Is hopkins in his prime?

[Spicoli]

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

[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.

[LondonBB]

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.

[ICB]

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.

[LondonBB]

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).

[Trainer Monkey]

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