Battle of the graybeards (literally). Fight happens using versions both in their 40's, at light heavyweight. Who wins?
Moore quite comfortably in my opinion... I could see Hops having some early success with the jab and with good use of angles, but ultimately they will trade more and more as the fight goes on and the power advantage is enormous in Moore's favour... furthermore, what dirty tricks does Hopkins know that Archie Moore doesn't?
Depends on if this is the Hopkins that beat Tarver or the one that drew with Pascal. Hops punch resistance isn't what it used to be.
I dont think it makes that big a difference if it is the Tarver edition... Moore is still the heaviest puncher he'd have ever been in there with... he has to be careful
I don't know if Moore is necessarily better P4P but at this weight class Hopkins is out of his prime and past his best weight class.. I'll take Moore UD.
That way you make it impossible to anyone who fought after 60s to be better than old-timers since number of fights has dropped dramatically
1: The idea that Moore beat these absolutely amazing fighters while Hopkins fought these "modern bums"...ridiculous. 2: The idea that Hopkins is somehow at a huge disadvantage because according to some, "Moore is the best fighter he's ever faced(which I don't even agree to begin with), is equally ridiculous. Moore lost to the three best fighters he's ever faced, unlike Hopkins. 3: Really good style match up for Hopkins, a shorter slugger who was known to be outboxed. I don't see Hopkins being hurt in this fight, especially if it is the Hopkins that fought Pavlik/Tarver. Wins a Hopkins type decision.
I'm talking about the quality of their opposition, not the total bouts. I get a good laugh out of people who rip all day on Joe Calzaghe's competition, for instance, whilst lauding Hopkins' long reign as MW champ over some atrocious opposition.
I don't see anything that's funny, except your odd obsession with fighters you know nothing about. In that case, it is hilarious.
No surprises here...gimme Hopkins and easily. Moore is made for Bernard...as great a fighter Moore was.
What the fuck is your problem? Everyone else here can disagree with each other without being screamingly obnoxious.
Answering a post with. :: And the usual completely unspecific, unanalytic response of the people who swear by fighters who had retired before they were even born. Is pretty screamingly obnoxious, as well as obnoxiously pretentious.
Exactly. What you fail to realize is that Hopkins' birthday was far, far beyond that of Moore's. Which is the ultimate wild card in this fight, seeing as everyone post-Duran-Hagler-Hearns is utter garbage. Hell, the 12th best fighter from the 40s, Kid Gavilan a solid, decent guy who again, lost to the best fighter he faced beats the best fighter to fight in the last 20 years too. Also, they fought over a hundred times. That alone makes this a grotesque beating.
Moore destroys Hopkins. Moore was the sort of guy who knew his craft. Marciano could get to him with mind-numbing power and persistence and aggression, Hopkins is a former MW who would just get wiped out. Its not even close. 44 year-old Archie Moore vs 44 year-old Bernard........Bernard goes to Hospital.
Teddy Yarosz and Ezzard Charles, who are both no bigger than Hopkins also beat Moore. But okay. Let's just subscribe to the idea that it takes some mammoth HW puncher to beat him.
Beyond that, there isn't a LHW to ever walk the face of the earth that "Sends Hopkins to the hospital" Retarded statement.
As per the trend, you are making your mind up before you read anyone's posts. You're just responding to my name on a post. The proof is right there. Had you read my post, you'd have understood (or would you?) I was speaking specifically to Hopkins' MW title reign. You've got one name there from that period.
