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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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'

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Quote:

---

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 :mad:

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Love Hopkins.Of course he is going to say he was at his absolute best after looking that great.He is one of the biggest self promoters in ring history & has perfected his over all preservation of skill's but no,he is not in his prime.And that is saying much more for him than if he actually was prime at 43 ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LondonBB

Quote:

---

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!

---

Of course he would say that he is promoting himself what do you expect him to say ? i really don't think you have seen much of a prime Bernard Hopkins. He was a beast in his prime he had alot more stamina, he would throw alot more punches. While still having his excellent well rouned skills but with added aggression.

And how has Bernard Hopkins increased his strength ? when is the last time he had a KO ? against a fighter who started at Super Featherweight ODLH, theres your answer right there. And how is it phyiscally possible to be stronger at 40+ ? unless a person was in really bad shape in there 20s, 30s, and only started working out in his olderage, and that logic don't work anyway especially for boxers who are working out all year round. And im suprised you would say that considering you claim you are a body builder.

Thirdly did you see how Bernard Hopkins was KOing his opponents, in his younger days ? he has one of the quickest Middleweight KO's in history. And also was called the Middleweight version of Mike Tyson at one point i believe. He was way stronger, fitter, etc. And the younger Bernard Hopkins would clearly beat the current Bernard Hopkins, the only thing i agree with you on is that Bernard Hopkins clearly has a better boxing brain now, but isn't that obvious ? of course any fighter would increase there knowledge after fighting for that length of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LondonBB

Quote:

---

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!

---

Of course he would say that he is promoting himself what do you expect him to say ? i really don't think you have seen much of a prime Bernard Hopkins. He was a beast in his prime he had alot more stamina, he would throw alot more punches. While still having his excellent well rouned skills but with added aggression.

And how has Bernard Hopkins increased his strength ? when is the last time he had a KO ? against a fighter who started at Super Featherweight ODLH, theres your answer right there. And how is it phyiscally possible to be stronger at 40+ ? unless a person was in really bad shape in there 20s, 30s, and only started working out in his olderage, and that logic don't work anyway especially for boxers who are working out all year round. And im suprised you would say that considering you claim you are a body builder.

Thirdly did you see how Bernard Hopkins was KOing his opponents, in his younger days ? he has one of the quickest Middleweight KO's in history. And also was called the Middleweight version of Mike Tyson at one point i believe. He was way stronger, fitter, etc. And the younger Bernard Hopkins would clearly beat the current Bernard Hopkins, the only thing i agree with you on is that Bernard Hopkins clearly has a better boxing brain now, but isn't that obvious ? of course any fighter would increase there knowledge after fighting for that length of time.

---

You dont seem to realise how strength works do you?

There are two elements, 1 motor control, 2 musculature.

In both situations a persons muscles continue to develop until they are in their 40's.

Example...look at prime bodybuilders, bodybuilders and powerlifters and olympix lifters do not reach their prime until they are late 30's. Look at andy bolton (world record deadlifter), ronnie coleman (greatest bodybuilder ever), ed coan (strength legend), bill kazmaier (strength legend), mariusz pudzianowski etc etc...

you dont seem to realise how strength is not related to stamina. If a person keeps training then they will continue to get stronger, strength peaks at around 40 odd years old and then slowly declines.

Yep thats right, im a bodybuilder, i compete here in the uk on the uk circuit. Infact i recently won the mr titan show :)

So of course i know how strength works and how one develops strength.

You wanna explain to me your credentials on how strength works?

Icb, you have some good views, im not knocking you for it, you have some decent views regarding boxing, but youve displayed a massive lack of knowledge where strength and conditioning is concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LondonBB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LondonBB

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!

---

Of course he would say that he is promoting himself what do you expect him to say ? i really don't think you have seen much of a prime Bernard Hopkins. He was a beast in his prime he had alot more stamina, he would throw alot more punches. While still having his excellent well rouned skills but with added aggression.

And how has Bernard Hopkins increased his strength ? when is the last time he had a KO ? against a fighter who started at Super Featherweight ODLH, theres your answer right there. And how is it phyiscally possible to be stronger at 40+ ? unless a person was in really bad shape in there 20s, 30s, and only started working out in his olderage, and that logic don't work anyway especially for boxers who are working out all year round. And im suprised you would say that considering you claim you are a body builder.

Thirdly did you see how Bernard Hopkins was KOing his opponents, in his younger days ? he has one of the quickest Middleweight KO's in history. And also was called the Middleweight version of Mike Tyson at one point i believe. He was way stronger, fitter, etc. And the younger Bernard Hopkins would clearly beat the current Bernard Hopkins, the only thing i agree with you on is that Bernard Hopkins clearly has a better boxing brain now, but isn't that obvious ? of course any fighter would increase there knowledge after fighting for that length of time.

---

You dont seem to realise how strength works do you?

There are two elements, 1 motor control, 2 musculature.

In both situations a persons muscles continue to develop until they are in their 40's.

Example...look at prime bodybuilders, bodybuilders and powerlifters and olympix lifters do not reach their prime until they are late 30's. Look at andy bolton (world record deadlifter), ronnie coleman (greatest bodybuilder ever), ed coan (strength legend), bill kazmaier (strength legend), mariusz pudzianowski etc etc...

you dont seem to realise how strength is not related to stamina. If a person keeps training then they will continue to get stronger, strength peaks at around 40 odd years old and then slowly declines.

Yep thats right, im a bodybuilder, i compete here in the uk on the uk circuit. Infact i recently won the mr titan show :)

So of course i know how strength works and how one develops strength.

You wanna explain to me your credentials on how strength works?

Icb, you have some good views, im not knocking you for it, you have some decent views regarding boxing, but youve displayed a massive lack of knowledge where strength and conditioning is concerned.

---

I understand what your saying but i don't see how this has anything to do with boxing. Especially Bernard Hopkins who hasn't had a KO in years, where as in his younger days he was KOing just about everyone. Which tells us he was stronger in his younger days plus body builder's take steroids which is a big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LondonBB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Of course he would say that he is promoting himself what do you expect him to say ? i really don't think you have seen much of a prime Bernard Hopkins. He was a beast in his prime he had alot more stamina, he would throw alot more punches. While still having his excellent well rouned skills but with added aggression.

And how has Bernard Hopkins increased his strength ? when is the last time he had a KO ? against a fighter who started at Super Featherweight ODLH, theres your answer right there. And how is it phyiscally possible to be stronger at 40+ ? unless a person was in really bad shape in there 20s, 30s, and only started working out in his olderage, and that logic don't work anyway especially for boxers who are working out all year round. And im suprised you would say that considering you claim you are a body builder.

Thirdly did you see how Bernard Hopkins was KOing his opponents, in his younger days ? he has one of the quickest Middleweight KO's in history. And also was called the Middleweight version of Mike Tyson at one point i believe. He was way stronger, fitter, etc. And the younger Bernard Hopkins would clearly beat the current Bernard Hopkins, the only thing i agree with you on is that Bernard Hopkins clearly has a better boxing brain now, but isn't that obvious ? of course any fighter would increase there knowledge after fighting for that length of time.

---

You dont seem to realise how strength works do you?

There are two elements, 1 motor control, 2 musculature.

In both situations a persons muscles continue to develop until they are in their 40's.

Example...look at prime bodybuilders, bodybuilders and powerlifters and olympix lifters do not reach their prime until they are late 30's. Look at andy bolton (world record deadlifter), ronnie coleman (greatest bodybuilder ever), ed coan (strength legend), bill kazmaier (strength legend), mariusz pudzianowski etc etc...

you dont seem to realise how strength is not related to stamina. If a person keeps training then they will continue to get stronger, strength peaks at around 40 odd years old and then slowly declines.

Yep thats right, im a bodybuilder, i compete here in the uk on the uk circuit. Infact i recently won the mr titan show :)

So of course i know how strength works and how one develops strength.

You wanna explain to me your credentials on how strength works?

Icb, you have some good views, im not knocking you for it, you have some decent views regarding boxing, but youve displayed a massive lack of knowledge where strength and conditioning is concerned.

---

I understand what your saying but i don't see how this has anything to do with boxing. Especially Bernard Hopkins who hasn't had a KO in years, where as in his younger days he was KOing just about everyone. Which tells us he was stronger in his younger days plus body builder's take steroids which is a big difference.

---

Bro, everyone takes performance enhancing drugs, trust me;)

Yes, you have a point, a good point, nard's ko rate was higher when he was younger. Probably to do with his speed/mentality and aggression if im honest. His actual physical strength is probably at his strongest (infact no, was probably at his strongest against tarver).

Most quality boxers lift weights, pro boxers. Someone of the athletic calibre of hopkins will undoubtably lift weights. Now it wont be lifting weights in a bodybuilding sense, it will be strength and condition...they are two different types of training, one is for hypertrophy and the either is for functional strength with regards to hopkins sport (boxing).

Now considering nard will have pretty much been training (with the odd month off here and there or maybe a few months off due to injury etc at some point in his career) for 20 or so years solid, he will have also improved his strength and conditioning in that time...strength and conditioning doesnt fade in the same way that stamina does.

And when we look at hopkins condition that he enters fights and his maticulous care and preperation for each fight, the guy obviously takes his strength and conditioning very seriously.

His strength has increased but the ko ratio has not:

1. not as fast
2. more content to box to victory rather than finish it early
3. less aggressive

I think these are the main reasons for less ko's.

Lets take the pavlik fight last week, i think if nard had applied the pressure then he couldve taken kelly to the canvas. Infact if he had really come out hard and wanted to (ie...if it was needed) then we wouldve seen kelly hit canvas in my opinion...the skill and power was there...but he knew hed won and there was no need to risk anything (afterall kelly is a puncher and if hopkins had really opened up and looked for the ko, kelly mightve caught him...hopkins isnt that silly).

Quote:

---

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.

---

At frist when I saw the title of the thread I was going to jump on him too.
But
He makes an interesting case to think about.
Hopkins now is the greatest master of making you pay for your own mistakes the sport might have ever seen.
If you could put that brain in to a 30 year olds body,you could rule the world