Who is greater P4P?

No doubt about it. Hopkins is too crafty and smart. If Hopkins were a welterweight he would have easily taken Pacman apart and stopped him.

 

This.


























Is bullshit.

 

I lean towards Hopkins but no one is beating anybodys ass. It's not like Bernard has had an easy time with speedy southpaws that have high workrates before...

 

Manny Pac is a great fighter but this forum is now putting him on a Superman Status. He cant lose. If he fights PBF and gets his ass taken to school, I would assume half the forum will disappear..

 

Hopkins has always struggled with handspeed, barring his debut, everyone who's beaten him has had faster hands. Even Jermain frigging Taylor managed it. As I said, I'd favour Hopkins slightly but let's not pretend Manny hasn't got the tools to give him hell

 

Which is more than can be said for Hopkins. Hopkins is staying well the fuck away from Bute, Dawson, Cloud but its Manny Pac who is running from Floyd. Yeah Ok. :: Hopkins is on Superman Status by default, everyone else has to go through a brick wall just to get on the same page.

 

I never said he's running away from PBF.

 

Fair enough

 

Gee I wonder why Hex started this thread, and why he rates Hopkins so highly ::

 

I'm a HUGE Hopkins fan and believes he deserves to be mentioned in the All time top 10, bu I think Pacquiao has to be rated higher.

Pacquiao is top 5 material.

 

damn, 100+ years of boxing and we were lucky enough to witness what? 4 of your top 10 all timers in the past 20 years?

 

Noooooooo...we'll sleep outside in the ditch

 

::::::

I can name 10 175lbrs that would have whipped the tar out of Bernard, and one that already has, yet Sly has Bernard down as a top 10 fighter OAT. :boring:

 

Well in the 100m sprint the TEN FASTEST TIMES OF ALL TIME came in the last 10 years.

Athletes are getting better...

So fuck you....

 

Sly, I love you, but you don't know anything about boxing.

 

Just in case a certain someone beat him....you can slide him in the top 5-10 along with Pacquiao...hno:

 

I think Trinidad would knock Manny into his next lifetime.

That is not a fair fight.

 

Not a chance. It would be more 1 sided than Manny against Plasterito. At least Plasterito was in Manny's face every second.

Tito would just plod around with his big floppy legs being hit whenever Manny felt like it.

 

::

 

To me, the question of who is better pound-for-pound is one independent of career accolades --- that is, who would win if they were the same size, doing the same things?

I think Pacquiao would earn a hard-fought, difficult, but reasonably clear decision. Something like 7-5, or 6-4-2. His speed would be hell on Hopkins.

 

Yeah, honestly I'm surprised that Slice for example would give Nard the edge.

IMO Floyd matches up better with Pacquiao, as does Marquez.

Speed goes a long way to nullifying Bernard. Even a very basic, average world level fighter like Taylor had a huge amount of success just because he had a speed advantage, and an unpredictable style.

It's the same reason why I think prime for prime, Slappy Joe would also beat Bernard.

Pacquiao's handspeed, footspeed, and unpredictableness would win him a clear decision over Bernard. He has the handspeed to tame Bernard, and the footwork to avoid getting grabbed, like Calzaghe did.

 

If Floyd beats Pac and then retires undefeated, he's undoubtedly top 5 material. Based on talent ALONE there and not FIVE guys in history better than him!

Roy Jones, a young Ali, a Welterweight Robinson (assuming was as good as the hype) and that's it.

 

Tracks are getting springier, suits are getting more aerodynamic, steroids are getting more effective. Weight training is also becoming more refined.

None of those things apply to boxing.

Also, in straight numerical sports you have the psychological barrier of a time/weight/distance, which falls when it's broken. It took hundreds of years for anyone to break the 4m mile but as soon as it was done it was done about 100 times in 5 years. There aren't any psychological thresholds like that in a non-numerical sport like boxing.

Boxing improved allot up until the 60s or so but I don't think there's been many significant advances since then besides the size of heavyweights.

 

Good post. I respect your argument re the psychology of numerics in track as well as the quality of suits, tracks and what not.

Disagree though.

Training techniques in boxing are getting better as each generation learns from the previous and adds to it. And it's the natural law of mankind to keep improving. Women are getting prettier, men are getting stronger and faster etc.

Jones, Hopkins, Mayweather, Pacquiao, Whitaker are collectively as good as or better than any 5 fighters pre 1990.

 

Thank You! These Pactards have lost sense of reality. I'm a huge fan of Manny Pac but there is no way he beats a 5"11 Boxer/Puncher like Tito @147 let alone @154.

 

The physical attributes boxing uses have developed on other fields though. In weight lifting results became dramatically better around 1980s, yes, because of steroids too but also because trainers knew more. Now they know exactly how to train to gain max power, explosive power, strength etc, which has not always been the case. Also it was not known in 1960s that there are different kinds of endurance: back then running was seen as vital for a fighter: now trainers know that the endurance you get from hitting the heavybag or sparring helps more in the ring (though it might not get you the hot body). Also as in many other sports, techniques change in the way that they get more simple: if a simple technique brings the same results as a difficult one, then the difficult one is useless. Thus we are seeing more clinching instead or beautiful defensive moves, more one-twos and less left hand uppercuts and so on.

I am not saying boxing is at its best ever, for example many track-and-field records have been made in 1980s too, but changes do happen in boxing too, even if they are not as dramatic as in some other sports

 

Well we've discussed this before I think and the clinching thing I agree with but I think that's something referees badly need to address. It's an evolution in spoiling and the willingness to spoil (once upon a time spoilers didn't get fights or title shots!) - i think that's the only real progression in boxing to speak of. And something that governing bodies need to make sure is combatted and infighting comes back. A whole dimension of the art of boxing has been lost (my favourite one).

BTW, olympic weight lifting has seen a huge increase in participation since the 60s and 70s globally. Huge funding programs in the eastern bloc through the 70s and 80s which have been continued in allot of countries. It's now a huge participation sport in allot of places, the middle east included now.

Just saying. I'm sure I don't have to type more or make you read more, you get me.

 

You're right that some aspects of training have improved and maybe fighters are more athletic now, but I don't think boxing technique is developing i think its only regressing. That guys like Toney & Hopkins who were among the last generation to have the kind of schooling that was common in the 60s through 80s fought on successfully through obesity and old age feels telling to me. Floyd was schooled by a guy who grew up in that environment too. Roach has a direct lineage to Futch, also.

I don't see other trainers coming through with expertise which which is moving the sport forwards technically, at all. I don't think the expertise that was forged, basically in a total furnace of numerical competition in the middle of the century, maturing in the 60s through 80s is being renewed. Sounds pessimistic, but it's just an inevitable consequence of far, far fewer people involving themselves in the sport, unfortunately. In my book anyway.

 

Mengelian sciences are not wanted at Fightbeat.com

 

Boxing is a hurt business and modern man, steroids aside, is not any more capable of brute force than any of his predecessors.