight hype for a Hopkins bout only to end up disappointed. This one was no different. Lots of clinching and dirty tricks, and little in the way of give-and-take action.

The other two fights were excellent though, it must be said. Linares looks like a real star of the future.

[manchester-mexican]

yes was impressed wif him,and he still only 20, will keep an eye out 4 him, as 4 B-HOP wud'nt watch him if he fightin in my garden.

[Autobarn]

It did annoy me that on SKY they kept refering to Winky as GREAT or one of the GREATS etc etc.

He is/was a GOOD champion but not a GREAT one.

yep. very solid, sturdy guy but just as he beat Mosley and Trinidad he LOST to Simon & Vargas, DREW Taylor (not exactly man-of-the-moment) and LOST to Hopkins.

He was an outstanding junior middle, I'll give him that. But all this p4p inflation ("top 3"), hall of fame talk & moves up in weight have been unconvincing.

I always felt Glyn Leach was unfair saying the only reason Wright has looked good (UK, late 90s) if because he was made to look good. That was a tad extreme, but the acclaim heaped on him since Mosley has also been way out of proportion.

Time for the young guys to take over I say.

[Scrap]

Lowersmith Has it bang on Life is to short to watch Hopkins, I cant see what all the fuss is. Boring thank god for the undercard

[Goz]

There is a lot more to Boxing than KO's.

You are right and there is of course much more to boxing than knockouts but fights with that omnipotent threat of a ko or fight-changing shot being landed are 110% more exciting. Otherwise in the case of most Winky and Hopkins fights it becomes a glorified fencing session.

Feint, jab, cover, yeah sure they are very skillful guys but you are so much more on the edge of your seat watching a fight like Enzo-Braithwaite knowing that one of those big shots could end matters or change the course of the fight in a split second.

[MightyWarrior]

only watched a few rounds next day of Hop/Wright, one round pretty much the same as another. I don't rate Hop as one of the greats, he benefited from split titles in a sub par era - he never chased a Jones rematch until Jones was a very old man. Probably because I still remember what an all time great Hagler was.

Katsidis looked a bit overated didn't he, good job he never got Guzman, who would have decimated him by the looks of it.

And Jorge Linares, at 21 years old, looked a superstar in the making. Those shots he was hitting Larios with early were absolute class. Is he from the Edwin Valero camp?

[Scrap]

Linares looks quality, like the look of him handled it with class. Would like to see more, like him a lot.

[Scrap]

Tel count me in, being 64 Im a little old school. To me he cheats on smaller fighters. He was fighting a guy a non puncher and tried to stop him fighting whats all that about.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

I watched the fight and pretty much most Hopkins fights. I don't mind the guy, he is not a patch on Hagler/monzon et al and one thing that does get me is that if you say you do not rate Hopkis as high as those guys people blabber on about "old-school" and accuse you of not understanding that Hopkins is a throwback fighter.

I've watched all the guys he purports to copy and saw his little Walcott step-aways the other night and they are, pardon the pun, often poorly executed and derivative.

It is like saying 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' references a lot of films/music so is just as good as the originals when it is, in fact, derivative and throwaway.

The only fighter who copies the old moves and does something with what he learns is Toney. Toney used to stand close and make you miss, Hopknis runs back then sprints forward with his head down, lands a cuffing right, ties you up then whales away on your hips.

Career achievements aside, which may sound odd, Toney is leagues ahead of Hopkins in execution of these defensive moves and skills.

Hagler, Monzon and the like would not have had to negate Eastman by running.

Good Post! Toney is a pure master of the sport, hes also faced much better competition than Hopkins and been in with good big men too

[dr_devious]

This is being a bit derogatory about BHop IMO. Ok, hes not Monzon or Hagler but he is an all time great. Hes beaten Trinidad, De La Hoya, Wright, Tarver and a host of others and ran Jones close. Calling him a "Lock Stock" fighter is bollox, hes the best MW of his generation excepting Jones.

[glahn]

I agree that Hopkins is an all-time great. But has there ever been an all-time great as boring as Hopkins?

[dr_devious]

This is being a bit derogatory about BHop IMO. Ok, hes not Monzon or Hagler but he is an all time great. Hes beaten Trinidad, De La Hoya, Wright, Tarver and a host of others and ran Jones close. Calling him a "Lock Stock" fighter is bollox, hes the best MW of his generation excepting Jones.

Ran jones close? Jones was poor that night, Hopkins awful and in no way did he run Jones close.

Watch Hopkins turning and running then finding himself in a poor scoring position and then watched Walcott turning from Marciano and absolutely pinging him with counters.

Those guys make Hopkins look derivative.

If hes "derivative" how has he managed to beat all the guys he did?
He did give Jones a decent run in 93, maybe Roy looked awful because Hopkins is so awkward to fight.

[Autobarn]

I watched the fight and pretty much most Hopkins fights. I don't mind the guy, he is not a patch on Hagler/monzon et al and one thing that does get me is that if you say you do not rate Hopkis as high as those guys people blabber on about "old-school" and accuse you of not understanding that Hopkins is a throwback fighter.

I've watched all the guys he purports to copy and saw his little Walcott step-aways the other night and they are, pardon the pun, often poorly executed and derivative.

It is like saying 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' references a lot of films/music so is just as good as the originals when it is, in fact, derivative and throwaway.

The only fighter who copies the old moves and does something with what he learns is Toney. Toney used to stand close and make you miss, Hopknis runs back then sprints forward with his head down, lands a cuffing right, ties you up then whales away on your hips.

Career achievements aside, which may sound odd, Toney is leagues ahead of Hopkins in execution of these defensive moves and skills.

Hagler, Monzon and the like would not have had to negate Eastman by running.

problem is that Hopkins has that extra dimension that Toney lacked, movement. Toney's punching is cleaner and he rolls the shoulder better but he has to do that better because he doesn't move. Even at his best it was come on, I'll counter you off the ropes - if he'd been fit I doubt he'd have had a clue vs Jones (he was utterly confused by what was in front of him, see his overdone nodding in the corner when Miller was trying to advise him).

Hopkins is very awkward, and I think that like Michael Spinks, it's because he's tall for his weight but very short armed. On Sat, that awkwardness faced with an awkward southpaw made for a horrid spectacle.

As to LOCK STOCK, in films it's pastiche and post modernism and basically making that shite because the filmmakers have no imagination. With boxing, guys like Toney and Hopkins were applying moves to appropriate situations. I feel Brendan Ingle is closest to the "empty copy" syndrome. Was it a Johnny Nelson fight where he said "Remember Ali-Foreman." LOL

[Scrap]

Tel Thats where we differ I wont

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

The Ingles do a good job but after recent, dull, Witter fights I can do without Brendan walking around the ring calling it pure boxing. People say Witter is a damn fine boxer when he is not he is a good puncher. If you asked Witter to double a jab then throw a left hook off it and then a right hand behind that before stepping away low-flying birds would get the shite bashed out of them and Witter would finish it off like a motorist failing the roadside sobriety test. For all the plaudits he got for his last fight Witter was unable to finish it cleanly and ended-up in some kind of love-grip with his foe. They then they say that is classic boxing?

As a Witter fan I have to agree on this. Witter is very poor at combination throwing unless they are of the wild haymaker variety. Punching compact or in combination is certainly not 1 of Ingle fighters best traits

As a boxer Witter is good with his feet, keeping distance, timing counters though aswell as been a puncher. His defense is somewhat open too and against the massive reach of Harris and his compact punches this could spell problems although I give the edge to Witter

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

This is being a bit derogatory about BHop IMO. Ok, hes not Monzon or Hagler but he is an all time great. Hes beaten Trinidad, De La Hoya, Wright, Tarver and a host of others and ran Jones close. Calling him a "Lock Stock" fighter is bollox, hes the best MW of his generation excepting Jones.

Ran jones close? Jones was poor that night, Hopkins awful and in no way did he run Jones close.

Watch Hopkins turning and running then finding himself in a poor scoring position and then watched Walcott turning from Marciano and absolutely pinging him with counters.

Those guys make Hopkins look derivative.

If hes "derivative" how has he managed to beat all the guys he did?
He did give Jones a decent run in 93, maybe Roy looked awful because Hopkins is so awkward to fight.

It was 1 of the weakest MW divisions we've seen. Jones Jr/Toney/Eubank/Benn/McCallum/Calazage all were a level or 2 above the fighters operating at MW. Name 1 opponent that Hopkins beat that would beat any of the above - I don't think there is 1.

[dr_devious]

It was 1 of the weakest MW divisions we've seen. Jones Jr/Toney/Eubank/Benn/McCallum/Calazage all were a level or 2 above the fighters operating at MW. Name 1 opponent that Hopkins beat that would beat any of the above - I don't think there is 1.

Winky Wright and Antonio Tarver would have a good chance against most of these guys.

[dr_devious]

No. Jones looked awful because he failed to perform. Anyone who has watched the fight would not make the first comment about him pushing Jones close and would not compound it by saying stylistically he made it hard for Jones. Hopkins was woeful in that fight.

His title reign featured some good wins over middling middleweights. The Johnson win was his most complete performance but Johnson was poor in that fight because he seemed to lack stamina at the weight.

He beat Tito because Tito is a vastly enjoyable slugger, so in other words he is massively overrated by many fans. Tito is good but very beatable.

Oscar had no business being at 160 with Hopkins. Oscar was poor against Sturm and the only improvement he made against Hopkins was that he produced a six-pack. Hopkins made hard work of it and handled Oscar like he was TNT.

Tarver was a good win but how any can see it as an upset I don't know. Tarver is an exceptionally poor fighter who kept shouting "Hey, I'm a great fighter" and people went "Oh, Ok then, you are a great fighter". Tarver is just not very good. Jones clearly outpointed him in bout one and was gunshy in bout two. A wild left hand forms the basis of Tarvers rating.

The Wright win also is not a massive upset. Wright has been slipping and cannot cope at 160 let alone a higher catchweight and once again Hopkins was pretty poor in victory against a fighter he held all the aces over.

His best fight was the Tito win, he moved well and produced some nice moves but the fight was not one-sided from the get-go and with all respect to Tito it was there for Hopkins to win plus there was a fair bit of spoiling in that fight.

Terry, Ive never seen so many excuses for a boxer winning so many fights. Might the real excuse be that Hopkins is an excellent fighter?

[Autobarn]

The most interesting period of Hopkins' career was 97 to 99. He'd really built some excellent skills and threw a lot of punches. But he did start spoiling it with the fouling, admittedly. It's a damn shame he didn't get the big fights then.

Really, what's made Hopkins so successful is planning and mastering his own body. Planning his skills, his indivual fights and his career for the long term. Fisher built him from scratch into a really rounded (if awkward) fighter. And Hopkins has shown the worth of getting ppl at the right time/weight - especially with the last two fights.

I mean, look at when he DIDN'T do it on his own terms. Thrown in the deep end vs Jones (an oddly nervy Jones) who had some considerable weight over him, and going abroad for Mercado. Here he wasn't successful because there were odds stacked against him..This I believe is why he changed his mind about Calzaghe that time (double or nothing incident).

I could see him losing to Winky in say 2004 or 2005 down at middle. When he couldn't punch as much and with WW strong at 160. But getting him at 170 was a terrific idea for him. Though a poor fight.

Any other time in their careers before 2004 I see Hopkins trouncing Winky.

[dr_devious]

He is excellent at certain things. Hagler and monzon are great fighters. They bury Hopkis in terms of talent and achievement. A point you missed first time around.

I never said that BHop was up there with Hagler or Monzon. They are the top 2 MWs since the war, maybe of all time. They are half or one notch above him, but they dont bury Hopkins talent wise or achievement wise.
Hagler and Hopkins MW reigns were similar in terms of depth of opposition - neither division was talent rich and their best defences were against smaller guys - Hearns / Trinidad / De La Hoya. The late 80s MW division was much stronger than either the Hagler or Hopkins eras.
The 70s era was much stronger however. But Hopkins ledger is excellent, although you want to make excuses about why he beat his best opponents.