devise a strategy to defeat Bernard Hopkins

[red cobra]

All props to Bernard Hopkins for his brilliant and age-defying victory over Kelly Pavlik! Now, having said that, remember Pavlik, at least in my opinion, was never a threat to beat Hopkins, with that guileless, straight ahead style of his. Guys like Jones, Taylor and Calzaghe, with skills, angles and jab and move techniques have shown they have the right ideas in coping with Bernard. A simplistic, walk-in type of slugger type will be Hopkin's meat and potatoes as we all know, so let's see what you guys would devise, strategywise if you were preparing your own fighter for challenging Hopkins. In my opinion, a classic jab and move stylist like a Willie Pastrano, with a purist's devotion to remaining on task, with a fanatical, almost religious dedication to avoid punishment like Pastano, and to use another stylistic example, Tommy Loughran. Pastrano, when "on" and in shape, like against Harold Johnson, had the required discipline to turn the tables on Johnson and refuse to lead, thus making Harold have to take the uncomfortable role of aggressor and do the leading in their 1963 15 rounder. This is the sort of strategy, even if it stinks out the crowd, that it would take IMO to outfox Bernard Hopkins, and not fall prey to lapsing and fighting the sort of fight that plays into Bernard's hands.

[dpw417]

All props to Bernard Hopkins for his brilliant and age-defying victory over Kelly Pavlik! Now, having said that, remember Pavlik, at least in my opinion, was never a threat to beat Hopkins, with that guileless, straight ahead style of his. Guys like Jones, Taylor and Calzaghe, with skills, angles and jab and move techniques have shown they have the right ideas in coping with Bernard. A simplistic, walk-in type of slugger type will be Hopkin's meat and potatoes as we all know, so let's see what you guys would devise, strategywise if you were preparing your own fighter for challenging Hopkins. In my opinion, a classic jab and move stylist like a Willie Pastrano, with a purist's devotion to remaining on task, with a fanatical, almost religious dedication to avoid punishment like Pastano, and to use another stylistic example, Tommy Loughran. Pastrano, when "on" and in shape, like against Harold Johnson, had the required discipline to turn the tables on Johnson and refuse to lead, thus making Harold have to take the uncomfortable role of aggressor and do the leading in their 1963 15 rounder. This is the sort of strategy, even if it stinks out the crowd, that it would take IMO to outfox Bernard Hopkins, and not fall prey to lapsing and fighting the sort of fight that plays into Bernard's hands.
Interesting question Red...and I believe you just answered it for us. Not just any fighter could pull it off, but an excellent mover with a great left jab IMO gives Hopkins the hardest fight... mobility is the key.

[Bummy Davis]

Hopkins can be beaten, speed and a decent amont of power. I thought Calzage beat him close but clearly.....

[red cobra]

Interesting question Red...and I believe you just answered it for us. Not just any fighter could pull it off, but an excellent mover with a great left jab IMO gives Hopkins the hardest fight... mobility is the key.
Yeah, that's it...speed and mobility. The guys who have beaten Hopkins in recent years have shown it, but definetly not Pavlik. I didn't get too excited about Pavlik's chances from the get-go, like so many of his fans. A sraight ahead plodder like that, with no angles or cleverness. Another thought, would a swarmer, a high energy type of swarmer have a chance against Hopkins, in your opinion?

[McGrain]

A swarmer would tend to lose, I think. He'd get timed timed timed on the way in, over and over again. It could be argued that a swarmer might win rounds on workrate and aggression, but judges seem to prefer clean hard punches these days - hard to see any swarmer scoring blows on Hopkins better than the ones he'd be giving back.

A traditional Walker performance would be very, very interesting to see stacked agains Hopkins, but I pick Bernard.

[PowerPuncher]

Punch him to the face and body more times than he punches you

[Sweet Pea]

Hopkins seems to struggle more against the athletes.

[Sweet Pea]

Sort of like Sumbu Kalambay?:good

[r_9-Ronaldo]

basically copy exactly what dlh did for the first 6rounds, flurrys again and again and again, in and out with speed and power is the way to beat b-hop

[JohnThomas1]

Take a gun into the ring

;)

[Loewe]

An interesting thing is that basically a fighter with the same abilities - like mentioned: jab, fast feet and hand and a bit of power - would trouble both Hopkins versions either the younger, more athletic, more powerful and faster stalker version and the older, more experienced, craftier counterpuncher verstion.

The thing is that you need these abilities but at a level that rarely occurres.

[JohnThomas1]

An interesting thing is that basically a fighter with the same abilities - like mentioned: jab, fast feet and hand and a bit of power - would trouble both Hopkins versions either the younger, more athletic, more powerful and faster stalker version and the older, more experienced, craftier counterpuncher verstion.


Tell me what fighter this skillset wouldn't trouble?

[Loewe]

Tell me what fighter this skillset wouldn't trouble?

No mas! :D

[JohnThomas1]

No mas! :D

:rofl

:good

;)

[Robbi]

Hopkins struggles with a near mirror image of himself. You definitely need lateral movement and speed combined with a solid jab. Hopkins also doesn't like to lead off and be forced to become the aggressor over sustained periods of a fight. I'm talking a prime Hopkins. Not the aggressive one of the early-mid 90's.

Chad Dawson is Hopkins' worst nightmare. I'll make a prediction now if they ever meet. Dawson W12. I'd be shocked if Hopkins pulled that one off.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Just hire Enzo Calzaghe.


That's if you can all get your mouths off Hopkins' cock for enough time to actually speak to Enzo about the plan. :yep

[Loewe]

Just hire Enzo Calzaghe.


That's if you can all get your mouths off Hopkins' cock for enough time to actually speak to Enzo about the plan. :yep

He couldn´t even give his own son enough advise to beat Hopkins :tong

[KenMcDee]

The words for today are "Silly Catchweight Fights...for aging boxers."
For example, If Bernard Hopkins fights Kelly Pavlik at Kelly's middleweight belt level, and beats him, then people can provide all the accolades to Hopkins. Right now with these catchweight fights its all about the money and proves little. Boxing is becoming more like wrestling with these silly fights, e.g., Pacman vs De La Hoya. Oh, Hopkins TKO's De Lay Hoya...does that make De La Hoya one dimensional ?
BHop and Pavlik proved nothing. Pavlik still has the middleweight belt. And, a nice fat paycheck. It's all showmanship, snake oil and mirrors. Let BHop fight Kelly P at the middleweight level for the championship. In fact, let
BHop fight any champion at the respective weight class for all the marbles, then when he becomes a champion again we can all say how great he is. These catchweight fights just provide aging fighters like BHop with a few more pay days. They are basically exhibition fights with no meaning, no title belt on the line, and have no impact on historical greatness.
I don't recall if Ali, Marciano, L. Lewis,
Tony Zale, R. Graziano, Sugar Ray, fought at these catchweight fights for non-title belts. Maybe they did. But, it seems boxing has changed and these fights are more or less a day at the gym for these professionals who can easily pull the wool over your eyes.
If I was a 26 year old middleweight champion (with many more fights on the horizon) and I was offered 3 million to fight a 43 year old and my belt was not on the line, hell yeah--I'll take the money.

Just my opinion.
KMcDee:hat

[My dinner with Conteh]

He did. Your opinion means shit. :hi:

[JohnThomas1]

Just hire Enzo Calzaghe.


That's if you can all get your mouths off Hopkins' cock for enough time to actually speak to Enzo about the plan. :yep

The criteria is PEAK Hopkins not old faded Hop that run Calz close

:D

[JohnThomas1]

The words for today are "Silly Catchweight Fights...for aging boxers."
For example, If Bernard Hopkins fights Kelly Pavlik at Kelly's middleweight belt level, and beats him, then people can provide all the accolades to Hopkins. Right now with these catchweight fights its all about the money and proves little. Boxing is becoming more like wrestling with these silly fights, e.g., Pacman vs De La Hoya. Oh, Hopkins TKO's De Lay Hoya...does that make De La Hoya one dimensional ?
BHop and Pavlik proved nothing. Pavlik still has the middleweight belt. And, a nice fat paycheck. It's all showmanship, snake oil and mirrors. Let BHop fight Kelly P at the middleweight level for the championship. In fact, let
BHop fight any champion at the respective weight class for all the marbles, then when he becomes a champion again we can all say how great he is. These catchweight fights just provide aging fighters like BHop with a few more pay days. They are basically exhibition fights with no meaning, no title belt on the line, and have no impact on historical greatness.
I don't recall if Ali, Marciano, L. Lewis,
Tony Zale, R. Graziano, Sugar Ray, fought at these catchweight fights for non-title belts. Maybe they did. But, it seems boxing has changed and these fights are more or less a day at the gym for these professionals who can easily pull the wool over your eyes.
If I was a 26 year old middleweight champion (with many more fights on the horizon) and I was offered 3 million to fight a 43 year old and my belt was not on the line, hell yeah--I'll take the money.

Just my opinion.
KMcDee:hat

Please climb back under the rock you just emerged from.

[My dinner with Conteh]

The criteria is PEAK Hopkins not old faded Hop that run Calz close

:D



Oh, ok. Ask Roy Jones then. :good

[Loewe]

He did. Your opinion means shit. :hi:

Well, to me it means everything :lol:

[Loewe]

Oh, ok. Ask Roy Jones then. :good

Oh, so Jones beat a peak Hopkins now :rofl

[My dinner with Conteh]

Well, to me it means everything :lol:


People like you and Powerpuncher score fights before they see them. I can even fill his Jones-Calzaghe card for him now if he wants. We know how it's going to read anyway.

[JohnThomas1]

Oh, ok. Ask Roy Jones then. :good

P-E-A-K!!!!!!!

If you're claiming Hopkins was peak (yes) for Jones we all need to move on

:bbb

Or YOU do

:D

[JohnThomas1]

People like you and Powerpuncher score fights before they see them. I can even fill his Jones-Calzaghe card for him now if he wants. We know how it's going to read anyway.

IF it goes the distance Dinner!

[My dinner with Conteh]

Oh, so Jones beat a peak Hopkins now :rofl


Well he improved as his nemesis had finally jumped ship, so he could get on with beating far lesser lights (and by 'lesser'' I mean 'shite'). When rematch talk came about in 2001 the consensus still picked Jones to win, even Hopkins pole smokers felt that it was 50/50 (which translates as they thought a Jones repeat victory was probable).

[Loewe]

People like you and Powerpuncher score fights before they see them. I can even fill his Jones-Calzaghe card for him now if he wants. We know how it's going to read anyway.
Oh really?

[My dinner with Conteh]

P-E-A-K!!!!!!!

If you're claiming Hopkins was peak (yes) for Jones we all need to move on

:bbb

Or YOU do

:D



Ha ha, even you thought Hopkins-Jones around 2001/02 would probably be won by Jones. Suffering some memory loss it seems. :hi:

[Loewe]

Well he improved as his nemesis had finally jumped ship, so he could get on with beating far lesser lights (and by 'lesser'' I mean 'shite'). When rematch talk came about in 2001 the consensus still picked Jones to win, even Hopkins pole smokers felt that it was 50/50 (which translates as they thought a Jones repeat victory was probable).

The consensus is not in the ring fighting.

[JohnThomas1]

When rematch talk came about in 2001 the consensus still picked Jones to win, even Hopkins pole smokers felt that it was 50/50 (which translates as they thought a Jones repeat victory was probable).

99-100 picked Tyson over Douglas too, as well as 4-5 over Holy at least. Last time i looked picks didn't determine fights

:D

[My dinner with Conteh]

Oh really?


Yes. Jones 116-113. PP card will read- mark my words. :good

[My dinner with Conteh]

99-100 picked Tyson over Douglas too, as well as 4-5 over Holy at least. Last time i looked picks didn't determine fights

:D


Terrible answer. :huh

[JohnThomas1]

Ha ha, even you thought Hopkins-Jones around 2001/02 would probably be won by Jones. Suffering some memory loss it seems. :hi:

I would have said i'd still favour Jones. Narrowly.

I also favoured him over Tarver 2 and Johnson if you get the jist ;)

[Robbi]

Anyone here like Hopkins' chances against Dawson? I don't. I don't give him much of a chance based on the styles coming together. Hopkins would have to knock him out. I just don't see him taking enough rounds of Dawson, who has all the tools mentioned on this thread to beat Hopkins. Athleticism, blazing speed, solid jab, decent workrate, and youth in his locker.

[My dinner with Conteh]

The consensus is not in the ring fighting.


Well, the only proof we have then was when they actually met in the ring- a landslide. :lol:

[My dinner with Conteh]

I would have said i'd still favour Jones. Narrowly.

I also favoured him over Tarver 2 and Johnson if you get the jist ;)


Again, awful answer. We're talking a 'big fight' not an upset, it's a totally different ballgame. :huh

[JohnThomas1]

Terrible answer. :huh

Not at all. Until the war is actually waged picks are just that, picks!

Last time i looked you picked Joppy over Tito, right?

[JohnThomas1]

Again, awful answer. We're talking a 'big fight' not an upset, it's a totally different ballgame. :huh

That's a terrible attempt at a comeback. Twice now. Hopkins would have been far shorter odds vs Jones than Johnson and Tarver. I mean, come on.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Not at all. Until the war is actually waged picks are just that, picks!

Last time i looked you picked Joppy over Tito, right?


My dinner's ready , before I go: I'm not talking about getting it right, i'm talking about when two fighters on the same level meet in a huge fight and we pick who we think is best. This is totally separate to Douglas beating Tyson etc.


Surely you can grasp this concept? :huh

[McGrain]

:pop

[McGrain]

My dinner's ready

:(

[My dinner with Conteh]

That's a terrible attempt at a comeback. Twice now. Hopkins would have been far shorter odds vs Jones than Johnson and Tarver. I mean, come on.


Can you not understand the point? For crying out loud, it's not about getting it right (we get some, we don't others), it's about who you thought would win- and why, i.e. because you thought they were better. :yikes

I now have to eat.

[JohnThomas1]

My dinner's ready , before I go: I'm not talking about getting it right, i'm talking about when two fighters on the same level meet in a huge fight and we pick who we think is best. This is totally separate to Douglas beating Tyson etc.


Surely you can grasp this concept? :huh

So you don't grasp that if the majority is oft wrong with big odds they might also be wrong with tight ones? Ali flogs Liston and Foreman at about 4's. Hopkins just flogged the fukk out of Pavlik at 4-1! He would have been shorter than that in the Jones rematch, let's get that straight regardless of Jones winning the first. This is because the bookies, whose livelihood depends on it, have to retain some degree of semblance and balance.

I'm not talking about getting it right, i'm talking about when two fighters on the same level meet in a huge fight and we pick who we think is best.

Did you just candidly admit Jones and Hopkins are on the same level???

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Robbi
Anyone here like Hopkins' chances against Dawson? I don't. I don't give him much of a chance based on the styles coming together. Hopkins would have to knock him out. I just don't see him taking enough rounds of Dawson, who has all the tools mentioned on this thread to beat Hopkins. Athleticism, blazing speed, solid jab, decent workrate, and youth in his locker.
I agree, he has everything that has in the past troubled Hopkins and is a naturally bigger man to boot.

However, his chin has shown to be some kind of weakness (still not enough to determine how badly if at all), and he does have holes in his defense and struggled a bit on the inside against Johnson. I also didn't like how he took full rounds off against Tarver.

Hopkins could pull it out, but I would not expect it at all.

Because of these problems and Dawson's not yet Big PPV level name, I highly doubt that Bernard will choose to make one of his final fights against Chad.

[JohnThomas1]

Can you not understand the point? For crying out loud, it's not about getting it right (we get some, we don't others), it's about who you thought would win- and why, i.e. because you thought they were better. :yikes

I now have to eat.

Not better, stylistically well suited.

Yet i NEVER EVER gave up the chance that Hopkins could win. Roy has that potentially suspect chin ya know.

I mean lets get shallow, Hopkins flogged the cunt out of the guy that flogged the cunt out of still champion Jones, no? Oh, and the next guy that flogged the cunt out of Jones. The haters write this off as a shitty Johnson but the plain fact is Johnson was 32-0. His balls didn't suddenly drop.

Yes i make Jones a 7-5 fave over Hopkins peak for peak. 7-5 faves get whupped every week, especially vs Hopkins

;)

[Loewe]

Well, the only proof we have then was when they actually met in the ring- a landslide. :lol:

When one was 1 year from his career best performance while the other man was 8 year remove from it. Should say you something.

[Robbi]

JT. You said on another thread that Hopkins was "WAY past his best against Taylor". I disagree, and the the use of the word "WAY" more so. IMO the style clash and Taylor's approach meant that Hopkins lost both fights, rather than Hopkins' dramatic decline over the two fights. If you don't mind me asking. When in your opinion was Hopkins' prime? It's not a two part awnser I'm looking for. Physical prime being seperated from his normal prime.

Just his prime when he was at his absolute peak and his effectiveness and performances were at their best.

[JohnThomas1]

JT. You said on another thread that Hopkins was "WAY past his best against Taylor". I disagree, and the the use of the word "WAY" more so. IMO the style clash and Taylor's approach meant that Hopkins lost both fights, rather than Hopkins' dramatic decline over the two fights.

Lets cut to the chase.

Do you think the Hopkins that beat Tito would have lost or/and drawn to Taylor?

[Robbi]

Lets cut to the chase.

Do you think the Hopkins that beat Tito would have lost or/and drawn to Taylor?

Awnser my question.

[McGrain]

:pop

[Robbi]

And my question can be awnsered straight to the point. Like, eg; 1980-1984.

[El Puma]

:pop :pop I love the Classic forum.

[the cobra]

To add my opinion on Hopkins prime, I see it as from about '97 to 2003. I think his overall best performances were in this area, and afterwards he started to clinch much more and throw fewer combinations for the most part. I was not as impressed by his showings against De La Hoya, Allen 3, Eastman, Taylor, Wright, Tarver, etc after 2003 as I was with his performances against Trinidad, Johnson, Echols, Vanderpool, and Joppy as the final fight, in the time span from '97-'03.

[Robbi]

To add my opinion on Hopkins prime, I see it as from about '97 to 2003. I think his overall best performances were in this area, and afterwards he started to clinch much more and throw fewer combinations for the most part. I was not as impressed by his showings against De La Hoya, Allen 3, Eastman, Taylor, Wright, Tarver, etc after 2003 as I was with his performances against Trinidad, Johnson, Echols, Vanderpool, and Joppy as the final fight, in the time span from '97-'03.

I thought he looked superb against Eastman. Typical Hopkins performance. Cautious start with a low punch output, before moving through the gears and dominating. His counters were 'bang on the money' and he's only ever been on par when moving freely around the perimeter of the ring and countering effectively prior to that fight. I'll also nail my colours to the mast with confidence and say his handspeed was on the same level compared to the Trinidad showing. He wasn't particularly busy with his hands, but he sure made up for it with his accuracy. Reflexes, speed, timing, co-ordination, athleticism, and foot movement all came together for that fight. His efficiency was as good as ever.

[Shake]

I have the utmost respect for Bernard's skillset and boxing mind. The best way to beat him is to be stronger and faster -- and not let him outfox you still. Having Eddy Futch in your corner would go a long way to being able to cope with whatever adjustments Hop cooks up.

[Ramon Rojo]

I hit him more than he hits me.

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Robbi
I thought he looked superb against Eastman. Typical Hopkins performance. Cautious start with a low punch output, before moving through the gears and dominating. His counters were 'bang on the money' and he's only ever been on par when moving freely around the perimeter of the ring and countering effectively prior to that fight. I'll also nail my colours to the mast with confidence and say his handspeed was on the same level compared to the Trinidad showing. He wasn't particularly busy with his hands, but he sure made up for it with his accuracy. Reflexes, speed, timing, co-ordination, athleticism, and foot movement all came together for that fight. His efficiency was as good as ever.
Against that type of fighter, his efficiency was as good as ever, I agree. But his slow start twice cost him against Taylor and his low output cost him against Calzaghe. Whether that was his own fault for choosing to start slowly both times and for choosing to keep a low activity level or because he could not maintain that level of activity (or if at least he believed that he couldn't), I don't know. But starting slowly and keeping a low output were not traits of the Hopkins of '97-'03. He would pick up the pace as the fight wore on as he later did, but he never started as slowly as he began to do after '03. Taylor and Calzaghe's styles would always be more difficult for Hopkins to beat than that of Trinidad, Echols, Vanderpool, Johnson, etc, but if he didn't have a slow start against Taylor I don't see how he loses those matches, and if he mainted just a slightly higher activity level and was more willing to go forward at times against Calzaghe, then he wins that one as well as I see it. The Hopkins from '97-'03 did not start slowly to the degree he did against Taylor, and he had a much higher workrate than he did in either of those bouts or against Calzaghe. If we are going by accuracy and effective punches, then he got the better of both Taylor and Calzaghe, but each man threw considerably more and therefore landed more, they rightfully won the very close decisions because of that. I don't see those problems in what I consider to be a prime Hopkins.

[McGrain]

I hit him more than he hits me.

You know that might not actually do it? Ali hit Frazier more than Frazier hit Ali in I for example.

[ripcity]

Ok I'm not an expert hear but I think the way to beat a skilled boxer is to box rather than fight. What I mean is to use movement and the jab. Also if your opoent feels no need to make the fight exciting neather should you. Stick to the plan it will take a while to start working. If you don't have the engery to contunusly flick the jab and move than be ecnomical but not too economcal. Hit something. The head and body being scoring blows are best, but shots that land on the shoulders and back might not score and mabey cost you a point. However they can have an effect latter in the fight. I am not avocating fighting dirty but youn need to make contact. Hopkins dose have a repuation for being a little dirty himself, mostly elbows. I am not sure what is best to do when a fighter gets dirty with you. The choices seem to be 1. Do nothing and fight clean. Show that he can't take you out of your game plan. 2. Fual back right away harder and dirtier than him, let him know what ever he dose you will do worse and are not woried about losing a point or DQ'd. I think if i were a boxer i would go with plan 1 but that is just my personality. However with Hopkins plan 2 might be best. Hopkins likes to use his tough guy image. How many times do we hear him talk about being in prison. I don't think he would talk about it so much if he didn't think it would get in to his opoents heads. Plan 3. is to wait a round or two to get revenge but I'm not sure how effective that would be.
to sum things up as best as I can.
1. Box don't fight
2. Hit something (anything)
3. Don't be afried to be dirty IF he gets dirty first
4. Good Luck this plan is not foolproof.

[Robbi]

Against that type of fighter, his efficiency was as good as ever, I agree.

Trinidad was also predictable and easy to hit and Hopkins started off pretty slowly in that fight as well for 4-5 rounds. It was another case of 'moving through the gears'. He was good against Eastman. And not because Eastman was a terrible fighter, he wasn't. He could have pushed Hopkins more though, thats for sure. It's all to do with styles. Trinidad's style was perfect for Hopkins as was Eastman's for that matter.

JT asked about Taylor fighting the Hopkins who fought Trinidad. First of all, Hopkins is in with an entirely different fighter. So the styles gelling changes the entire complextion of the fight. Taylor has athleticism and swift movement around the ring by the bucketful compared to Trinidad. You could argue that when Hopkins became aggressive and took risks he was successful against Taylor. So, if he becomes aggressive earlier he wins?. Doesn't work like that all the time. Taylor could also argue from his side that he got taken out of his gameplan and defensively was sloppy when Hopkins began to take control. I think Hopkins' natural caution during the early stages of most fights combined with Taylor's strategic approach was just that way it was. And when Hopkins was beating Taylor down the stretch he was fighting close to full throttle by his standards. He'd never be fighting like that for 12 rounds, no chance.

Looking at Hopkins' reasonably low punch against Trinidad for 4-5 rounds and being faced with a different look altogether, not sure he wins decisively against Taylor on that night. You have to mind that Taylor was circling behind the jab, doubling it, ocassionaly being aggressive for brief periods, and moving in and out. Like 'chalk and cheese' in comparison to Trinidad's one paced robotic approach through the entire duration. Taylor took Hopkins right out of his comfort zone. Mentally he evaporated in terms of having confidence to do the things he normally done well. Taylor's style and tactical gameplan must be credited here, although Hopkins' strategy must be questioned for the rematch. Same approach, same workrate, and that was after hurting Taylor and closing the show in their first fight.

I'd slightly favour Hopkins to beat Taylor the night he beat Trinidad. But I wouldn't bet my house on it.

[the cobra]

The point being that not only against Taylor, but against Eastman, De La Hoya, Allen, etc he kept a low workrate and threw combos less frequently. I agree that Taylor always troubles Hopkins, he deserves full credit for how he troubled Hopkins and the style that he presented him, but all 3 fights he has lost in the past 5 years were very close, Hopkins landing the cleaner/more effective blows but being seriously outworked and outlanded by both men. It wasn't just these fights, but against the other men he beat these problems were still there. To me he looked better against Trinidad, Echols, Johnson, Joppy, Vanderpool than he did against De La Hoya, Eastman, Allen.

What time span do you see as Hopkins' prime Robbi?

[My dinner with Conteh]

I mean lets get shallow, Hopkins flogged the cunt out of the guy that flogged the cunt out of still champion Jones, no? Oh, and the next guy that flogged the cunt out of Jones.


So Hopkins was a better fighter at 35+ than Jones. We know this, he wasn't as good in his pomp as Jones was.


The haters write this off as a shitty Johnson but the plain fact is Johnson was 32-0. His balls didn't suddenly drop.


Just like the arselickers write off Hopkins's easy defeat to, what was at the time called, a "very disappointing" Jones. :good

[My dinner with Conteh]

Yes i make Jones a 7-5 fave over Hopkins peak for peak. 7-5 faves get whupped every week, especially vs Hopkins

;)


It doesn't matter, what matters is that you thought Jones would probably win, just like you think (for example) Robinson would beat Hagler. There's a reason for this. ;)

[My dinner with Conteh]

When one was 1 year from his career best performance while the other man was 8 year remove from it. Should say you something.


Well, many would say it was a decade from Jones 'career best' performance. So, if Hopkins did indeed 'peak' at 36, then fighting into his 40s isn't quite as impressive as we're now meant to believe.

[Robbi]

The point being that not only against Taylor, but against Eastman, De La Hoya, Allen, etc he kept a low workrate and threw combos less frequently. I agree that Taylor always troubles Hopkins, he deserves full credit for how he troubled Hopkins and the style that he presented him, but all 3 fights he has lost in the past 5 years were very close, Hopkins landing the cleaner/more effective blows but being seriously outworked and outlanded by both men. It wasn't just these fights, but against the other men he beat these problems were still there. To me he looked better against Trinidad, Echols, Johnson, Joppy, Vanderpool than he did against De La Hoya, Eastman, Allen.

What time span do you see as Hopkins' prime Robbi?

I did say "I think Hopkins' natural caution during the early stages of most fights combined with Taylor's strategic approach was just that way it was"

Anyway, regarding his prime. Thats a hard one. Hopkins took three or four years to get into his stride as a complete fighter after the Jones defeat. Looking at how effective I see him when he fought Eastman, I'd say his prime ended there. It started just before the Trinidad fight IMO. JT said he was way past his prime against Taylor. I don't have a problem with others saying he was past his prime at that particular point. Not many fighters will be considered to be in their prime at 40 years old and having suffered back-to-back defeats. But using the word 'way' as if he was past his best by a large margin, I can't live with that.

Looking at Hagler against Leonard then going back to the version of the early 80's, I can see a massive difference. Handspeed and reflexes stand out with Hagler's decline.

However, if you watch Hopkins against Eastman, the same can't be said. And this fight took place around 5 months before the first Taylor fight. As I have said previously, athleticism, speed, timing, foot movement, co-ordination, everything was working as well as ever. His workrate wasn't great with his hands, but it was the opposite with his feet. While it wasn't the Hopkins of the Johnson fight regards to volume, he was equally as efficient with his shots and just as quick with his hands. Not as many combiantions as you rightly said. But his overall efficiency was as good as ever. He wasted nothing.

[booradley]

A 100% Pavlik is a completely different animal than the one who was on intervenous antibiotics and fluids just 3 days before the fight.

[the cobra]

Pavlik got his ass handed to him thoroughly, he was outclassed in every which way. I'm a fan but I am very dissapointed with how the'yre reacting after the loss, the excuses are sickening. He never does better than he did.

[Robbi]

Pavlik got his ass handed to him thoroughly, he was outclassed in every which way. I'm a fan but I am very dissapointed with how the'yre reacting after the loss, the excuses are sickening. He never does better than he did.

Just viewed your profile Cobra. I see we both have a few things in common when it comes to favourite fighters. Duran is my #1 of all-time. And looks like you're pretty much a Hopkins fan as well. You a Whitaker fan by any chance?

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Robbi
Just viewed your profile Cobra. I see we both have a few things in common when it comes to favourite fighters. Duran is my #1 of all-time. And looks like you're pretty much a Hopkins fan as well. You a Whitaker fan by any chance?
Massive Whitaker fan. If I had to make a list of my three favorite fighters those are most likely the top 3. I never use a Whitaker avatar though because Sweet Pea always has one and you occasionally do as well.

BTW, Arguello would probably come in at #4 on my favorite fighters list.

On Hopkins, I meant to ask you this. How did you score both Taylor fights and the Calzaghe fight as well? I had Taylor winning 115-113 in the first fight, Hopkins edging the 2nd one (haven't watched it lately so I can't remember exactly the score but it was most likey 115-113 as well), and Calzaghe up 114-113. what's your take on the decisions?

[tommy the hat]

Well, the guys who beat Hopkins all had very good or tremendous hand speed. I don't know about the guy who beat him in his pro debut though. Would be nice if someone could come up with that fight and post it.

[Robbi]

Massive Whitaker fan. If I had to make a list of my three favorite fighters those are most likely the top 3. I never use a Whitaker avatar though because Sweet Pea always has one and you occasionally do as well.

Good man. I like fighters who are refined and tidy in a technical sense. Never been a fan of come forward punchers. Foreman, Frazier, Tyson, Trinidad, Tszyu, etc. I'm more inclined to be attracted to a pure boxer with a tight defense. Hearns, Holmes, Hagler, Locche, McCallum, Lewis, Marquez, etc.

Yeah, Pea's a good lad. A student of the game.

BTW, Arguello would probably come in at #4 on my favorite fighters list.

Good choice.


On Hopkins, I meant to ask you this. How did you score both Taylor fights and the Calzaghe fight as well? I had Taylor winning 115-113 in the first fight, Hopkins edging the 2nd one (haven't watched it lately so I can't remember exactly the score but it was most likey 115-113 as well), and Calzaghe up 114-113. what's your take on the decisions?


Same as you. 115-113 for Taylor I. I'll need to score the second fight. And the Calzaghe fight is another that needs penciled. I generally watch fights for enjoyment without 100% concentration thats needed to judge a fight. On initial viewing anyway. I did score Marquez-Pacquaio II live early this year. 115-112 Marquez.

I completely went off Hopkins after both Taylor fights. His bitching with the scores really pissed me off. But he did win me over after beating Tarver. I never thought he had a prayer to pull of the upset. Not many people were on his side of the fence that night. His attitude and demeanour during the post fight interview with Merchant was class. Very low key considering he just dominated a fighter who was marked down by many to hand him his first knockout defeat

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Robbi
Same as you. 115-113 for Taylor I. I'll need to score the second fight. And the Calzaghe fight is another that needs penciled. I generally watch fights for enjoyment without 100% concentration thats needed to judge a fight. On initial viewing anyway. I did score Marquez-Pacquaio II live early this year. 115-112 Marquez.

I completely went off Hopkins after both Taylor fights. His bitching with the scores really pissed me off. But he did win me over after beating Tarver. I never thought he had a prayer to pull of the upset. Not many people were on his side of the fence that night. His attitude and demeanour during the post fight interview with Merchant was class. Very low key considering he just dominated a fighter who was marked down by many to hand him his first knockout defeat
I didn't watch the Hopkins-Taylor fights live, so being a fan I had to see them and decide for myself who had won. The bitching of the scoring didn't bother me none though, it was close and pretty much every fighter who loses a close fight feels he won (granted he went on about the scores a bit too much).

I haven't watched Pacquaio-Marquez II since the inital viewing, I think I had JMM up by a point but I was just watching for entertainment and not focusing primarily on scoring (I had Pac winning the first fight by a point as well).

I have the same view of which type of fighters I prefer to watch (I am a fan of Trinidad, Frazier, and Tyson though), looking for details as to why one man is dominating such as footwork (the little turns here and there, side steps, etc), how he controls the distance, how they create angles, is always more of a joy for me to watch then one man crushing another with sheer power and brute strength.

[JohnThomas1]

Awnser my question.

Here's what you had to say to me just the other day when i asked you to answer a question

And to awnser your question. I might soon. Maybe tommorow, maybe next week if this thread is still going then. :good

I think you'll get the drift

:hi:

[JohnThomas1]

So Hopkins was a better fighter at 35+ than Jones. We know this, he wasn't as good in his pomp as Jones was.


It's still opinion.

Tho you and i share the same theory and agree Jones was well past his best form, many a fine poster in here says Jones simply got found out vs Tarver and claim it would have made little or no difference no matter what version of Jones fought against him. Many claim the same of Tyson - Douglas. You would have seen the posts, and possibly me debating against them as i've done it a handful of times.

We are in the same camp, but many would disagree with us.

Just like the arselickers write off Hopkins's easy defeat to, what was at the time called, a "very disappointing" Jones. :good

Yet so many now try to say what a great fantastic win it was after looking at what Hopkins done later. Jones himself talked of how dangerous Hopkins was. Blind Freddy knows Hopkins later peak style wasn't even close to what he worked with vs Jones. Jones style however remained much the same, very reliant on extraordinary reflex and speed as well as a very dangerous dose of power.

Jones gets more than enough credit beating a green Hopkins.

[JohnThomas1]

It doesn't matter, what matters is that you thought Jones would probably win, just like you think (for example) Robinson would beat Hagler. There's a reason for this. ;)

Well here's my reply to you all the way back in 2007 mate

Quote:
Originally Posted by My dinner with Conteh
This is true. But great technicians almost always lose to intiuitive speedsters. That's why they don't fight them again. :wink:


I never said Hopkins would definitely beat Jones at any stage. The slight odds are he wouldn't, tho i think latter Hopkins would test his durability plenty more. The X factor is the chin, was it or wasn't it always suspect. Me, i'm not sure. Hard to see barely anyone outpointing peak Jones, including Hagler and Monzon.

It's not like i was burning around picking Jones without question, that's for sure.

With a gun to my head i'd probably pick Jones, but jeez i'd be jumpy :lol:

Hopkins is certainly a live one at his best vs Jones, and many now realise it.

Oh well, we've got to have something to argue about don't we? Not like we disagree on much else :lol:

:good

[Senya13]

Jones style however remained much the same, very reliant on extraordinary reflex and speed as well as a very dangerous dose of power.
Middleweight Jones of 1993 and light-heavyweight Jones had very different styles. Especially Jones of late, who's lacking footwork entirely.

[JohnThomas1]

Middleweight Jones of 1993 and light-heavyweight Jones had very different styles. Especially Jones of late, who's lacking footwork entirely.

I don't even look at Jones post Tarver and co.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Well here's my reply to you all the way back in 2007 mate

Quote:
Originally Posted by My dinner with Conteh
This is true. But great technicians almost always lose to intiuitive speedsters. That's why they don't fight them again. :wink:


I never said Hopkins would definitely beat Jones at any stage. The slight odds are he wouldn't, tho i think latter Hopkins would test his durability plenty more. The X factor is the chin, was it or wasn't it always suspect. Me, i'm not sure. Hard to see barely anyone outpointing peak Jones, including Hagler and Monzon.

It's not like i was burning around picking Jones without question, that's for sure.

With a gun to my head i'd probably pick Jones, but jeez i'd be jumpy :lol:

Hopkins is certainly a live one at his best vs Jones, and many now realise it.

Oh well, we've got to have something to argue about don't we? Not like we disagree on much else :lol:

:good

True mate. Many apologies for calling your answer 'awful' yesterday. I was at my mum's and fixing something on the PC for dad- then mum kept shouting that my "dinner was ready and going cold". I think I was getting agitated trying to type too fast and answering my old girl. :good

[Loewe]

Well, many would say it was a decade from Jones 'career best' performance. So, if Hopkins did indeed 'peak' at 36, then fighting into his 40s isn't quite as impressive as we're now meant to believe.

Not? You can peak late and become past your prime or shot pretty fast at that age. And only because he had his peak fight then doesn´t mean he was bad before.
So, you think the Ruiz fight was a better performance than the Toney one?
I don´t understand why it´s so hard for you to appreciate Hopkins?

[My dinner with Conteh]

If you knew many of my posts you'd know that I'm not a bloke that talks about 'peaks' often. To me, greats rise above peaks and often produce their best stuff after their prime. In regard to Hopkins- well, read the threads of late, especially you not accepting he lost to Cazlaghe. It's going overboard a tad don't you think?

[JohnThomas1]

True mate. Many apologies for calling your answer 'awful' yesterday. I was at my mum's and fixing something on the PC for dad- then mum kept shouting that my "dinner was ready and going cold". I think I was getting agitated trying to type too fast and answering my old girl. :good

Many apologies if i had a bit of a tone too. I had 6 Corona's and 3 Bourbons under the belt before the posts last night (my time) :lol:

Usually it's Saturday night but golf dictated Sunday for me this week. You could very well say anything on impulse and i'd not let it worry me. We know where we stand

:good

[My dinner with Conteh]

You could very well say anything on impulse and i'd not let it worry me. We know where we stand

:good


Definitely mate. :cool:

[Loewe]

If you knew many of my posts you'd know that I'm not a bloke that talks about 'peaks' often. To me, greats rise above peaks and often produce their best stuff after their prime. In regard to Hopkins- well, read the threads of late, especially you not accepting he lost to Cazlaghe. It's going overboard a tad don't you think?

I agree some people are a bit out of their mind after Hopkins´ win but I had Hopkins edging Celzaghe since fight night and not since the Pavlik fight. Imo Hopkins landed enough cleaner, harder punches than Calzaghe, showed the better defence and was the ring general for the majority of the fight. Combine that with the knockdown and you have a close win for Hopkins. Calzaghe made it close with his workrate, Hopkins´ fading late and himself ad******g lter in the fight but imo his flurries did not land clean and hard enough - and when somebody misses 11 punches from a 12 punch combination I think the guy with the defence should get more credit than the guy with the high workrate.
See, it´s not like I always score close fights for Hopkins. I thought Taylor won their second fight while Hopkins won the first. Also I can see arguments for Hopkins winning both, Taylor winning both or both fights beeing a draw. It was that close. Similar to the Calzaghe fight. What annoys me are the people who say it wasn´t even close. Those guys must be very impressed by workrate and missed punches or must have an agenda.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I agree some people are a bit out of their mind after Hopkins´ win but I had Hopkins edging Celzaghe since fight night and not since the Pavlik fight. Imo Hopkins landed enough cleaner, harder punches than Calzaghe, showed the better defence and was the ring general for the majority of the fight.


It's not the fact that you scored it for Hopkins it's the fact you labelled it a Hopkins 'win' last week. There's close fights down the years we all may have scored differently but we at least accept the decision, especially when we're part of the minority.


Take, an example off top of my head, Ali-Shavers. A close fight no doubt and there's nothing wrong with scoring it for Shaves but 'harping on' that Shavers was robbed makes people look idiots- it was close but the consensus scored for Ali and it was no robbery and they got the right winner. Whereas, Ali-Norton III is different, the moral majority go with Kenny being jobbed, therefore shotuing out about the verdict deserves to be listened to. If you get my drift. :good

[Loewe]

It's not the fact that you scored it for Hopkins it's the fact you labelled it a Hopkins 'win' last week. There's close fights down the years we all may have scored differently but we at least accept the decision, especially when we're part of the minority.


Take, an example off top of my head, Ali-Shavers. A close fight no doubt and there's nothing wrong with scoring it for Shaves but 'harping on' that Shavers was robbed makes people look idiots- it was close but the consensus scored for Ali and it was no robbery. Whereas, Ali-Norton III is different, the morale majority go with Kenny being jobbed, therefore shotuing out about the verdict deserves to be listened to. If you get my drift. :good

Well, that´s a special situation with Calzaghe. I always have problems with extreme nuthuggers. Those guys make me oppose a fighter even when I like him - that´s why I have a problem with the Hopkins thing getting out of the hand - and that´s the case with Calzaghe. So, there´s a close fight with one fighter beeing one of my favourites and the other fighter beeing one of the guys I like but oppose due to some of his "fans". And just to even these guys out I sometime overstate a bit. Things must be balanced out a bit :bart

btw. in another thread in the general forum I wrote that I´d wish that there still would be no decisions because this fights didn´t deserve a winner and a draw wouldn´t have been the right outcome also.

[JohnThomas1]

:pop :pop I love the Classic forum.

Yeah, ya have to love it around here

:D

[Robbi]

Here's what you had to say to me just the other day when i asked you to answer a question



I think you'll get the drift

:hi:


I awnsered yours in earlier posts. :good

How was your weekend JT?

[Jack Presscot]

Take a gun into the ring

;)Jermain didnt need a gun, Sweetie. The answers to this are simple.

1. Neutralize the Clinch. This is about 80% of Hopkins' gameplan, the Faggoty clinching. Shots to the back of the head are effective, as are lowblows, and hitting on the break.

2. Cutting off the ring. Hops loves to use a lot of movement, but is worthless fighting off of the ropes.

Joe Calzaghe wrote the Blueprint for defeating Snaggles, and it is a high volume of punches thrown and landed, per round. :hi:

[Loewe]

Jermain didnt need a gun, Sweetie. The answers to this are simple.

1. Neutralize the Clinch. This is about 80% of Hopkins' gameplan, the Faggoty clinching. Shots to the back of the head are effective, as are lowblows, and hitting on the break.

2. Cutting off the ring. Hops loves to use a lot of movement, but is worthless fighting off of the ropes.

Joe Calzaghe wrote the Blueprint for defeating Snaggles, and it is a high volume of punches thrown and landed, per round. :hi:

Go home to Oscar ...

[Robbi]

Jermain didnt need a gun, Sweetie. The answers to this are simple.

1. Neutralize the Clinch. This is about 80% of Hopkins' gameplan, the Faggoty clinching. Shots to the back of the head are effective, as are lowblows, and hitting on the break.

2. Cutting off the ring. Hops loves to use a lot of movement, but is worthless fighting off of the ropes.

Joe Calzaghe wrote the Blueprint for defeating Snaggles, and it is a high volume of punches thrown and landed, per round. :hi:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Jack Presscot]

Go home to Oscar ...Go home to Sturm, at least he beat Oscar.

[Robbi]

Go home to Sturm, at least he beat Oscar.

De La Hoya W12 Sturm.


:good

[Stonehands89]

JT and Conteh have enhanced this thread. Here's to disagreements!

.....
Hopkins is a fundamentally-sound strategist. He sets traps. But he can be beaten, especially at his present age. And here's how:

1. Bernard makes two notable mistakes that can be exploited.

These have always been apparant, but they have been worsening over the past 6 years. The first is that he tends to come in with his head down. The cure for this is to weave right and step to the right and then twist your torso to land a right uppercut. Follow-up with a hard left hook because you'll be in a position to finish with it. You want to weave instead of just stepping because he doesn't often just barge in with his head down -he's throwing shots that you got to get under.

The second mistake he makes is not dissimilar to a flaw in Floyd Mayweather -he has a habit of bending at the waist to his right side when the other is aggressive. The cure for that is to angle in left and rip a left uppercut/ right hand / left hook combination.

2. You'll notice that both combinations suggested above finish with a left hook. When facing a counterpuncher like Bernard you have to be set as often as you can -anticpating the response. "Finishing on your left" is a good habit anyway because otherwise you will be left hanging for a second, whereas finishing on the left gets you naturally back in position behind a shot. It's safer.

3. Every style has a foil. The techician is no exception, although it is the highest of the basic categories. Technicians have drilled so much that they are conditioned to react in certain ways to certain stimuli. They are trained to respond to an action with a certain set of responses. So, you throw a wrench into the machine. Pryor did it against Arguello to great effect. Jones' athleticism was enhanced because he understood this. One-Eyed Gypsy Joe Harris emitted wrenches from his dizzy gloves and embarrassed a superbly trained boxer in Curtis Cokes. Hopkins is not the straight-up boxer that Arguello was for example, he does get innovative and throws sneak hooks and such, but that's what he's doing... he's not expecting you to do it. Jones didn't follow the predictable script and Hopkins was a day late and a dollar short as a result of that and the speed.

In addition, technicians rely on balance. Punch him in the chest and get him off balance.

Many Hopkins fans don't understand how or why he could have had such a tough time with Jermain Taylor. The reasons are related to the above. Taylor fought him -and he did so in ways that defied the script at times...Winky didn't and couldn't. Pavlik didn't and couldn't. Trinidad didn't and couldn't. See the pattern? Those fighters more or less followed scripts. Taylor's inexperience and at times amateurish approach actually helped him! He was also rough with him... which makes it tough to stay in position and get set.

4. When you're dealing with a guy who likes to clinch -whether it's a Ruiz, a Hopkins, or a Sammy "The Clutch" Angott, it is a good idea to make them pay for clinching. More precisely, make them pay when they begin to clinch. Get into a small package, roll your shoulders in, and rip short shots to the rips. Hell, aim for the sternum. A guy like Bernard with a 27 inch isn't exactly wearing body armor. My girlfriend has a 27 inch waist. A 27 inch waist is a girlie waist.

5. Bernard sets traps, see them and raise them. A constant one he sets now is when he drops the left hand perilously low and shifts his weight onto his back foot. What he's doing is inviting you in to take advantage of the window he is leaving open so that he can counter you with the right or hook with the left. He wants to catch you coming in. So what to do?

Feint. That will draw him out.

Then feint again but inch closer and to your left. (This is chess. See if you can outthink him.) He will probably feint and re-set. Do what he's doing on you -look for patterns. I'd anticipate the right cross from him, and step in close behind a short left hook (to counter his right), then a right hand (a good follow-up to the left hook), and then a left hook to the body (because you will finish on your left, and dipping to your left will help you evade whatever he's throwing).

6. Pressure old guys. Body shots particularly, but also keep in mind that you have to land often to compensate for his great conditioning. Getting hit saps stamina. I remember sparring with this southpaw who also ran marathons. I ran 2 miles and complained the whole time. He'd run circles around me.... but in the ring, rib shots level the stamina field.

................
Bernard should not emerge from fights unscathed. He is because most of the guys he fights aren't trying to hurt him, they're thinking too much and fighting with caution as a result. Or, they're getting hit too much by him. Vary your attack, get unorthodox enough to disrupt his mechanics, make him pay for every clinch, get him off balance, and rely on body shots. He's Trigonometry, but he's not unbeatable. And he never was.

[Robbi]

Many Hopkins fans don't understand how or why he could have had such a tough time with Jermain Taylor. The reasons are related to the above. Taylor fought him -and he did so in ways that defied the script at times...Winky didn't and couldn't. Pavlik didn't and couldn't. Trinidad didn't and couldn't. See the pattern? Those fighters more or less followed scripts. Taylor's inexperience and at times amateurish approach actually helped him! He was also rough with him... which makes it tough to stay in position and get set.

I'm a Hopkins fan and fully understand. Maybe some technical aspects you see I don't. But my posts on the fights are pretty solid, although basic compared to yourself with your last scribbling with it comes to the sheer technical side. And Taylor never fought Hopkins. Depends what you mean by 'fought'. If you mean being aggressive, brief periods only. He boxed him for the most part behind a solid jab, usually doubled to keep Hopkins off balance. And I'm also accurate in saying that Hopkins doesn't like to fight a moving target who's drifting away and creating angles. It makes him unsure. He prefers fighters coming towards him or fighting well within range at all times.

[JohnThomas1]

Jermain didnt need a gun, Sweetie. The answers to this are simple.

1. Neutralize the Clinch. This is about 80% of Hopkins' gameplan, the Faggoty clinching. Shots to the back of the head are effective, as are lowblows, and hitting on the break.

2. Cutting off the ring. Hops loves to use a lot of movement, but is worthless fighting off of the ropes.

Joe Calzaghe wrote the Blueprint for defeating Snaggles, and it is a high volume of punches thrown and landed, per round. :hi:

Well come in spinner. About time someone did :good

[Loewe]

JT and Conteh have enhanced this thread. Here's to disagreements!

.....
Hopkins is a fundamentally-sound strategist. He sets traps. But he can be beaten, especially at his present age. And here's how:

1. Bernard makes two notable mistakes that can be exploited.

These have always been apparant, but they have been worsening over the past 6 years. The first is that he tends to come in with his head down. The cure for this is to weave right and step to the right and then twist your torso to land a right uppercut. Follow-up with a hard left hook because you'll be in a position to finish with it. You want to weave instead of just stepping because he doesn't often just barge in with his head down -he's throwing shots that you got to get under.

The second mistake he makes is not dissimilar to a flaw in Floyd Mayweather -he has a habit of bending at the waist to his right side when the other is aggressive. The cure for that is to angle in left and rip a left uppercut/ right hand / left hook combination.

2. You'll notice that both combinations suggested above finish with a left hook. When facing a counterpuncher like Bernard you have to be set as often as you can -anticpating the response. "Finishing on your left" is a good habit anyway because otherwise you will be left hanging for a second, whereas finishing on the left gets you naturally back in position behind a shot. It's safer.

3. Every style has a foil. The techician is no exception, although it is the highest of the basic categories. Technicians have drilled so much that they are conditioned to react in certain ways to certain stimuli. They are trained to respond to an action with a certain set of responses. So, you throw a wrench into the machine. Pryor did it against Arguello to great effect. Jones' athleticism was enhanced because he understood this. One-Eyed Gypsy Joe Harris emitted wrenches from his dizzy gloves and embarrassed a superbly trained boxer in Curtis Cokes. Hopkins is not the straight-up boxer that Arguello was for example, he does get innovative and throws sneak hooks and such, but that's what he's doing... he's not expecting you to do it. Jones didn't follow the predictable script and Hopkins was a day late and a dollar short as a result of that and the speed.

In addition, technicians rely on balance. Punch him in the chest and get him off balance.

Many Hopkins fans don't understand how or why he could have had such a tough time with Jermain Taylor. The reasons are related to the above. Taylor fought him -and he did so in ways that defied the script at times...Winky didn't and couldn't. Pavlik didn't and couldn't. Trinidad didn't and couldn't. See the pattern? Those fighters more or less followed scripts. Taylor's inexperience and at times amateurish approach actually helped him! He was also rough with him... which makes it tough to stay in position and get set.

4. When you're dealing with a guy who likes to clinch -whether it's a Ruiz, a Hopkins, or a Sammy "The Clutch" Angott, it is a good idea to make them pay for clinching. More precisely, make them pay when they begin to clinch. Get into a small package, roll your shoulders in, and rip short shots to the rips. Hell, aim for the sternum. A guy like Bernard with a 27 inch isn't exactly wearing body armor. My girlfriend has a 27 inch waist. A 27 inch waist is a girlie waist.

5. Bernard sets traps, see them and raise them. A constant one he sets now is when he drops the left hand perilously low and shifts his weight onto his back foot. What he's doing is inviting you in to take advantage of the window he is leaving open so that he can counter you with the right or hook with the left. He wants to catch you coming in. So what to do?

Feint. That will draw him out.

Then feint again but inch closer and to your left. (This is chess. See if you can outthink him.) He will probably feint and re-set. Do what he's doing on you -look for patterns. I'd anticipate the right cross from him, and step in close behind a short left hook (to counter his right), then a right hand (a good follow-up to the left hook), and then a left hook to the body (because you will finish on your left, and dipping to your left will help you evade whatever he's throwing).

6. Pressure old guys. Body shots particularly, but also keep in mind that you have to land often to compensate for his great conditioning. Getting hit saps stamina. I remember sparring with this southpaw who also ran marathons. I ran 2 miles and complained the whole time. He'd run circles around me.... but in the ring, rib shots level the stamina field.

................
Bernard should not emerge from fights unscathed. He is because most of the guys he fights aren't trying to hurt him, they're thinking too much and fighting with caution as a result. Or, they're getting hit too much by him. Vary your attack, get unorthodox enough to disrupt his mechanics, make him pay for every clinch, get him off balance, and rely on body shots. He's Trigonometry, but he's not unbeatable. And he never was.

I don´t agree with everything in there - using the Jones-Hopkins fight for example - but very detailed insights. Thanks.