Hopkins WOULDN'T Be Dumb Enough to GIVE AWAY the 1st 4 Rounds & the Work Put In for 2 1/2 Minutes would PREVENT Leonard from Stealing Rounds w/30 Second Flurries...Leonard Has Some Moments & his SPEED Makes Hopkins Look AWKWARD a Time or 2, but BHop Wins a Fairly Comfortable UD...
01 Hopkins was a lot better than the faded Hagler of 87. Having said that, even that diminished version of Leonard was better than ANY version of Tito, and he'd be a difficult fight for Hopkins due to his handspeed, and movement. Hopkins would still win in the end though. Turning up the heat on Ray more and more as the fight wears on. But yeah, Leonard would have his moments and win rounds.
The Version of Bernard that BEAT Tito Would've NEVER Lost a Decision to Jermain Taylor, in REED's Opinion... REED:shadow:
hopkins was really weakening himself to make 160 by the time he fought taylor and he still shouldve won the rematch.
Taylor was really awful, though... Those fights are a black mark on his record, IMO, regardless of whether he was having weight issues or not
I tend to agree... which just further underlines how overrated Hopkins is... Terrific fighter, I'd certainly concede a top ten middleweight, but I've seen people call him a top 5 without even giving it a second's thought, there's even been some who have had him number ONE ... There'e just no way that holds up to objective scrutiny, IMO... His challengers were mostly abysmal and he lost his title to an extremely mediocre fighter It sounds harsher than it is, but the criteria for being a top 5 middleweight (or, fucking number 1) should be harsh criteria
A Good Friend of REED's, a 70+ Year Old Local Boxing Trainer, Says BHop is THE Most Overrated BLACK Fighter of All Times::... Bernard's "Greatness" is SUBTLE...EVENTUAL...LONGEVITY is 1 of his Stronger Suits, Perhaps his LEGACY Even...No, the Middleweight Division WASN'T Great in his Era, But Bernard Ducked NO ONE, Fought ANYBODY that was Willing and Able & RULED for a Decade, Bro... He Slapped Around 2 of the Premier Welters of his Era, when they Moved Up, then Whipped the Lineal Light Heavy Champ when he Finally Moved Up... The Taylor Losses were a Case of STYLES...Bernard's ALWAYS Struggled Somewhat w/SPEEDIER Fighters...Roy of Course, but Even a More Athletic Guy like Robert Allen, Gave Bernard Problems in their 1st Bout...If NATHAN Else, Jermain Taylor had Pretty Good Handspeed & he was COMBATIVE...Plus he had a Herky Jerky Manner of Fighting, Which Took Bernard Rounds to Figure Out... Also, BHop was Already 40 by Then...REED Doesn't Think ANY Past or Present Middleweight Great has an EASY Time w/Jermain Taylor, in Their 40's... REED:hammert:
I hear you, but I don't find the age thing compelling, really Archie Moore was a better fighter at 43 than Ezzard Charles was at 43, but when they were both in their physical primes, Charles was better When fighters are rated all-time, the biggest criteria is their "prime" years, anything else is secondary stuff, a little bit of gravy
Bhop's Plate has A LOT Of Gravy on It Though::... Tarver, Pavlik, Pascal, Cloud, the Wink...Those are Nice Names to Have on a Post-Prime Resume... REED:hammert:
