Printable View
Prime BHop at Super middle would not beat Joe, just because it was close does not make him able to beat him. Bernard was negative and that is the reason why he lost against Taylor, a peak B Hop would take it to Joe but all that means he would be open for a comprehensive beating.
couldnt agree more Master.......
I couldn't disagree more a prime Bernard Hopkins was like Marvin Hagler, he had unbelievable workrate. And the power to go along with it, i honestly don't know how you can say Joe Calzaghe would give a prime Bernard Hopkins a beating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Bernard Hopkins was able to stand toe to toe with much big punchers, than Joe Calzaghe and he wasn't effected at all. And just because Bernard Hopkins was more offensive doesn't mean he was open. He was still hard to hit with flush shots.
Because he rolls with the shots very well, Bernard Hopkins has always had a sound defense. I for certain think he could force Joe Calzaghe on the backfoot, his workrate was just as good. And he was physically stronger no doubt in my mind.
Against who?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBI couldn't disagree more a prime Bernard Hopkins was like Marvin Hagler, he had unbelievable workrate. And the power to go along with it, i honestly don't know how you can say Joe Calzaghe would give a prime Bernard Hopkins a beating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Bernard Hopkins was able to stand toe to toe with much big punchers, than Joe Calzaghe and he wasn't effected at all. And just because Bernard Hopkins was more offensive doesn't mean he was open. He was still hard to hit with flush shots.
Because he rolls with the shots very well, Bernard Hopkins has always had a sound defense. I for certain think he could force Joe Calzaghe on the backfoot, his workrate was just as good. And he was physically stronger no doubt in my mind.
And you need to bear in mind he was fighting MUCH lesser quality fighters back then ;)
And Joe Calzaghe wasn't fighting lesser opposition back then aswell ?Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterAgainst who?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBI couldn't disagree more a prime Bernard Hopkins was like Marvin Hagler, he had unbelievable workrate. And the power to go along with it, i honestly don't know how you can say Joe Calzaghe would give a prime Bernard Hopkins a beating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Bernard Hopkins was able to stand toe to toe with much big punchers, than Joe Calzaghe and he wasn't effected at all. And just because Bernard Hopkins was more offensive doesn't mean he was open. He was still hard to hit with flush shots.
Because he rolls with the shots very well, Bernard Hopkins has always had a sound defense. I for certain think he could force Joe Calzaghe on the backfoot, his workrate was just as good. And he was physically stronger no doubt in my mind.
And you need to bear in mind he was fighting MUCH lesser quality fighters back then ;)
Glen Johnson was 32-0 quality fighter, Bernard Hopkins fought like a mad man and stopped him with sheer workrate/skill.
Antwun Echols was also massive puncher who beat two of Joe Calzaghe's opponents. Charles Brewer/Kabary Salem. Bernard Hopkins again beat Antwun Echols with sheer workrate/skill x2.
I don't know why your even trying to debate this, it seems like anytime i comment on a Joe Calzaghe thread. You look to pick up on anything i say just to force a debate.
Bernard Hopkins was described by boxing experts. To be like the modern day version of Marvin Hagler, because of the way he used to attack his opponents.
And anyone who has seen his early fights would know this aswell. He only stopped being aggressive in the last 5 years or so, because of his age he obviously had to change his style.
So people are not allowed to post an opposing view to yours? Debate is what keeps the forum going :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBAnd Joe Calzaghe wasn't fighting lesser opposition back then aswell ?Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterAgainst who?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
And you need to bear in mind he was fighting MUCH lesser quality fighters back then ;)
Glen Johnson was 32-0 quality fighter, Bernard Hopkins fought like a mad man and stopped him with sheer workrate/skill.
Antwun Echols was also massive puncher who beat two of Joe Calzaghe's opponents. Charles Brewer/Kabary Salem. Bernard Hopkins again beat Antwun Echols with sheer workrate/skill x2.
I don't know why your even trying to debate this, it seems like anytime i comment on a Joe Calzaghe thread. You look to pick up on anything i say just to force a debate.
Bernard Hopkins was described by boxing experts. To be like the modern day version of Marvin Hagler, because of the way he used to attack his opponents.
And anyone who has seen his early fights would know this aswell. He only stopped being aggressive in the last 5 years or so, because of his age he obviously had to change his style.
Anyone thats seen his early fights will KNOW, as you just proved, he was beating far LESSER fighters. How come his AGE didn't stop him fighting more aggressive against Pavlik?
To say he had "unbelievable workrate" is WAY over the top. What happened to that "unbelievable workrate" against Roy Jones? ;)
He threw 60 more punches against Pavlik which isn't not htat many more. He threw more against Winky than both of them, and I thought that was his closest fight out of all three in the competitive stand point, and most equal skill.
People need to watch that Pavlik fight again, he wasn't that aggressive in it, and it was nothing like he was in his prime. Honestly I have been saying this for months now, people need to watch Bernard Hopkins against Glen Johnson, he is extremely fast, he is hitting hard, throwing combinations.
IMO its the equivalent difference between Mayweather at 130, and how he fights now.
No its just i feel you try and pick me up on any little thing i say regarding Joe Calzaghe, i do enjoy a debate with you, but when its regarding Joe Calzaghe. I just feel you pick me up on any little thing just to force a debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterSo people are not allowed to post an opposing view to yours? Debate is what keeps the forum going :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBAnd Joe Calzaghe wasn't fighting lesser opposition back then aswell ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Glen Johnson was 32-0 quality fighter, Bernard Hopkins fought like a mad man and stopped him with sheer workrate/skill.
Antwun Echols was also massive puncher who beat two of Joe Calzaghe's opponents. Charles Brewer/Kabary Salem. Bernard Hopkins again beat Antwun Echols with sheer workrate/skill x2.
I don't know why your even trying to debate this, it seems like anytime i comment on a Joe Calzaghe thread. You look to pick up on anything i say just to force a debate.
Bernard Hopkins was described by boxing experts. To be like the modern day version of Marvin Hagler, because of the way he used to attack his opponents.
And anyone who has seen his early fights would know this aswell. He only stopped being aggressive in the last 5 years or so, because of his age he obviously had to change his style.
Anyone thats seen his early fights will KNOW, as you just proved, he was beating far LESSER fighters. How come his AGE didn't stop him fighting more aggressive against Pavlik?
To say he had "unbelievable workrate" is WAY over the top. What happened to that "unbelievable workrate" against Roy Jones? ;)
No offense but thats how i feel about it. Then it ends up being a stupid 10 page debate. Thats why i try to avoid Joe Calzaghe threads lately. And alot of Joe Calzaghe fans do this aswell IMO.
Your trying to question Bernard Hopkins stamina so you have already lost the debate, before it even started.
When i meant his early fights, i didn't just mean before his championship fights, and i gave you examples against Antwun Echols x2, Glen Johnson, which were championship fights. And they were both quality fighters were they not ?
Especially when i watched the Glen Johnson fight, it reminded me of a Marvin Hagler performance. Non stop aggression every round you have to have great stamina to keep that kind of pace up.
He wasn't aggresive against Kelly Pavlik, he picked his shots and fought at a steady pace. Kelly Pavlik wasn't able to get his workrate going to force Bernard Hopkins to fight, because of Bernard Hopkins superb movement and boxing skills.
As for RJJ are you being serious with that comment Fenster ? RJJ had amazing speed in his prime. it would be hard for any boxer to get there workrate going against a prime RJJ.
And when they tried they were caught with hurtful counter shots, which quickly stopped them being aggressive. RJJ had too much speed and countered to quick/hard for mostly any boxer in history to get there workrate going, he also moved too well.
:lol: "lost the debate"Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBNo its just i feel you try and pick me up on any little thing i say regarding Joe Calzaghe, i do enjoy a debate with you, but when its regarding Joe Calzaghe. I just feel you pick me up on any little thing just to force a debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterSo people are not allowed to post an opposing view to yours? Debate is what keeps the forum going :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
Anyone thats seen his early fights will KNOW, as you just proved, he was beating far LESSER fighters. How come his AGE didn't stop him fighting more aggressive against Pavlik?
To say he had "unbelievable workrate" is WAY over the top. What happened to that "unbelievable workrate" against Roy Jones? ;)
No offense but thats how i feel about it. Then it ends up being a stupid 10 page debate. Thats why i try to avoid Joe Calzaghe threads lately. And alot of Joe Calzaghe fans do this aswell IMO.
Your trying to question Bernard Hopkins stamina so you have already lost the debate, before it even started.
When i meant his early fights, i didn't just mean before his championship fights, and i gave you examples against Antwun Echols x2, Glen Johnson, which were championship fights. And they were both quality fighters were they not ?
Especially when i watched the Glen Johnson fight, it reminded me of a Marvin Hagler performance. Non stop aggression every round you have to have great stamina to keep that kind of pace up.
He wasn't aggresive against Kelly Pavlik, he picked his shots and fought at a steady pace. Kelly Pavlik wasn't able to get his workrate going to force Bernard Hopkins to fight, because of Bernard Hopkins superb movement and boxing skills.
As for RJJ are you being serious with that comment Fenster ? RJJ had amazing speed in his prime. it would be hard for any boxer to get there workrate going against a prime RJJ.
And when they tried they were caught with hurtful counter shots, which quickly stopped them being aggressive. RJJ had too much speed and countered to quick/hard for mostly any boxer in history to get there workrate going, he also moved too well.
I'm questioning YOUR over-the-top statement that Hopkins had "unbelievable workrate".. it has NOTHING to do with me questioning Hopkins stamina.
Johnson and Echols were/are good fighters. Not as good as the fighters Hopkins faced later in his career - Trinidad, Oscar, Taylor, Wright, Tarver, Calzaghe and even Pavlik.
Hopkins looked very good against Johnson. But since then Johnson has LOST 11 times (i know they were all robberies :rolleyes:) and yet is arguably MUCH better now than when he fought Hopkins.
Yes i'm serious about Roy Jones. Against a higher calibre fighter he wasn't able to unleash the same workrate. That is the point.
Just because Hopkins was YOUNGER doesn't mean he was BETTER. Here's the PROOF
"I think this is my best performance -- better than Trinidad, better than Tarver, better than Oscar, better than my 20 straight defenses," Hopkins said.
ESPN - Hopkins turned back time while turning away Pavlik's challenge - Boxing
;)
He threw 60 more punches against whom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
That's interesting he threw more against Winky. Probably because the fight was such an UGLY BORE it didn't seem so. Hopkins clearly landed much cleaner against Pavlik.
Really I don't seem to remember Hopkins dropping Pavlik...
Also it was 60 more punching against Pavlik then Calzaghe which adds up to 5 more punches a round. Hardly what I call a dramatic change in output. Most of it Bernard was backing way (albeit more slowly because Pavlik has horrible footwork).
Also the Hopkins-Calzaghe fight was just as much as bore as the Wright-Hopkins fight which I really liked, it showed great skill from both guys... actually both fights did. They were both a tribute to what the best in the world have to offer, and how difficult it is for a top level guy to fight another guy on his level.
The difference is that Wright fought a super close fight with Hopkins and he was naturally smaller. Calzaghe for his entire career fought above what Hopkins had done for most of his 20 year career.
See you can argue workrate see Calzaghe has a high workrate but 70% of his punches are pitter patter shit could he throw 1000-1200 solid shots NO!. But you can have a fighter who can throw 800 punches per fight but there solid snappy shots i know which i prefer to see and which i see to be the better workrate the guy who throws 800 solid snappy shots. Look at Pac man and his workrate but all his shots are solid and snappy see Bernard when younger didn't throw Calzaghe type of punches Bernard threw a high workrate of solid crisp shots.
You can't equate 60 more punches as 5 more per round. Doesn't work like that. For instance - when a fighter has his opponent hurt he normally unloads much more punches. See Hopkins-Johnson for this. (;)) So the sixty punches can occur in one round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
The fact that Hopkins threw only sixty more punches against Pavlik, is surprising, and just highlights how good Calzaghe is.. when you consider the highly contrasting result in those fights.
Exactly! That's the point i'm making. The reason two great fighters don't always make for a great spectacle is because they neutralise each others strong point.Quote:
Also the Hopkins-Calzaghe fight was just as much as bore as the Wright-Hopkins fight which I really liked, it showed great skill from both guys... actually both fights did. They were both a tribute to what the best in the world have to offer, and how difficult it is for a top level guy to fight another guy on his level.
If you are leauges above your opposition you will look better... In most cases. ;)
Joe Calzaghe vs Roy Jones--At SMW no one and I repeat NO ONE beats Roy Jones at his peak then...Calzaghe is embaressed completly
Joe Calzaghe vs Nigel Benn- Calzaghe..
Joe Calzaghe vs Chris Eubank..Calzaghe
Joe Calzaghe vs Michael Spinks..We have to call this at LHW since MS was not a SMW so...Spinks outboxes him...MS was a great LHW top 5 AT
Joe Calzaghe vs Bob Foster--I say Foster but it would be close IMO
Joe Calzaghe vs Bernard Hopkins--Depends on what version of Hopkins...The Hopkins during his MW reign up until 2002 wins 8 out of 10 times
Joe Calzaghe vs Jame Toney--Unless James is having a lazy night at SMW he takes Calzaghe out
Joe Calzaghe vs Archie Moore--Moore everyday of the week and twice on Sunday....The Old Mongoose too slick
I saw Bernard and Wright neutralizing eachother with skill, in the Calzaghe-Hopkins fight, definitely Calzaghe got in more of a rhythym, but it was more Hopkins slowing down, after that stupid low blow fiasco he landed solid shots again because he regained his quickness.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterYou can't equate 60 more punches as 5 more per round. Doesn't work like that. For instance - when a fighter has his opponent hurt he normally unloads much more punches. See Hopkins-Johnson for this. (;)) So the sixty punches can occur in one round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
The fact that Hopkins threw only sixty more punches against Pavlik, is surprising, and just highlights how good Calzaghe is.. when you consider the highly contrasting result in those fights.
Exactly! That's the point i'm making. The reason two great fighters don't always make for a great spectacle is because they neutralise each others strong point.Quote:
Also the Hopkins-Calzaghe fight was just as much as bore as the Wright-Hopkins fight which I really liked, it showed great skill from both guys... actually both fights did. They were both a tribute to what the best in the world have to offer, and how difficult it is for a top level guy to fight another guy on his level.
If you are leauges above your opposition you will look better... In most cases. ;)
I agree Pavlik isn't in Calzaghe's league, I am just making the point that Hopkins wasn't more aggresive in that fight for the majority of it, but the comparison with Hopkins-Johnson is off, he threw a lot of punches in every round except maybe the 9th where he took a breather.
All in all, Hopkins has always been extremely hard to hit even when coming forward, he has always been a great inside fighter, and he has always had great boxing skills even when he fought Jones.