1993 Bernard Hopkins vs. 1971 Emile Griffith

[KOTF]

Who would've won?

[PowerPuncher]

Griffith was past it by then as a 33yo. Hopkins would overwhelm him with pressure a he was far more aggressive then and would throw combinations to the head and body. He would have massive advantages in reach and height, aswell as being the stronger man, Griffiths trickery would keep him in it, but he may well fade late. Hopkins late KO or widish UD

[McGrain]

Hopkins would win an annoyingly close decision in an ugly, dull fight.

Most boxing fans would score it wider than the judges.

[itrymariti]

Hopkins wasn't an "ugly, dull" fighter in 1993.

[McGrain]

Do you think Tyson was a dull, ugly fighter in 1987?

[itrymariti]

Well that's fine then, but what's Griffith going to do to make it ugly?

[McGrain]

What he did to make many of his other fights ugly.

[itrymariti]

Not against the stronger man who wants to work relentlessly inside. That also seems quite unkind to Emile relative to others around the time (esp. Monzon).

[McGrain]

Not against the stronger man who wants to work relentlessly inside.


Like Dick Tiger for example?

[itrymariti]

Like Dick Tiger for example?

When he was practically on his deathbed?

Hopkins was swarming all over opponents, cutting off the ring effortlessly and bulling inside, throwing up to 100 punches a round against durable sorts. I'm not saying he'd match that output against an elite opponent - obviously, he froze up when he fought Jones - but I don't see Griffith slowing him down on the inside, not by any means.

[McGrain]

When he was practically on his deathbed?.


No, in 1966.

I've sometimes hinted that cancer might have been working on tiger more than two years later when he matched Foster, but there is absolutley not proof even of that. He was hardly on his death-bed a few months before one of his career defining wins, over 15 round against reigning champion Jose Torres.