Thread: Is hopkins in his prime?

Just a quick question, thought it might be thought provoking.

Like most, i watched the hopkins vs pavlik fight last weekend and was totally impressed by the magnificent skills of bernard hopkins.

Defense, stamina, speed, reflexes and RING CRAFT!

When i look at the other fights hopkins has had in recent years at light heavy, he has also done exceptionally well!

1. Tarver...battered him
2. Wright...shut him out and oldschool bruising
3. Calzaghe...made it very difficult for calzaghe and lost in a close decission.
4. Pavlik...schooled him over the whole fight!

If you compare the quality of fighters that hopkins has faced recently to the quality when he was supposedly 'in his prime', the fighters he has faced in recent years are much superior to the ones he fought in 'his prime' with exception to roy jones (but he lost that one).

Show me where he 'in his prime' beat fighters the calibre of pavlik, tarver and wright in the comprehensive way he has done recently?

Just because someone is 43 years old does not mean he is necessarily past his best...i think he is a more mature fighter, more seasoned and more dangerous than he was before.

His stamina is not in dount as he keeps in great shape, he easily battered pavlik for 12 rounds and never looked tired at all, he didnt have to resort to dirty tactics at all. Same with winky and tarver his stamina was awesome.

When i look at the evidence and see his career as a whole, his greatest wins have come at light heavy at the age of over 40 years old.

I would therefore write that the evidence suggests he is a more dangerous fighter now than he has ever been...basically he is now in his prime!

Incredible when you think of it, how a 43 year old man is bashing the crap out of winky, tarver and pavlik.

I just cant see how he was ever as dangerous as this before, because he lost to the likes of taylor and jones, and his most famous wins were against de la hoya (way out of his weight) trinidad (way out of his weight) and johnson (v good fighter)...but the way he devastatingly defeated pavlik, tarver and wright suggests to me that he is in his prime now.

Major props to hopkins, fantastic fighter, at his most dangerous at 43 years of age!

Hopkins SHUT WRIGHT OUT?!?! What? What are you talking about?

If you are a limited fighter going at Bernard Hopkins, you are going to get exposed. Pavlik was limited and paid the price. Pavlik and Tarver both got their will broke and didn't make it hard on Hopkins. He used to be a guy who was live for 12 rounds of EVERY fight and that's what made him so difficult. He's as smart as he ever was but I think he was a little closer to his prime when he made like 20 successful defenses in a row.

Originally Posted by amat

Hopkins SHUT WRIGHT OUT?!?! What? What are you talking about?

If you are a limited fighter going at Bernard Hopkins, you are going to get exposed. Pavlik was limited and paid the price. Pavlik and Tarver both got their will broke and didn't make it hard on Hopkins. He used to be a guy who was live for 12 rounds of EVERY fight and that's what made him so difficult. He's as smart as he ever was but I think he was a little closer to his prime when he made like 20 successful defenses in a row.

Ok not shut out...but when did wright look dangerous? He didnt.

He still is live for 12 rounds in fights...look at his recent fight, was he not live and punching and using his skills for the whoel 12? He schooled pavlik for 12 rounds.

He has recently fought and beaten better quality opposition than he did when he made his defences.

1. tarver
2. wright
3. pavlik

Its my opinion that he is more dangerous now (at light heavyweight) than hes ever been.

Anyones opinions on whether he shouldve moved upto super middle or light heavy sooner rather than continue defending at middle weight when he was clearlt capable of moving up...hes done it now and its my opinion hes more dangerous than ever.

Looking at his age we want to try are hardest to convince ourselves that he is not in his prime, but looking at his fighting in the ring how can we believe he is not

Your only asking this to make Joe Calzaghe's win look better, no Bernard Hopkins isn't in his prime. Have you seen his early fights ? i suggest you watch them.

No BHop would have beaten Taylor and the rest more convincingly if he was at his peak. He would not also be avoiding Chad Dawson, he would go for him and kick his ass.

A fighter that is 43 years old cannot be in his prime.

Hopkins was in his prime around 97 to 03.

Originally Posted by ICB

Your only asking this to make Joe Calzaghe's win look better, no Bernard Hopkins isn't in his prime. Have you seen his early fights ? i suggest you watch them.

yea he always trys to make joe look better. when i saw this thread i chukled and was like who the fuk would post this thread and then i saw calzaghes #1 fan and was like hmm go figure. i would keep it how puglistic has it which is frm 97 - 03ish although when bhop beat the crap outta glen johnson i would say u dont get much better than that.

His prime ended in like 2000'

Originally Posted by ICB

Your only asking this to make Joe Calzaghe's win look better, no Bernard Hopkins isn't in his prime. Have you seen his early fights ? i suggest you watch them.

Nothing to do with calzaghe, this fight is about hopkins being a fantastic boxer.

If you take what hopkins said recently (direct quote) from the bbc:

The Executioner" hailed the Pavlik victory as the best win of his 55-fight career.
He said: "Better than Antonio Tarver, better than Felix Trinidad, better than Oscar De La Hoya, better than my 21 defences.
"I wanted to do it to prove people wrong and prove I could still do it at the age of 43.

It appears that hopkins himself says that his best win of his career was against pavlik, he directly quotes that it was better than against trinidad, better than tarver, better than de la hoya and better than his 21 title defences!

Wow!

You cant really disagree with what the man himself says i guess.

(Of course though, people here will insist on disagreeing with what hopkins himself says about himself.)

But the words come straight from hopkins' mouth that his fight against pavlik was better than any other performance he has had.

I think this gives more credibility to the claim that he is in his prime now.

Just because someone is 43 doesnt mean they cant be in their prime.

Im guessing that people are familiar with other sports as well, there are many sports where one isnt at their prime when they are at their youngest. Just because someone has physically more stamina at a younger age doesnt mean that they are in their prime, infact if you look at strength athletes, a persons strength carries on increasing with age until around 40-45 years old. His other attributes have increased, such as his experience, strength, ringcraft and knowledge.

Just my opinion but i think that this is the best we've ever seen hopkins...seems like he says the same thing as well!

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Originally Posted by ICB

Your only asking this to make Joe Calzaghe's win look better, no Bernard Hopkins isn't in his prime. Have you seen his early fights ? i suggest you watch them.

yea he always trys to make joe look better. when i saw this thread i chukled and was like who the fuk would post this thread and then i saw calzaghes #1 fan and was like hmm go figure. i would keep it how puglistic has it which is frm 97 - 03ish although when bhop beat the crap outta glen johnson i would say u dont get much better than that.

Forget calzaghe, this is about hopkins.

I think hopkins is a definate hall of fame fighter, he proves just how someone can adapt and better themselves with age.

I dont see many people here saying that at all, rather than focus on how he has changed his style and how he has adapted, all i see is people saying how hopkins is 'past his prime'.

If you look at last saturday's performance it clearly is not the case?

If you look at his performances at light heavy it is clearly not the case either.

Bernard said it himself that his recent win was better than any others in his career, to me this suggests that he is a man on top of his game.

The only thing i will say about calzaghe is that hopkins should be given another chance against him because i think we might see hopkins beat calzaghe next time round. If he does this, then he is the best of the 3 (calzaghe, jones and hopkins)...for someone to have the durability and adaptability that hopkins has is the mark of a true world class athlete!

This is why I can't believe that he lost twice to that biatch azz Taylor

London, I think Bernard feels this is his best win because of his age, and Pavlik's hype. He isn't in his prime its plain and simple. He can't work as hard, he's not as fast, he simply isn't as good.

Originally Posted by Taeth

London, I think Bernard feels this is his best win because of his age, and Pavlik's hype. He isn't in his prime its plain and simple. He can't work as hard, he's not as fast, he simply isn't as good.

You could be right mate. I didnt look at it that way.

He could be saying this in a way rather than saying that hes in his prime because hes just got his best career win...hes saying that hes at the end of his career but can still get an awesome win against pavlik.

Shows hopkins quality.

Also look at who Hopkins fought at 43
Tarver: jsut finished a movie where he was basically a heavyweight, losing that weight would affect anyone, but just because people didn't like him they didn't give it any thought.
Winky Wright: a natural 154 pounder fighting at 170 isn't the same fighter he once was, I think he would have beaten Bernard had they fought when they were supposed to at 160.
Calzaghe: closest to his prime of the southpaws simply because he always stays in great shape, he wasn't losing a ton of weight or gaining a ton of weight. However in his prime Calzaghe was a much better puncher. I think he is around the same place Hopkins was when he faced Trinidad, he is slightly over the Zenith but he is style in a situation where his skills along with his remaining athletic abilities make him still near the top of his game. However I feel Hopkins was simply the better man technically.
Pavlik: I think he would have beaten Trinidad at middleweight, but he is basically the same type of opponent for B-Hop, I've felt that his style would be easy to negate for B-HOp all along.

But all in all Hopkins was quite clearly a superior boxer 10 years ago.