Most Technical Fighter?

The President said:
Hopkins isn't a great technical fighter, he's more about spoiling and old school tricks. Don't get me wrong he throws a good right hand and has a good measure of distance, but that doesn't put him in the category of one of the greatest.

I say the same to people who say Wlad is a great technical fighter. His entire defense is based on taking two giant steps back every time his opponents move forward, and using his huge size to grab his opponents. That isn't great technical boxing.
Click to expand...

^ goes to show how just about anyone can post on the Internet.
 
The President said:
Hopkins isn't a great technical fighter, he's more about spoiling and old school tricks. Don't get me wrong he throws a good right hand and has a good measure of distance, but that doesn't put him in the category of one of the greatest.

I say the same to people who say Wlad is a great technical fighter. His entire defense is based on taking two giant steps back every time his opponents move forward, and using his huge size to grab his opponents. That isn't great technical boxing.
Click to expand...

That's just not accurate, man. Everything Hopkins does is by the book and fundamentally sound. His footwork is as good as anyone's in boxing, he never gets outjabbed and rarely gets hit flush even at his age. He can/could fight on the inside and dominate. He could fight on the outside, box and move and be dominant. You don't fight to his age and beat live opponents (detract from the likes of Pascal, Pavlik and Tarver all you like but they are legitimate fighters that give other legitimate fighters hell) without being exceptionally skilled. People can chalk all this up to him being dirty or using old school tricks but they don't win you fights on their own and they hardly explain all of Bernard's success.
 
Last edited:
Sunfish said:
Deconstruct it then, what makes them technical?
Click to expand...

Don't have the time or inclination to state that water's wet , fire burns and how light works.
So I'll just say that me and every other pro boxers and boxing analysts are wrong .
 
KounterPunch said:
Don't have the time or inclination to state that water's wet , fire burns and how light works.
So I'll just say that me and every other pro boxers and boxing analysts are wrong .
Click to expand...

Sucks. Pres will always argue his case and was interested in that one.
 
It's too much work to lay analysis posts on fighters , my friend.
It's as much work as putting in a term paper.

Let me put it his way , to those who think Hopkins isn't a technical , let alone probably most technical in the game right now , fighter ..just let him know that most everyone ( Ward , Roy Jones , James Toney etc ) think he's the man.

Think of it this way , the man , with no exceptional speed , power , reflexes , athleticism ,or chin won the world championship at 46 years of age , and not against no soft mark either.
You ever seen him get beat up ?
The last time he lost a clear decision was when Informer was at the top of the charts over 20 years ago and that's fighting every big name from his weight class up n beyond.
You think he did all that by just holding and head butting ?
 
Sure, I just like these conversations, wasn't busying your balls or trashing pops.
 
JayElectra said:
That's just not accurate, man. Everything Hopkins does is by the book and fundamentally sound. His footwork is as good as anyone's in boxing, he never gets outjabbed and rarely gets hit flush even at his age. He can/could fight on the inside and dominate. He could fight on the outside, box and move and be dominant. You don't fight to his age and beat live opponents (detract from the likes of Pascal, Pavlik and Tarver all you like but they are legitimate fighters that give other legitimate fighters hell) without being exceptionally skilled. People can chalk all this up to him being dirty or using old school tricks but they don't win you fights on their own and they hardly explain all of Bernard's success.
Click to expand...

I disagree, being smart and having good ring craft does not equate to a great technical fighter. There is nothing technically great about the way Hopkins lunges forward with his head and right hand. That's not technically great, it's smart and dirty, because his opponents are looking out for the head as well as the punch. Hopkins fighting game is full of old school tricks like that, to say that isn't part of his success would be wrong imo.

Like I said, he's a good technical fighter, but not great. He isn't in the same league as the likes of Arguello when it comes to technical proficiency.
 
KounterPunch said:
It's too much work to lay analysis posts on fighters , my friend.
It's as much work as putting in a term paper.

Let me put it his way , to those who think Hopkins isn't a technical , let alone probably most technical in the game right now , fighter ..just let him know that most everyone ( Ward , Roy Jones , James Toney etc ) think he's the man.

Think of it this way , the man , with no exceptional speed , power , reflexes , athleticism ,or chin won the world championship at 46 years of age , and not against no soft mark either.
You ever seen him get beat up ?
The last time he lost a clear decision was when Informer was at the top of the charts over 20 years ago and that's fighting every big name from his weight class up n beyond.
You think he did all that by just holding and head butting ?
Click to expand...

He isn't a great technical fighter, he's good but not great, get over it. My definition of great in this context, is one of the best of all time. Hopkins simply isn't in the same league. Too much of his fighting game is based on dirty old school fighting.
 
The President said:
I disagree, being smart and having good ring craft does not equate to a great technical fighter. There is nothing technically great about the way Hopkins lunges forward with his head and right hand. That's not technically great, it's smart and dirty, because his opponents are looking out for the head as well as the punch. Hopkins fighting game is full of old school tricks like that, to say that isn't part of his success would be wrong imo.

Like I said, he's a good technical fighter, but not great. He isn't in the same league as the likes of Arguello when it comes to technical proficiency.
Click to expand...

Well, what Hopkins do we want to look at? If you want to look at the post De la Hoya Hopkins, yes he did start to become reliant on the lunging lead right hand, which isn't necessarily the kind of punch which is looked at as being fundamentally sound. I'd argue that he has found a way to use it in a way that is very, very effective but it is rather unorthodox and not very aesthetically pleasing. Now, if you go back and watch him in between Mercado (you can even go back futher if you want) and De la Hoya, he rarely ever threw that punch. His absolute destruction of Glen Johnson really showcases how complete a fighter he was. Perfect balance, great jab, great punch selection, great offensive and defensive footwork and very sound defense relying both on the shoulder roll and occasionally a high guard. Of course, as his reflexes and stamina have declined, he has had to augment his style to suit his physical abilities but even in his 40 + days, his performances have been extremely impressive and sound technically, especially when he schooled Pavlik (a fight where he rarely relied on that lunging right hand).
 
Hopkins today is not technical in the traditional way you would think (ie, Ricardo Lopez, SRR, etc) but in his own unique way I would say hes one of the better technicians
 
And of course it all depends on what Pres means by saying "Great"

Some people use the word lightly while some people use it in a way meaning of the absolute best of all time and that can create some confusion
 
The President said:
He isn't a great technical fighter,

he's good but not great, get over it.

Too much of his fighting game is based on dirty old school fighting.
Click to expand...

A jackass probably thinks his farmer is God.........but who cares what an ass thinks anyways.
 
KounterPunch, this one is for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Just because boxing analysts say this, that and the other, doesn't mean that your argument is unassailable.

Same goes for anybody else who thinks an argument is settled by citing an Iole article or something.

I agree with Pres on Hopkins, for the record. They're more like tricks and not skills. Hopkins's skills are average.
 
KounterPunch said:
A jackass probably thinks his farmer is God.........but who cares what an ass thinks anyways.
Click to expand...

You keep doing this thing where you slyly imply that the person you're responding to is a particular thing and therefore their argument can't be a good one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Why don't you actually debate the points of boxing and not lazily say "Well, only so-and-sos believe that! I don't have to argue otherwise because normal people know I'm right! Teeheehee!"
 
The President said:
He isn't a great technical fighter, he's good but not great, get over it. My definition of great in this context, is one of the best of all time. Hopkins simply isn't in the same league. Too much of his fighting game is based on dirty old school fighting.
Click to expand...

I don't really care for the term "old school" in association with Hopkins.

Old school fighters didn't look for a cheap way out like Hopkins has many times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,693
Messages
55,435,102
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top