So in what age period was Bernard Hopkins in his prime?

Was he in his prime between the age of 33 and 38? Or did he extend his prime untill the age of 40? Or was he much younger in his prime?

 

he was very green up until about '95

 

He was green every fight until the Jones fight and in his prime every fight afterward.

 

sarcasm?

 

Bouie Fisher, Hopkins old trainer said he put it all together 4 years after the Jones fight. So around '99 when he had the Echols fights his prime started.

 

In 99, Hops would have been stopped by Jones. Thanks Bouie!:cheer:

 

Like Lennox Lewis, Hopkins "prime" is unlike most. His physical prime did not match his technical/mental prime.

 

I think it's a little different with Lewis, because he had an intervening factor in the middle of his career when he changed trainers and brought Steward in.

There was a clear, definable shift in his career from that point on.

 

Likewise, I think the wrinkles that Hopkins added later on in his career made him a more well-rounded, hard to beat fighter than the younger one.

 

I'd say B-Hop's true prime was 97-02.

 

He was with Bouie Fisher since the late 80's and early 90's, so if the suggestion is that he didn't reach his prime until the late 90's - which bypasses some very quality performances by him - what's the actual reasoning other than a vague notion of "wrinkles".

Steward immediately came in and improved Lewis' balance. It was noticeable very early on in their partnership. He also came back from the knockout to McCall bigger and much stronger. There are clear things you can point to, which makes the McCall knockout a clearly distinguished dividing line in his career.

 

Im not disagreeing that Lewis has an obvious date to stamp his change from old Lennox to new Lennox. Im not going to argue that. You're wasting time picking on semantic issues. Im not saying it was a trainer that changed Hopkins, only that he was clearly a more evolved fighter as he got older...when he no longer had youth on his side.

You disagree with that? Fine. I don't care. It's not worth debating.

 

Maybe, 31 to about 38?

The 3rd Robert Allen fight, at age 39, was when I first saw his decline in workrate and how he'd do more things in spots rather than consistently, which is a sign of age.

Hopkins adapted VERY well to his advanced age.

I'd say Lewis's overall prime was similar, age 30 to about 36, give or take a year.

 

I agree with the point Hopkins has gotten over time.

But I don't know how anybody goes about legitimately stating it didn't begin til this fight or that fight.

It's easy to do that with Lennox.

 

Where did I say there was a definite point in time? My only point was that LIKE LEWIS their physical prime didn't match their technical/skill prime. I didn't give a reason for any of that, just that they don't fit y0ur typical "xxxx fighter was prime here" blueprint, because they blur the definition of what "prime" actually is.

 

I don't know, I tend to think by '96 or '97 he was pretty close to putting it together.

Hopkins is such a physical freak that he's extended his prime, near-prime and post-prime longer than most boxers could even attempt to.

 

Nah...

It's just that the younger Hopkins was UNDERRATED..on account of people remembering him lose to a young Roy Jones.

Hopkins in his physical prime during his reign up until just before Echols was a much better fighter than even the one who beat Trinidad.

It's not that Hopkins got better with age...it's that only with age were his talents appreciated.

 

And as for the Lennox Lewis comparison...

People think they are smart to say that Lennox got better after Stewart. I only agree in part. It's similar to how people say that Foreman in his 40s was a better fighter than the Foreman in his 20s.

It's nonsense.

I'd much rather fight the older Foreman than the younger one..and similarly (but obviously not to the same extent)..those of us who appreciated Lennox Lewis' talents before he became mainstream in America (American's used to severly underrate Lennox back in the day simply because they wanted to shine all the glory on Riddick Bowe)..remember the incredible talent he displayed in dispatching the likes of Mason, Biggs, Weaver and Williams...and were not AT ALL SURPRISED that he knocked out Razor Ruddock who the American press were touting as the most dangerous heavyweight in the world.

It's just that Americans (and Australians obviously) were late in joining the Lewis bandwagon and only joined it when he slowed a step and was guided to a few high profile wins by emanuel stewart.

 

Americans did love to hate Lennox.

He got some respect after Ruddock but that began to evaporate even as early as the Tucker fight.

He didn't really get that kind of respect back until he fought Holyfield...or at least until he knocked out Golota. That was the fight that I think made some people take a second look at him.

I always think back to the great war hero Pat Putnam, who penned an article titled "The champ who fights chumps"...which was written before he'd even fought Ruddock.::

Lewis was always a great right handed puncher, but I thought his jab got better after his first title run....and after he joined Steward, and added weight, he did have better balance, he became steadier...not just on his feet, but I think mentally. He fought more patiently, more under control.

 

I think the younger Bernard Hopkins was more physically a beast, but he relied on some of that strength to win. I started to see Hopkins evolve into the genius he is in the ring around the Glen Johnson fight and he finally put it all together for the second Robert Allan fight. So I agree with Bouie, it was around 99 when Hopkins reached the peak of his powers.

I believe Hopkins and Roy faced each other when they weren't in their primes. Both in their prime would have been another interesting matchup with Hopkins stinking out the join in a close decision win.

Cupey

 

Yeah but you can say the same for Foreman in his second title reign: better balance, steadier, mentally, more patient and more under control...blah blah....

but who cares?

Foreman was OBVIOUSLY more formidable in his 20s when knocking out the likes of Norton and Frazier than he was struggling with Alex Stewart, Briggs and the like.

Lennox was much better pre-McCall than he was post mcCall. he was faster, more athletic..and would have blown away guys like Morrison, Briggs without even blinking.

 

Yeah, he probably beats either of them without blinking in any kind of condition. But what do wins against "guys like Morrison, Briggs" get you?

With this Foreman talk you make it sound like Lewis went away from the sport for a decade, and then had about two decades between his first and second title reigns.

I don't even think he'd reached 30 when he was coming back from the McCall knockout. Not all heavyweights done maturing, physically or mentally, in their 20's and I certainly don't think Lewis was.

 

He indeed has those infamous Mike Tyson sort of primes,..

Hopkins - Jermaine Taylor I - Way past prime
Hopkins - Jermaine Taylor II - Way past prime
Hopkins - Tarver - Prime
Hopkins - Winky - Prime
Hopkins - Calzaghe - Way past prime
Hopkins - Pavlik - Prime

 

bernard looked like he was reluctant to get hit after the echols rematch. even when he dominated keith holmes, he fought extremely dirty and less fluid with his punches. he didn't give holmes a chance to even throw a punch with all that clinching and nearly got disqualified.

i think the hopkins from 97 would've beaten trininad up badly rather than just outboxing him.

 

I think there could have even been earlier evidence of cowardice when he faked an injury off a mere brush from little Mills Lane, while he was seriously hurt at the time by a scrub?..I think it was Rock Allen.

 

rock allen is nazim richardson's son.

but yea, robert allen did give him some problems in their first encounter.

whether that was an evidence of cowardice or not, he beat the fuck outta allen in the rematch.

he sure looked like a coward when he took a flush shot to the chin from echols' in the first round of their first fight, didnt he? :shit:

how about when echols body slammed him in the rematch and he could've opted to retire on his stool and win via DQ, but continued and won the fight by TKO?

 

Oh Joon in consistent with Hopkins behaviour during his career when it comes to faking injuries or low blows in an attempt to escape from concurrent fights,.....Hopkins surely would have quit claiming injury again, if things weren't going his way with Echols the scrub..

 

what's consistent is your downright hatred for one of the best fighters ever to step in the ring.

 

Yep, Hopkins prime is what ever fits your argument at the current time.

 

Hopkins' prime is now. The Tarver fight, Calzaghe, Pavlik. His technical and mental prowess are what makes him great now, not his athletic ability (although he is still in remarkable shape for his age).

I think it is a very close call between now and maybe 97-99 BHop since at that time he was physically more durable as well as still having a lot of ring smarts, but I believe the Hopkins of today would beat the Hopkins of 1999 in a close, crappy decision fight.