I agree with ya man..The fighters of old were extremely tough and had soo much heart it almost seemed fake if you're watching it for the first time..I don't know how they did it..Fights like Ali/Frazier 3,Basilio/Fullmer,and Robinson/La Motta makes ya wonder how those guys were able to really do that..Thats a really short list but says a lot..

I usually agree with alot of what you say....this is not one of them. No way does Glen Johnson give B-Hop a beating! Hopkins would win a blowout decision. Johnson is nothing special in that ring like someone said earlier. Hopkins even at this age is still capable of beating the best. All of his losses have been questionable at best and people still continue to doubt the man.

Once again he'll silence the critics with a great performance against Pavlik.

Glen Johnson doesnt even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as B-Hop IMO.

80-90% of Glen's losses are very very questionable too..A lot would say he straight up got robbed and that the decision wasn't even questionable..I think B-Hop and Tarver are really the 2 guys who really showed they beat Glen..There may be others but there is no doubt he has been robbed outta decisions more than anyone..

Bottom line no matter how old Hopkins is he'll give any fighter problems and make them look horrible based soley on his style alone. Do anyone really think BHop would give Glen the opportunity to get off like he usually does?

Could not disagree more on the skill part. The more you fight the more skilled you become at fighting pure & simple. When you have 100 fights you are far more knowledgable on the little things that will help you win from the 1/4 step to slip a punch to the inside counter right uppercuts etc than when you have 20 or 30 carefully matched fights.

The ball licking that goes on about Hopkins & his subtle skills was something 90% of fighters had 50 years ago & was norm rather than the exception.

Yes there are some highly skilled fighters going around today (who look far more skilled than they are due to their contemporaries lack of skill & ring smarts) but most of the modern "champions" would be lucky to be sparring partners in the past.

Put simply I would take a fighter like Henry Armstrong or Roberto Duran 100 times out of 100 over a PBF purely due to proven fighting ability & ring savvy.

I wouldn't, espcially not over PBF, Hopkins, or Toney but I would over a Cotto, Margarito, or Pavlick

I would day in day out. Comparing Hopkins or Toney with Armstrong or Duran is a bit rich though due to the prime weight difference.

Yea P4P, Prime for Prime would be hard to compare. I mean if you compare the opponents to Durans Prime to Hopkin's and Toney's prime I could understand why you would want to go with Duran. But at the same time there will still good fighters, Hopkins and Toney just made them appear to be mediocre.

I am not digging at Hopkins or Toney just saying that the skills they are lauded for were much more commonplace in the past especially when fighters fought frequently.

In my opinion Floyd is not even close to the best ever at any of the divisions he fought in. there are multiple guys I would pick to beat him & some would make it suprisingly easy I think. Of course this is speculation & only my opinion though.

I respect your opinion but in mine I think Mayweather is one of the most evolved fighters of this era. No I'm not saying he is the greatest of all times or of this era but I dont think he isn't far behind.

IMO he would be lapped by the likes of Leonard, Hearns & Duran & many many more.

I agree with the second half like I already said,but the first half I don't..I think the way guys trained back in the day was a lot more successful than today..A lot of today's fighters use heavy weights which only slows you down,makes you less flexible,and makes you more stiff feeling..I know cause I used to do it too..I'm starting to train more old school and am getting a lot better results than when I was doing my heavy lifting..They trained to go 15 rounds and a lot of guys these days have problems going 12..Fighters these days are sooo much more lazy than back then..As far as skill,equipment doesn't give you your skill,you do that all on your own..Shadow boxing is the best exercise to get your skill than hitting the mitts..Once you've gotten your boxing skills from those 2,than you get in the ring and spar..Then ya get a fight..There really isn't much equipment needed for skill,but with conditioning thats a different story..

Floyd would probably getting whoopings from Leonard and Hearns,but I don't know about Duran..Duran keeps coming but if you're going to beat Floyd you need the boxing skills of Leonard and Hearns..Wilfred Benitez would be someone who I think would have been a good fight for Floyd too,at the lower weights though of course..

Floyd's skills are insane and I don't see many being able to beat him..He is not the best ever but would be competitive with the greats..His timing,reflexes,hand speed,defense,counter punching skills,and thinking ability in the ring is what makes him soo great..It sucks when people trash his name cause of all people I would like to too..I don't like him personally at all..I definitely am a big hater of him outside the ring but inside the ring he is a boxing genius..I always want to bet against Floyd,but it is really stupid if ya do..Especially these days..I don't see any welterweight beating Floyd..Skill overrides any physical disadvantage..Although I think Paul Williams would be the best fight for him at welterweight,everyone else would get UD'd..

AGREED

I personally happen to think that Duran was more skilled as a boxer as when he wanted to he could box & move beautifully with the very best especially at 135. He also had killer instinct & could bore his way inside & break you down with his inside game.

Floyd had a tough time with Castillo when he was in his prime & Duran is 10 times the fighter in all aspects of his game than Castillo (not a knock on Castillo by any means). Duran would win & most likely by stoppage due to his pressure & skill.

I also liked Duran most at 135..I also do think that Duran had more skill than he was given credit for..It's just too bad he wasn't always thinking skill and would sometimes just try to go all out for the KO..He would make it easy for Floyd if he tried to just walk in like he would sometimes do(this is how he got KO'd by Hearns)..If he tried to move a lot and make his inside work count and not stay in there for too long,he would have a chance..If you go on the inside with Floyd and throw everything you got then stay in there and not move out,you're getting taken to school majorly..He'd also be lucky if he didn't leave too many gaps in there while throwing on the inside for Floyd to close with fists..I would also want this fantasy matchup for 15 rounds..

I believe Duran beats Floyd by SD but it could have been a trilogy (with Duran coming out on top). Can't deny the fact that Duran can get reckless and Floyd is a really good outside fighter/counterpuncher..on the level of Leonard for sure. It wouldn't be a walk in the park for either fighter.

Fighters back then were tougher but fighters these days are more skilled. I really think Floyd would have had his way with Pep and as much as I hate to say it, Wlad probably beats Joe Louis.

WOW..You think Floyd would beat Pep??I gotta disagree with that..I think Pep was the best smaller guy in boxing..I do agree that Wlad. would beat Joe Louis..I know it took a lot for you to say that too..I think fighters back than were definitely tougher and I think that was because of their training methods..Skill is something individualistic and can't really be looked at as a whole really I think..If ya know what I mean..Ya can't really say today's skill is higher or less..It's who's skill is higher..If skill is better these days,than guys wouldn't be getting hit as much and really should be having more fights because of that..The greats of back in the days like Pep,Archie Moore,and Ray Robinson all had 200+ pro fights..I think it was their skill that aloud them to stay around for that long..Ali is a exception though in my mind..He had more fights than most the guys these days but the rope-a-doping got the best of him in the end I think..Ali also faced the majority of the top 10 biggest punchers in heavyweight history..Ali would also literally let guys beat on him in sparring just to toughen him up for his up and coming fight..

Pep was great..I wouldnt say anything if you think he would have beat Floyd. I admit I've only seen clips...and the Saddler fights...so based on those I think Pep would lose to Floyd because of Floyd's advantages in heigh, speed, reach and their defense were equal I guess. Pep was only 5'4 I believe. Having 200 fights is no joke I may be wrong but I remember reading about how he fought 11 times in 1 month or something and that's pretty insane especially since he's fights went to distance almost all the time..Tough tough guy. I read whatever I can find on him...

I'll let ya know if I run across any good stuff on Pep..Pep had 241 fights all together..Damn,actually I didn't know this but he just died in 2006!!!He was 84 years old..It is hard to see a lot of his fights from back then,but I've seen a decent amount on him to say what I've said about him on here..

Willie Pep and people commenting on him

I do know that he was involved in a bad plain crash before the Saddler fights and he was past-his-prime so a PRIME Pep is kind of a mystery to me much like a prime SRR is. I've only seen Robinson's fights at MW and LHW..

Good info on Pep

Funny shit too!!This is the story of him basically..Good stuff..

Modern technology, information and education etc improve a lot of areas. Like I said, the main difference is heart, toughness and dedication IMO. A lot of fighters are probably bigger and stronger today also.

What modern technology improves fighters these days??

Computers would be one

Types of workout equiptment, some of these new modern workouts and workout plans help. All the boxing equiptment provided now weren't all provided in the 60's and 70's. Different type of weight sets built to improve flexibility, speed, and not just power. Guys like Mackie and their evolved knowledge of the sport all are part of modern technology to help evolve the sport. Tougher, yes but more skilled, IMO the older fighters where not.

So you don't think dieticians have a better understanding and technology on diet, people in camps are able to monitor things they were never able to do in the past like how hard they work, whether it's heart rate, how many k's or miles to you guys they run off in a training session. You need to think outside the box, I think you are just thinking punching bags, ropes etc.

Exactly. I think Johnny is just thinking your typical cliche 'equiptment'.

I was curious to what you meant by that Fitz..I was more thinking of equipment though..When I said improve I also meant skill wise..I should of said that though..

The new equipment of today I am not a fan of..Old school methods are the best in my opinion..Like I said,I've used heavy weights and yes,it made me bigger but wasn't necessary and actually held me back..Look at Jeff Lacy too..A lot of trainers don't want their guys using weights..Before the 15 rounders,fighters would go 20-100 rounds..They would fight for 3 hours straight sometimes..Read the book The Fighting Irish..You'll learn a lot about boxing history..I think the old school guys were in far better shape than anyone today..Kostya Tsyzu is one guy who I think used todays new technology and stuff to its fully potential..The way they can monitor fighters these days is definitely a very good thing..Back in the day they may not of even known something was wrong with their guy till fight night which would end really bad..

Answer this one question,how do guys today have more skill??Equipment and technology have nothing to do with skill..Equipment and technology is used for stamina purposes..Skill is either natural or learned through your trainer..Shadow boxing sharpens technique and sparring is used for learning when to do certain things and show your skills..3King3 I remember you saying you haven't seen too many of the older fighters fight,so how can you say today's guys have more skill??I also want to say that the guys who you all are saying have more skill like James Toney,B-Hop and Floyd are all considered old school fighters..They all will say they are old school too..Why do you think they call them old school??There is something special about their skill level/style to be called old school..

Well skill may be the wrong word, but they are better informed now, stronger, bigger. They just have a better understand of there body, health and everything physically. They have access to things fighters back then didn't have.
Like I said, I think the main difference is work ethic, toughness etc. Most guys today seem to be 'forced' fighters and not so natural.

This is one of the reasons why I like the Klitchkos soo much..I think something really stupid was when Lamon Brewster questioned why Klitchko was fighting because "he didn't have to"..That was sooo stupid when he said that..I box and I definitely don't have to..I'm in college and am not boxing for money..Money is the last thing I want from boxing..I box because I love the sport and love the art..I don't want to hurt people but look at it as a art form..One of my trainers I've had called boxing a dance..Like a waltz..Boxers should box because they want to and not be forced into it..

I'm not a big Tyson fan(him outside the ring for the most part) but I respect him soo much for not just doing his own thing but being one of the biggest fans of boxing himself..I really liked watching him in the ring though..His knowledge in old school boxing is limitless..He knows sooo much and his style was picked up through watching those fights..I think it would be soo dope to talk to Tyson for a day all about the classics..I doubt 80-90% of fighters could match his knowledge on the classic fighters..

The bigger & stronger comment whilst correct has no credence in a "what if" world of mythical matchups.

If modern fighter fought back in "the day" they would face the same limitations with nutrition & training etc as the old timers did. The same goes for the old timer fighters. They would be bigger & stronger with the modern diet etc.

All said & done you learn a lot more about fighting from actually fighting as opposed to training. That is why the old timers were more skilled at fighting. If you put on a bad show you did not get paid in teh old days. Now you can just quit or take a soft count & get millions for it.

I said I've haven't seen them all but I've studied quite a few. Maybe not as many as you but I know more than the basic roots and foundation of boxing. Just because I dont know a great deal about every old fighter you've thrown out doesnt mean I dont know much about older fighters. Forgive me for not sticking my face in a old boxing book in all of my free time. And the part about me thinking James Toney, B-Hop, and Floyd where more skilled is MY OPINION. They are considered old school as far as their work ethic and passion for the sport and to learn and evolve the sport. You can call them old school fighters if you want, I'd just say they've done more studying to perfect their craft than a lot of other boxers. If you look at a broad picture, almost all boxers are old school fighters of some sort meaning the all have adopted something from an older fighter like style, mentality, and etc. Basically what I'm saying is every boxer considered to be slick isn't considered old school just like every face first boxer isnt considered old school (and you know there where a lot of them back in the early days of boxing). Prime example of what I mean is Margarito. He is about as straight forward, hard nose, big hearted, and most enduranced, boxer as it gets these days but he isn't considered and old school fighter. Atleast not to me.

So please dont try to pull rank cause you claim to know more about the history of boxing than me. To me thats just like someone memorizing the bible word for word but cant tell you importance of the wisdom given in each book. Not saying thats what you where trying to do but thats what it came off as.

hahaha..Geez,ya got all worked up..hahahaha..You said ya didn't know much about older boxers soo thats what made me say what I said..I also never said you thought James Toney,B-Hop,and Floyd are more skilled but I guess I now know you do..I was making examples..Don't get me wrong,I know a shit load about boxing history because I am really interested in it and when I'm not training or doing school work,I'll sometimes read about it..Also,I have a massive fight collection of modern and old boxing..I'm not trying to match knowledge,I just was saying what you said before that ya haven't looked into too many older fighters soo I figured ya couldn't really say that..I wasn't trying to get at ya dude,you're one of my favorite guys to talk to on here..You would of known I was trying to get ya if I was..

You make a lot of sense. But I'm not even suggesting the new guys are better.

Also about the part that's bolded. Sure, but they fought again. Now you put on a bad show these days, your career can basically be over just like that. One loss these days can put a fighter off TV and making serious money for good. Back then you could afford to have 20 losses.

Aight dude thats cool. I was just clarifying things thats all. Misinterpertations can lead to disasters and wrong doings. Just trying to prevent a useless debate of a misunderstanding. I respect yours and everybody elses opinions and knowledge about boxing.

Damn Politics in boxing.

Almost as bad as NCAA Football. One loss and its damn near a wrap.

I know Fitz you are a rational thinker anyway.

One loss in humiliating fashion & you are off TV & deserve to be so really. One loss in a action fight ala Marquez losing against Pac does not harm your career as much as a poor performance or fighting like Winky Wright does.

Why did Gatti & Holyfield still get big paydays after repeated humilitaing losses? Because they always come to put on a show & that puts arses in seats & ratings on the tube.

PBF could not sell out a 4000 seat arena in his HOMETOWN even when fighting against a former jnr welter world champion even though he was a multi division champion who was undefeated. Hatton could lose 2 or 3 fights back to back & still sell out arenas because he is entertaining to watch.

I would of probably said the same shit you did..Misinterpertations do cause a lot of shit talking on here..I rarely shit talk anyone but when I do its for real..I'm a calm guy in person and in the ring soo it takes quite a bit to get me worked up..I used to shit talk a lot of people before and would get in a lot of tussels(I didn't box then)..I never get in tussels anymore,especially after knowing what I know in boxing..I only would if I had to..

He is? Don't wanna sound like a hater but recently he's been hit and hold. The only good fight he's been in in recent years is the Mayweather fight IMO..

Hatton does need to get his shit together..Do you remember wayy before the Tsyzu fight when he'd just come out like a animal and destroy people's body and head??I liked that Hatton the most,then when the Tsyzu fight happened,he changed and wanted to hit and hold..It was effective and he didn't go about it the same as Ruiz(way more obvious)..Hatton makes it look like he coming in soo hard the clinch has to happen..Ruiz throws a punch and falls in with it..Only if people would of thrown more really short uppercuts against Ruiz..

I don't think moving around the weight division has helped him.

LOL

What do you think now?

After B-Hops last performance, there is NO WAY you can say someone will DEFINATELY beat him.



It was a masterful performance. You can try and make arguements how Glen would win, but imo, the only way Johnson would win would be if Hopkins really did get old over night.....which everyone has been saying for years.

There is one aspect of this fight I didn't see brought up that is extremely valid: About 2 years ago after Johnson had just beaten RJJ and Tarver and Woods consecutively, he stated that of all the fights he lost and all the fighters he had lost to, that "Bernard Hopkins is the only fighter that is better than me", he also said that all of his losses and draws could be attributed to him travelling into other fighter's hometowns and home countries.

IMO, Glen Johnson would have a huge disadvantage psychologically before ever even stepping into the ring with one Bernard Hopkins, couple that with who he is fighting is a recipe for a replay of what happened in 1997.

Bernard Hopkins KO 10 Glencoffe Johnson, in a blowout!!!

Said it in the beginning of this thread, said it in other threads at other sites. I have absolutely seen nothing in Glenn Johnson's game, that suggests to me that a rematch now would be any different than their fight in '97.

Glenn still loses!

Even though I still like Glen in this fight, I am going to stick to my word a NEVER pick against Hop again.