Farewell B-Hop

First topic message reminder :

Bernard Hopkins is to finally call time on his career with a farewell fight against Joe Smith Jr on December 17th in LA

Smith recently beat Fonfara who beat Chavez Jr and has been picked as Hopkins' 65th and final opponent.

Bittersweet news for those who will be glad he's retiring but saddened that he feels he needs one more fight before heading of into the sunset.

Wasn't Thurman Floyd's mandatory before he chose Berto?

A great middleweight champion. He didn't ever surpass Monzon's record - not really, but he cleaned out the division and bossed it up until Jermain Taylor usurped him.

He was really adept at nullifying one-trick punchers. Trinidad eventually became that (after falling in love with his power) and both Pavlik and Cloud were right up Bernard’s street.

His career peaks and troughs would look crazy if mapped out: Loses his first fight before battling into title contention. Loses to Jones and then struggles with Mercado. Rebounds to win an ABC strap and then marginalised himself to a degree due to the chip on his shoulder and his wariness of certain promoters. He then comes in from the cold to unify the titles (with a master class over Trinidad) and becomes a genuine star. Cements that against Oscar and then fixates on the 20 defence thing (which was bogus) to the point where he starts just doing enough to win (which then costs him in back-to-back defeats to Taylor).

Normally, that’s the end of the chase (and probably should have been had Hopkins fulfilled the pledge he made to his mother regarding retirement).

But no. He then leaps two divisions to dethrone Tarver (who has since been discredited for PED use – making the win even better to my mind) and become the 175 pound champion. And he does it with solid, old-school fundamentals – illustrating the gulf between what modern fighters know these days and what the old guard knew. A classic example of how to shut down a southpaw. He follows up with the Winky fight – which was a mess - and then he is edged out by Calzaghe (a man he is unable to bully or affect mentally).
Again, usually, that would be the end of a fighter. But Hopkins?

Comes back and schools the middleweight champion in Pavlik with an outstanding display. He then follows that up by regaining the light heavyweight crown against Pascal.

He couldn’t do anything with Dawson and was well beaten by Jones. His histrionics and gamesmanship ran close to the knuckle (feigning injuries, complaining about low blows in order to gain a rest, even bailing out of a couple of fights) and you do wonder how a fighter could be that fit at that age (a trend we may see more of in the coming decades).

For me, he accomplished the best work of any fighter over the age of 35. He’ll go down as one of the 5 or 6 best middleweight champions in history and won three lineal championships in two of the original divisions. His bloody-mindedness has rarely been matched and he would fight anyone – which is something I value highly. Taking on a killer like Kovalev at that point in his career is crazy, really, when you think about it.

Hopkins always had an eye on history. He wanted to go down in history with the Philly middles, with Hagler and Robinson. He did it.

He rates higher Than Hagler. His stint at 175 does it for me.

Legend!!

smashingstormcrow wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:Brook Thurman and Porter would all have been sterner tests than Berto Guerrero Ortiz

Those guys only really became prominent towards the very end of Floyd's career. The window when they would have been viable opponents is very small. Although I agree that Berto was a disappointing choice.

The timelines are entirely different and Herman paints it out as if Mayweather fought Guerrero and Ortiz instead of them which he didn't.

He stated the other day he likes a boxer to clean up the belts and that matters more than weight jumping but that's what Mayweather did yet he's now changed his tune.

Marquez- Tune up fight who went on to knock Pacquiao out at the weight
Mosley- 147lb WBA champion who had just dismantled Margarito who yesterday Herman stated Mayweather had ducked
Ortiz- 147lb WBC champion, not a great choice but follows the cleaning out a division blueprint
Cotto- 147lb WBA champion
Guerrero- 147lb WBC mandatory
Alvarez- 154lb WBC champion, the catchweight made no difference to what was a masterclass performance and the last time you can say that of him.
Maidana *2- 147lb WBA champion
Pacquiao- 147lb WBO champion
Berto- Poor final fight agreed.

There's no getting away from the fact he should have fought Pacquiao sooner but aside from that i'm not seeing who Thurman and Brook are a step up from. Correct me if i'm wrong but he finished his career with 5 of a possible 8 belts across two divisions in which he was the ring magazine and lineal champion.

You can make any fighter appear ordinary if you dislike them enough...

If I disliked Ali......

Frazier was Foreman's sloppy seconds..
Cleveland was scared....
Norton won all three....
Foreman was green...
Both Liston fights were fixed etc etc etc....

Luckily enough I don't dislike any boxer enough to pee all over their legacy...

It's only Boxing..

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

smashingstormcrow wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:Brook Thurman and Porter would all have been sterner tests than Berto Guerrero Ortiz

Those guys only really became prominent towards the very end of Floyd's career. The window when they would have been viable opponents is very small. Although I agree that Berto was a disappointing choice.

The timelines are entirely different and Herman paints it out as if Mayweather fought Guerrero and Ortiz instead of them which he didn't.

He stated the other day he likes a boxer to clean up the belts and that matters more than weight jumping but that's what Mayweather did yet he's now changed his tune.

Marquez- Tune up fight who went on to knock Pacquiao out at the weight
Mosley- 147lb WBA champion who had just dismantled Margarito who yesterday Herman stated Mayweather had ducked
Ortiz- 147lb WBC champion, not a great choice but follows the cleaning out a division blueprint
Cotto- 147lb WBA champion
Guerrero- 147lb WBC mandatory
Alvarez- 154lb WBC champion, the catchweight made no difference to what was a masterclass performance and the last time you can say that of him.
Maidana *2- 147lb WBA champion
Pacquiao- 147lb WBO champion
Berto- Poor final fight agreed.

There's no getting away from the fact he should have fought Pacquiao sooner but aside from that i'm not seeing who Thurman and Brook are a step up from. Correct me if i'm wrong but he finished his career with 5 of a possible 8 belts across two divisions in which he was the ring magazine and lineal champion.

I think the above highlights how ridiculous the title scene has become. Take Ortiz, for example. Mayweather gave up the WBC title after fighting Hatton. Berto then picked it up against the unremarkable Miguel Rodriguez (heard of him? Me neither) and then loses it to Ortiz, who gives it back to Floyd.

Take the WBA super belt at 154 he took from Cotto. This was an upgrade of the WBA normal belt the Puerto Rican won from Yuri Foreman - a completely fabricated belt in a virtual warm-up fight. Floyd wasn't attempting to unify divisions or gather up titles (he picked them up and threw them away at the drop of a hat).

In reality, his top rivals at 147 and 154 were something like:

147

2010: Pacquiao, Cotto
2011: Pacquiao, Ortiz
2012: Marquez (hulk version), Pacquiao
2013: Bradley, Marquez
2014: Pacquiao, Brook
2015: Brook, Pacquiao
2016: Brook, Thurman

154

2010: Cintron, Angulo
2011: Cotto, Alvarez
2012: Alvarez, Trout
2013: Alvarez, Lara
2014: Alvarez, Lara
2015: Lara, Trout
2016: Alvarez, Lara

Of that lot (ranked as above when he fought them), he fought Ortiz in 2011 (147), Alvarez at catch weight (152) and Pacquiao in 2015 (147).

He fought Cotto in 2012 (154).

Going back a little further:

147

2007: Cotto, Williams
2008: Margarito, Cotto (Floyd retired)
2009: Pacquiao, Mosley

154

2007: Spinks, Karmazin
2008: Forrest, Williams (Floyd retired)
2009: Martinez, Spinks

Of that lot, he fought Mosley (but in 2010) at 147.

You can see so many missed opportunities there. 147 was electric in 2008 and the Pacquiao fight was red hot in 2010-11. Nothing new from me there but I think this is a better indication of who the top men were (and when) than following the ABCs.

I like what you're saying Truss.

We can do Lewis

Knocked out by Mccall and Rahman
Mercer could of got the decision
Looked awful against Bruno
Beat Tyson Long after Holyfield beat him
Lucky to get by Vitali.

Now I don't agree with all the above, but valid points if you want to discredit the man.

Can discredit anyone's record.

Haz you have issues. You need to let go. It's only boxing. 99.9% of people rate Floyd as a great.

You obviously spend too much time reading books.

AdamT wrote:I like what you're saying Truss.

We can do Lewis

Knocked out by Mccall and Rahman
Mercer could of got the decision
Looked awful against Bruno
Beat Tyson Long after Holyfield beat him
Lucky to get by Vitali.

Now I don't agree with all the above, but valid points if you want to discredit the man.

Can discredit anyone's record.

Which of those unarguable points don't you agree with?!!

AdamT wrote:Haz you have issues. You need to let go. It's only boxing. 99.9% of people rate Floyd as a great.

You obviously spend too much time reading books.

I rate him as a great fighter - he's just not in the argument as greatest ever.

Of all of the insults I've fielded on here over the years, reading too many books has got to take the cake. I've only read one. Ask Milky!

Yep I can confirm... Though you have got good mileage out of it... And I suspect it's one more than I've read in the last 20 years!

Haz is more a magazine man... Though how many of the piles of them under his bed are boxing related? Well we can only hazard a guess. Takes a winker to know a winker.

milkyboy wrote:Yep I can confirm... Though you have got good mileage out of it... And I suspect it's one more than I've read in the last 20 years!

Haz is more a magazine man... Though how many of the piles of them under his bed are boxing related? Well we can only hazard a guess. Takes a winker to know a winker.

I'm terrible. Must have started five in the past few months and failed to finish a single one.

And as for the books....

You don't always need to read to the finish to have a happy ending.

Ortiz Guerrero Maidana Berto as good Brook and Thurman according to some of our experts on here...

I think I'm going to join another forum

You are picking Floyds worst fights. Was Cotto and Pacquiao as good as the wonderful Brook?

I think Brook might rate higher, haha!!

Herman Jaeger wrote:Ortiz Guerrero Maidana Berto as good Brook and Thurman according to some of our experts on here...

I think I'm going to join another forum

One of them used to claim Guerrero was a top opponent because he made RingTV's pound for pound list. That's what you're up against at times.

At the end of the day, the only point I'm trying to make is Floyd's resume could have been a lot(a lot) better than what it is you can't say that of Bernard's

Bernard went to the bottom of the well..

Frustrating Floyd's career as much as anything

But then his egomania and protection of the zero became an obsession. That's why the last few years of his career were so underwhelming/disappointing

That would be Truss.

Guys, every fighter has cans on their record.

Ali had a few
Floyd had a few
Hagler had loads
GGG has had all tomato can fights.

It's boxing

Ok Herman you have made a fair point.

I'm just glad Floyd thought enough of his talent and didn't stick around a useless division fighting bums.

Anyway, back to Hopkins...

How would he have got on with Toney at middleweight in '93? How about at cruiser in 2003?

It's an enormous shame they didn't fight isn't it

Herman Jaeger wrote:It's an enormous shame they didn't fight isn't it

It really is. In Don McRae's "Dark Trade" (don't tell Adam I'm talking books) he describes a blow up between them at a press conference. Toney may have flipped a table.

They were ready to go at cruiser in '03 apparently until Hopkins decided to go in another direction and Toney fought Holyfield instead.

Really I didn't know they almost went at it on '03 I wasn't following things closely at that time do you recall what happened did Bernard bottle it or was he offered more money for another fight do you know the minutiae?

I pick Toney Haz. I'm not sure there would be a punch thrown.

It would be a close fight. Definitely go with Toney if at Cruiser.

Herman Jaeger wrote:Really I didn't know they almost went at it on '03  I wasn't following things closely at that time do you recall what happened did Bernard bottle it or was he offered more money for another fight do you know the minutiae?

Something about King agreeing their purses only then to go back and attempt to drop them (think he overpriced the fight and HBO refused to pay what he was after).

Hopkins didn't like dealing with King at the best of times, so walked.

Jesus Haz, it's a tough one.

Toney doesn't like speed, Hopkins isn't Jones Jr.

I have to favour Toney at CW. Not sure though. Hopkins is crafty.

Awful shame it didn't happen you try picking the winner of that one with any certainty

You can't. I think Toney gets a little overlooked.

It's a pity he wasn't a lot more dedicated. He was tough and could box.

hazharrison wrote:

Take the WBA super belt at 154 he took from Cotto. This was an upgrade of the WBA normal belt the Puerto Rican won from Yuri Foreman - a completely fabricated belt in a virtual warm-up fight. Floyd wasn't attempting to unify divisions or gather up titles (he picked them up and threw them away at the drop of a hat). That's pure conjecture and just a cop out because the facts don't back up your opinion at all, he didn't pick up five of the eight belts across two divisions by accident.

In reality, his top rivals at 147 and 154 were something like:

147

2010: Pacquiao, Cotto It was Mosley and you know it was
2011: Pacquiao, Ortiz
2012: Marquez (hulk version), Pacquiao
2013: Bradley, Marquez
2014: Pacquiao, Brook
2015: Brook, Pacquiao
2016: Brook, Thurman

154

2010: Cintron, Angulo
2011: Cotto, Alvarez
2012: Alvarez, Trout Trout became a big player in the division after Mayweather beat Cotto as you already know
2013: Alvarez, Lara
2014: Alvarez, Lara
2015: Lara, Trout
2016: Alvarez, Lara

Of that lot (ranked as above when he fought them), he fought Ortiz in 2011 (147), Alvarez at catch weight (152) and Pacquiao in 2015 (147).

He fought Cotto in 2012 (154).

Going back a little further:

147

2007: Cotto, Williams
2008: Margarito, Cotto (Floyd retired)
2009: Pacquiao, Mosley

154

2007: Spinks, Karmazin
2008: Forrest, Williams (Floyd retired)
2009: Martinez, Spinks

Of that lot, he fought Mosley (but in 2010) at 147.

You can see so many missed opportunities there. 147 was electric in 2008 and the Pacquiao fight was red hot in 2010-11. Nothing new from me there but I think this is a better indication of who the top men were (and when) than following the ABCs.

Strange how you've copied and pasted the end of year ring magazine rankings which are very misleading, Mosley for instance was ranked at number two when he fought Mayweathe in May 2010 and then slipped down the rankings after that fight. In fact that premise applies to pretty much every boxer who loses, the ranking at the time of the fight matters more than largely irrelevant year end rankings.

Hammersmith must be an alias can't be a real person nobody could possibly be that rude

Herman Jaeger wrote:Hammersmith must be an alias can't be a real person nobody could possibly be that rude

Or dim (you'd hope).

Herman Jaeger wrote:Hammersmith must be an alias can't be a real person nobody could possibly be that rude

Why because I don't agree with yours and Haz's continuous and very selective garbage?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Take the WBA super belt at 154 he took from Cotto. This was an upgrade of the WBA normal belt the Puerto Rican won from Yuri Foreman - a completely fabricated belt in a virtual warm-up fight. Floyd wasn't attempting to unify divisions or gather up titles (he picked them up and threw them away at the drop of a hat). That's pure conjecture and just a cop out because the facts don't back up your opinion at all, he didn't pick up five of the eight belts across two divisions by accident.

In reality, his top rivals at 147 and 154 were something like:

147

2010: Pacquiao, Cotto It was Mosley and you know it was
2011: Pacquiao, Ortiz
2012: Marquez (hulk version), Pacquiao
2013: Bradley, Marquez
2014: Pacquiao, Brook
2015: Brook, Pacquiao
2016: Brook, Thurman

154

2010: Cintron, Angulo
2011: Cotto, Alvarez
2012: Alvarez, Trout Trout became a big player in the division after Mayweather beat Cotto as you already know
2013: Alvarez, Lara
2014: Alvarez, Lara
2015: Lara, Trout
2016: Alvarez, Lara

Of that lot (ranked as above when he fought them), he fought Ortiz in 2011 (147), Alvarez at catch weight (152) and Pacquiao in 2015 (147).

He fought Cotto in 2012 (154).

Going back a little further:

147

2007: Cotto, Williams
2008: Margarito, Cotto (Floyd retired)
2009: Pacquiao, Mosley

154

2007: Spinks, Karmazin
2008: Forrest, Williams (Floyd retired)
2009: Martinez, Spinks

Of that lot, he fought Mosley (but in 2010) at 147.

You can see so many missed opportunities there. 147 was electric in 2008 and the Pacquiao fight was red hot in 2010-11. Nothing new from me there but I think this is a better indication of who the top men were (and when) than following the ABCs.

Strange how you've copied and pasted the end of year ring magazine rankings which are very misleading, Mosley for instance was ranked at number two when he fought Mayweathe in May 2010 and then slipped down the rankings after that fight. In fact that premise applies to pretty much every boxer who loses, the ranking at the time of the fight matters more than largely irrelevant year end rankings.

Floyd only picked up/carried a belt when it suited him. He didn't win the WBA welter title from Mosley (as you suggested) because he refused to pay the 3% sanctioning fee ("All belts do is gather dust" etc.). The WBC title he "won" against Ortiz was the same belt he discarded after beating Hatton. In 2013, he threatened to ditch the same belt had the WBC pressed him to fight Pacquiao. The idea that he actively sought to round up world titles is a nonsense.

Yes, he picked up a good number of them but in reality, the ABCs were desperate to align themselves with a Mayweather (or Pacquiao) fight due to the exorbitant sanctioning fees they could levy against them (Floyd was also stripped of a WBO belt in 2015 for refusing to pay the £200k fee). The Cotto fight proves the point (when the WBA sought to upgrade the title to squeeze a bit extra out of the match-up). By the time the Pacquiao fight came around, they were positively throwing belts at them to get in on the action.

Do I blame him for telling the ABCs to go whistle? Definitely not. I'd be damned if I'd pay £200-£600k to carry a bit of leather about. But let's get it right. Floyd picked up and dropped belts as it suited (which is the way he ran his career).

Taking belts out of the equation (and focussing on the Money May part of his career at 147/154) - this is the reality behind all the world title nonsense.

He won the lineal 147 title from Baldomir in 2006 (one of the poorest lineal champions in memory) and defended it once against 140 lb. lineal champ Hatton and then retired.

Both he and Pacquiao were the top ranked welters in 2009-11 (but didn't fight to settle superiority). And so it seems quite obvious to me he wasn't interested in cleaning out 147 at that point.

In 2012, he became number one at 154 by beating Cotto and then lineal champ after beating Canelo (at a 152 lb. catch weight). He doesn't ever defend that championship.

He belatedly becomes welterweight boss in 2015 (8 years after he last held that distinction) by beating Pacquiao and only defends it once against Berto.

So three championship tenures at two weights - with two defences.

Back to Hopkins again.

I would have taken Toney to beat Hopkins at middleweight c1993.

I'm stumped trying to pick a winner had they met in 2003 (Toney was, of course, beefing up a bit...ahem...by then).

Toney was fantastic. It annoys me the way his career turned out.

His early career was something else. He was a good defensive fighter, but he looked comfortable in a scrap.

He is a funny man to listen to (if you can understand him). He also did a good job as Frazier in the Ali film.

Quite like Toney. He has balls!

AdamT wrote:Toney was fantastic. It annoys me the way his career turned out.

His early career was something else. He was a good defensive fighter, but he looked comfortable in a scrap.

He is a funny man to listen to (if you can understand him). He also did a good job as Frazier in the Ali film.

Quite like Toney. He has balls!

You do wonder how much help he had later in his career (he was only busted up at heavyweight from memory but packed on significant bulk on the rise up). He was ntorious for struggling with weight. A former NFL player in college - he must have been virtually anaemic when making 160.

Like Hopkins, he was an old-school fighter (he was trained by Bill Miller, who I believe may have had links to SR Robinson - Hopkins was tutored by Bouie Fischer). Often, and especially on these boards, old-school fighters are derided with the whole "all sports move on" line. I believe the success of Hopkins, Toney and Mayweather flies in the face of that. They excelled because they were technically, streets ahead of their peers.

At middleweight (probably his best weight) he threw bundles of punches, was defensively savvy, had a good punch and an iron chin. His main attribute, though, for me, was that fire he carried within (he hated his father, who'd shot his mother while baby James Toney was in her arms).

Hopkins and Toney didn't really cross at middle, but given every pound above middle for Toney was a pound of lard we can probably say it was his best weight. In 1993 when bhop was a contender I guess it could potentially have happened, at the point Toney was seasoned and bhop not quite the wily old pro he became (though still good enough to give Jones his toughest fight). Given Toney was erratic even then... Motivation, style of opponent, weight drained, whatever... it's a tough fight to call. If we're saying Toney of the early 90's v Hopkins of late 90's... Then Hopkins for me, just a bit better alround fighter.

Cruiser in 2003? I appreciate that the jirov win signalled a renaissance for Toney but really it would be 2 fat blokes...who gives a Smeg.

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:Toney was fantastic. It annoys me the way his career turned out.

His early career was something else. He was a good defensive fighter, but he looked comfortable in a scrap.

He is a funny man to listen to (if you can understand him). He also did a good job as Frazier in the Ali film.

Quite like Toney. He has balls!

You do wonder how much help he had later in his career (he was only busted up at heavyweight from memory but packed on significant bulk on the rise up). He was ntorious for struggling with weight. A former NFL player in college - he must have been virtually anaemic when making 160.

Like Hopkins, he was an old-school fighter (he was trained by Bill Miller, who I believe may have had links to SR Robinson - Hopkins was tutored by Bouie Fischer). Often, and especially on these boards, old-school fighters are derided with the whole "all sports move on" line. I believe the success of Hopkins, Toney and Mayweather flies in the face of that. They excelled because they were technically, streets ahead of their peers.

At middleweight (probably his best weight) he threw bundles of punches, was defensively savvy, had a good punch and an iron chin. His main attribute, though, for me, was that fire he carried within (he hated his father, who'd shot his mother while baby James Toney was in her arms).

He definitely had help at Heavyweight. Though looking at Evan Fields, the same can be said for him.

His fight with Nunn was a great watch. Only actually watched it recently.

I had a boxing mag in the house. It showed an old article from 91 or 92 (can't remember). The article claimed that Toney would be the future of the sport and would take his place alongside the greats like Robinson, Monzon and Hagler.

It never quite played out like that. Great talent, none the less.

milkyboy wrote:Hopkins and Toney didn't really cross at middle, but given every pound above middle for Toney was a pound of lard we can probably say it was his best weight. In 1993 when bhop was a contender I guess it could potentially have happened, at the point Toney was seasoned and bhop not quite the wily old pro he became (though still good enough to give Jones his toughest fight). Given Toney was erratic even then... Motivation, style of opponent, weight drained, whatever... it's a tough fight to call. If we're saying Toney of the early 90's v Hopkins of late 90's... Then Hopkins for me, just a bit better alround fighter.

Cruiser in 2003? I appreciate that the jirov win signalled a renaissance for Toney but really it would be 2 fat blokes...who gives a Smeg.

Difficult one. He crucified Iran Barkley at 168 in '93 and became the best fighter in the sport up there. Had they met in '93, Toney would have had too much (incidentally, Toney had seven fights that year - I do miss fighters actually fighting on a regular basis).

I'd also go for Hopkins had the best middleweight versions of them met. He threw more shots and had the edge in speed. It would have been a purist's delight.

You'll notice Haz I didn't suggest that Mayweather did win the WBA belt from Mosley but that he was the champion.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You'll notice Haz I didn't suggest that Mayweather did win the WBA belt from Mosley but that he was the champion.

Well, a merit point for you this morning. You did suggest that he was interested in gathering belts, which wasn't very accurate. So half a point off.

He just won five of the things by accident.

As for Hopkins, the performance he produced against Pavlik was sublime and he threw combinations for the first time in a long time.

hazharrison wrote:

Like Hopkins, he was an old-school fighter (he was trained by Bill Miller, who I believe may have had links to SR Robinson - Hopkins was tutored by Bouie Fischer). Often, and especially on these boards, old-school fighters are derided with the whole "all sports move on" line. I believe the success of Hopkins, Toney and Mayweather flies in the face of that. They excelled because they were technically, streets ahead of their peers.

it's a valid point about those guys, throw in mccallum too... they all carried on beyond an age where they should have been competitive. If we ignore any juicing allegations, part of that is down to excellent fundamentals. Watching Bhop neutralise younger, fitter, stronger men, with subtle feints and movement, controlling range - is fascinating if not exciting.

In terms of the sport moving on, it has in some respects but i guess there's tv/promoter emphasis on flair, attack and excitement... everyone wanting to be a leonard or a naz, not a mccallum. You do wonder, how when people see the success of the guys mentioned above, that more emphasis isn't placed on learning the craft. I wonder how much of it comes from amateur boxing backgrounds and scoring systems encouraging volume of punches and attack over defence.

I guess it also depends on what's considered old school... shoulder roll/philly shell for example - george benton studied under futch and gets credit for mccallum/holy/whittaker... but not all their fighters used it, at least to great effect. Maybe the great trainers recognised that instead of one size fits all, that you took the attributes of the boxer and gave them a style that was effective for them... peek a boo for tyson etc. Manny Steward learned from Futch, but not all his fighters ended up old school, likewise Roach. Did they 'forget' or did they just not have fighters with those attributes? Maybe today's trainers are more vanilla in their approach. Hell I don't know, I don't work in a boxing gym... I'm just chucking random thoughts out there.

I think the guys we're talking about are all intelligent (from a boxing perspective) and students of the game, that has enabled them to develop a style that suits their attributes, that may include learning from past greats and picking up a few almost forgotten tricks. They also happen to be talented, motivated, hard working and ring savvy. I don't know its a case of old = good/bad, new = good/bad. I'm also not sure all this stuff was taught in the 20's/30's either... it doesn't always look like it when you watch old fights! Happy to be advised/corrected on when all the various skills and dark arts associated with 'old school' came to prominence... I'm aware of various youtube videos assessing great fighters from the past and assessing their footwork, technique etc. It's usually the greats though!

[quote="Hammersmith harrier"]He just won five of the things by accident.

Aye Floyd never wanted the belts. He had to duck and dodge his way and collected them by chance

Hindsight really is a wonderful thing. No doubt Haz and the like were accusing Floyd of ducking Canelo and Mosley for example.

The minute Floyd wins. 'Oh he waited until he was old'. Never mind the fact that Mosley smashed Margarito to pieces and many thought he would bully Floyd.

Canelo was drained! Didn't stop many for picking him to be far too big and strong. Also Floyd was like 36 at the time. Far from a spring chicken himself and completely schooled Canelo.

Thought he was a great middleweight no arguments but stank the place out at light heavyweight. Wish he'd gone at middle. He was 38 when he beat Trinidad FFS!!

Stinkfests against other blown up middles along with beating duff champions like Shumenov and Cloud doesn't say that much along with his rank refusal to fight Andre Ward because he knew he wouldn't win. As far as I'm concerned he harmed the light heavyweight division and it would have been better off without him in it.

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Like Hopkins, he was an old-school fighter (he was trained by Bill Miller, who I believe may have had links to SR Robinson - Hopkins was tutored by Bouie Fischer). Often, and especially on these boards, old-school fighters are derided with the whole "all sports move on" line. I believe the success of Hopkins, Toney and Mayweather flies in the face of that. They excelled because they were technically, streets ahead of their peers.

it's a valid point about those guys, throw in mccallum too... they all carried on beyond an age where they should have been competitive. If we ignore any juicing allegations, part of that is down to excellent fundamentals. Watching Bhop neutralise younger, fitter, stronger men, with subtle feints and movement, controlling range - is fascinating if not exciting.

In terms of the sport moving on, it has in some respects but i guess there's tv/promoter emphasis on flair, attack and excitement... everyone wanting to be a leonard or a naz, not a mccallum. You do wonder, how when people see the success of the guys mentioned above, that more emphasis isn't placed on learning the craft. I wonder how much of it comes from amateur boxing backgrounds and scoring systems encouraging volume of punches and attack over defence.

I guess it also depends on what's considered old school... shoulder roll/philly shell for example - george benton studied under futch and gets credit for mccallum/holy/whittaker... but not all their fighters used it, at least to great effect. Maybe the great trainers recognised that instead of one size fits all, that you took the attributes of the boxer and gave them a style that was effective for them... peek a boo for tyson etc. Manny Steward learned from Futch, but not all his fighters ended up old school, likewise Roach. Did they 'forget' or did they just not have fighters with those attributes? Maybe today's trainers are more vanilla in their approach. Hell I don't know, I don't work in a boxing gym... I'm just chucking random thoughts out there.

I think the guys we're talking about are all intelligent (from a boxing perspective) and students of the game, that has enabled them to develop a style that suits their attributes, that may include learning from past greats and picking up a few almost forgotten tricks. They also happen to be talented, motivated, hard working and ring savvy. I don't know its a case of old = good/bad, new = good/bad. I'm also not sure all this stuff was taught in the 20's/30's either... it doesn't always look like it when you watch old fights! Happy to be advised/corrected on when all the various skills and dark arts associated with 'old school' came to prominence... I'm aware of various youtube videos assessing great fighters from the past and assessing their footwork, technique etc. It's usually the greats though!

Great points. If you watch McCallum vs Curry back, you can see quite clearly how much better technically, those guys were than the majority of fighters around today.

There was very definitely a switch to more athletic boxers in the 90s. Roy Jones was a case in point. Technically, he wasn't as good as those mentioned but he was freakishly quick and powerful. Shane Mosley, too, pioneered what he called "power boxing" which consisted of him throwing power shots continually round after round (swinging for the fences with them). It then ran through via Pacquiao (and Naz to an extent, once he'd abandoned his fundementals). Oddly, despite fighters looking more ripped and muscular, they struggled to fight at the same pace as their predecessors (in the main - Pacquiao was a whirling dervish). Ray Mancini made a good point on Twitter this week about how in his day, they would train six weeks for a 15 round fight - whereas these days, camps are much longer and there are way bigger gaps between fights. It would appear there's a trend for fighters to increase power and explosiveness to the detriment of skills and stamina.

Good reference to Tyson - there was a guy who's technique was way ahead of the field until it steadily unraveled, leaving him a flat-footed, smallish on shot hitter.

Looking at today's top fighters, you have Ward - who I think could very definitely be described as old-school and Crawford (who strikes me as something of a throwback - technically very good). Then you have Rigo, Golovkin, Lomachenko and Kovalev, who have been able to separate themselves from the rest due to their extensive amateur backgrounds (showing how far the US programme has regressed over recent decades). And then Gonzalez, who is just a mini-marvel. He's a bit of both: good technique and rhythm backed up with freakish punching power and workrate.