Is Tavoris Cloud The Most Stupid Boxer Ever?

First topic message reminder :

If you are world class and you've been boxing for a large portion of your life and you've become a world champion and you've matured as a fighter and are now 31 years of age, you have a 2 and a half month training camp to study a fighter and work out how to beat him, you must really be incredibly stupid to get your tactics so wrong that you get completely done over by a 48 year old man, right?

I don't want to take ANYTHING away from B-Hop what he achieved last night was staggering, to show the guile he did and boxing ability to old man his opponent is nothing short of incredibe, he truly is an ATG.

However, if you're Cloud and you hold so many advantages, in being stronger and WAAAAY WAYY fresher and having way more stamina than your opponent, WHY, oh bloody WHY would you give Hopkins so many dead spots to recover, the few times he decided to really throw caution to the wind and go to the body was when Hopkins was most uncomfortable, but the first time he actually did that was in the 8th round!!!! His gameplan must have been not to allow Hopkins to dictate pace, surely, but he barely ever seemed as though he wanted to push the pace hard. I was sat there thinking, do you really want this Cloud? Then I just started thinking, he probably does, he's simply just too stupid to get it.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Making a mockery of the sport.............

With the weak belt holders all not willing to fight each other its not as if its that hard to make much more of a mockery of the sport.

Don’t think Hopkins makes a mockery of the sport think the situation where there are anything up to six or seven people all with claims to call themselves world champions makes a mockery of the sport. For as long as that persists you will always get situations where things can be done which would not be possible under a one belt system such as Jones winning a title at heavy or a 48 year old bloke winning a world title.

However as I believe young people are fond of saying “don’t hate the player, hate the game” Despite this it still does not lessen the fact that even in these days of fractured world titles and too many divisions what the likes of Jones and Hopkins achieved are still pretty few and far between and as such worthy of praise as far as I am concerned.

Who say's I hate Hopkins......

He's cashing in and why not...

Don't think he's good for the sport though...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Who say's I hate Hopkins......

Not sure anybody did.

"Don't hate the player, hate the game"..thought it was aimed at me...

No worries ...Only want to argue with people that play fair..

It's a saying Truss, am fairly sure it is not meant to be taken literally.

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:You just have to look at the fighters than Hopkins is winning these belts off. They aren't exactly technically the best, they all seem to have the same traits....Palvik, Pascal & now Cloud....

Look what happened when Hopkins met Calzaghe and Dawson....

Styles make fights and Hopkins is lucky to be around the same weight class(es) as such one dimenisional fighters that just so happen to hold belts.

In that case, Roy Jones is lucky that, while in his forties, there are limited, mechanical title holders / contenders such as Lebedev and Green to fight as well then, just as a forty-odd year old Holyfield was lucky to have the eternally average guys like Ibragimov and Larry Donald to feast on.

Difference is, time (understandably) ravaged their skills to the point where they lost - and lost conclusively - to guys who they'd have easily beaten in their peaks. On the other hand, Hopkins continues to win against opponents of a similar rank. Again, as I've said before, there have been plenty of times in boxing history where certain divisions haven't really been awash with great names, but despite you still never see anyone Hopkins' age running amock amongst most of the fighters within that division.

If you want to say that Hopkins is just lucky to still be picking up world title belts then I'd have to ask why the many, many others who have been in the same situation while the wrong side of forty haven't done the same.

I don't understand why you'd take issue with anyone applauding Hopkins, Truss. He has almost everything stacked against him from a basic point of view these days (age, declining stamina, no big punching power to get himself out of trouble, relatively inactive over the past few years with only seven fights since the end of 2008) and yet he continues to win. He can't simply land pay-off punches ala the fat, old Foreman - he has to go the long way round everytime and still finds a way to do it.

Here's a man who took up boxing late, made a pretty inauspicious start to his career, has been fighting world title bouts for a full two decades and who has been written off as 'finished' many times over, and yet he continues to beat all but the very, very best through sheer hard work, ring craft acquired through experience and unshakable self-belief. Comparing him to Evander and the like doesn't wash. Holyfield, since the turn of the century, has continued to lose to second-raters, take painful beatings and generally look a shadow of his former self. None of that really applies to Hopkins.

Roy and Evander's form and outings in their forties are to be frowned upon, for sure. Hopkins' are to be praised and celebrated as far as I'm concerned.

88Chris05 wrote:

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:You just have to look at the fighters than Hopkins is winning these belts off. They aren't exactly technically the best, they all seem to have the same traits....Palvik, Pascal & now Cloud....

Look what happened when Hopkins met Calzaghe and Dawson....

Styles make fights and Hopkins is lucky to be around the same weight class(es) as such one dimenisional fighters that just so happen to hold belts.

In that case, Roy Jones is lucky that, while in his forties, there are limited, mechanical title holders / contenders such as Lebedev and Green to fight as well then, just as a forty-odd year old Holyfield was lucky to have the eternally average guys like Ibragimov and Larry Donald to feast on.

Difference is, time (understandably) ravaged their skills to the point where they lost - and lost conclusively - to guys who they'd have easily beaten in their peaks. On the other hand, Hopkins continues to win against opponents of a similar rank. Again, as I've said before, there have been plenty of times in boxing history where certain divisions haven't really been awash with great names, but despite you still never see anyone Hopkins' age running amock amongst most of the fighters within that division.

If you want to say that Hopkins is just lucky to still be picking up world title belts then I'd have to ask why the many, many others who have been in the same situation while the wrong side of forty haven't done the same.

I don't understand why you'd take issue with anyone applauding Hopkins, Truss. He has almost everything stacked against him from a basic point of view these days (age, declining stamina, no big punching power to get himself out of trouble, relatively inactive over the past few years with only seven fights since the end of 2008) and yet he continues to win. He can't simply land pay-off punches ala the fat, old Foreman - he has to go the long way round everytime and still finds a way to do it.

Here's a man who took up boxing late, made a pretty inauspicious start to his career, has been fighting world title bouts for a full two decades and who has been written off as 'finished' many times over, and yet he continues to beat all but the very, very best through sheer hard work, ring craft acquired through experience and unshakable self-belief. Comparing him to Evander and the like doesn't wash. Holyfield, since the turn of the century, has continued to lose to second-raters, take painful beatings and generally look a shadow of his former self. None of that really applies to Hopkins.

Roy and Evander's form and outings in their forties are to be frowned upon, for sure. Hopkins' are to be praised and celebrated as far as I'm concerned.

I meant that Hopkins understands what styles match his, Jones for example doesn't....he has no chin and shouldn't be anywhere near people who can switch off your lights with one punch like lebetev as mechanical as he may be...

If Jones went into a cruiser fight against a belt holder who albeit mechanical, was a light puncher, you would have to give him a chance.

Just how I feel anyway

I'm not suggesting Hopkins shouldn't be applauded....I'm suggesting a near fifty year old dominating any other sport would bring the sport into ridicule....

A 38 year old Holmes and Ali were whupped..an old Leonard was whupped....Hearns....Robinson..Louis..and that's how it should be...

These guys were ten years younger....

Imagine a 48 yr old winning a major in golf...a major in tennis anything in athletics...gymnastics..basketball, rugby...football....cricket......swimming..cycling.....

Doesn't look good..Highlighting the lack of talent.

Trussman

Can I just ask why you view BHop as being such a stain on the sport?

He beat Pavlik who was at the time considered a huge rising star

He beat Pascal who's given Froch hell and beaten Dawson

He beat Cloud who many thought would end his career

He's won 5 of his last 8 with one draw and a NC (the draw was a robbery to boot), for the most part fighting some pretty nifty boxers.

Do I get a slight hint of jealousy that you're in your late 40s and the wear and tear of mother nature has taken its toll on you? And that BHop is still not only mixing it with but also beating the youngsters in todays game?

This isn't a Holyfield situation. He's still sharp, still in shape and boy - he can still damn fight. So what on earth is your reasoning based on?

I've covered why................

1. A 48 year old is risking his health...as he lacks the recuperative powers of a guy much younger..

2. It highlights the lack of talent in the sport for a 50 yr old to be beating Boxing's best....

I'ts not a personal thing..............although I think referees aren't helping with his constant spoiling..

Talent would beat this guy...............I pick Cleverly to win If he sets a decent pace..and with a strong referee...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:A 38 year old Holmes and Ali were whupped..an old Leonard was whupped....Hearns....Robinson..Louis..and that's how it should be...

These guys were ten years younger....

Why is that the way it should be, Truss? For me, the way it should be is that the better man of the two fighters in questions on the night wins, regardless of age. You can't bemoan Hopkins winning at an advanced age just because others have failed to do so. Normally, the becoming the first to do something gets you praise, not derision!

It takes away from Hopkins to say that it's all just down to a lack of talent. Granted, 175 lb is hardly stacked right now, but there have been plenty of lesser divisions with even fewer quality operators around, but you still never saw a forty-eight year old having his way with them. You can bet your bottom dollar that Roy wouldn't have been able to beat Cloud on Saturday night, and nor would he have been able to beat Pascal a couple of years back. That, to me anyway, suggests that it's as much down to Hopkins being a special, almost one-off fighter as it is a lack of talent in the weight class.

I don't think it makes the sport a figure of ridicule, at least to those who are sensible about it.

The guy fights 30 seconds a round..........Robinson at 40 is better than Popkins at 48........and he was having his butt handed to him....

Why because decent boxers were coming through..........

No 48 year old should dominate because no 48 year old can last the pace....

Weak refereeing...........point off every fifth time he grabs.........

and he's gone forever....................

In a decent era he's finished after Calzaghe..........

Jermaine Taylor forced a decent pace....................all over..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I've covered why................

1. A 48 year old is risking his health...as he lacks the recuperative powers of a guy much younger..

2. It highlights the lack of talent in the sport for a 50 yr old to be beating Boxing's best....

I'ts not a personal thing..............although I think referees aren't helping with his constant spoiling..

Talent would beat this guy...............I pick Cleverly to win If he sets a decent pace..and with a strong referee...

1. Why is he risking his health? He hit Cloud more times than he got hit and he's never taken punishment in his career which is why both his physical and mental state are off the scale.

2. Shall we assume that a 46 year old Nicklaus was up against a lack of talent? Or for a 61 year old Watson lead 3 rounds of The Open against poor opposition? Or 40 year old Tendulkar? Morten Anderson (for those American Football fans) @ 47? Or Geordie Howe (I need to stop hanging around with American people) at god knows how old?

Point is like the above you'd look at them and ask what's in common with BHop. The answer's the drive and passion to train, the mental toughness to keep grinding out the results and the physical attributes that would make you think he's still in his late 20s.

And saying he's not faced "talent" is doing a big disservice to Pascal & Cloud - both fighters who'd beat Nath "I barely beat Bellew" Cleverly in clear fashion.

Nicklaus was 46......and it was a one off back in 86!!!!............Watson didn't win and it was on a course where length didn't matter.........

Poor rebuttal.........Hoppo wins on a regular basis.........I grant you but he's taking a big risk....

Recovery powers are diminished greatly the older you get....It's a fact!!

I take longer to recover from workouts than I did.............

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm not suggesting Hopkins shouldn't be applauded....I'm suggesting a near fifty year old dominating any other sport would bring the sport into ridicule....

A 38 year old Holmes and Ali were whupped..an old Leonard was whupped....Hearns....Robinson..Louis..and that's how it should be...

These guys were ten years younger....

Imagine a 48 yr old winning a major in golf...a major in tennis anything in athletics...gymnastics..basketball, rugby...football....cricket......swimming..cycling.....

Doesn't look good..Highlighting the lack of talent.

Player aged 43...
Nicklaus aged 46...
Palmer aged 41...
Els aged 43...

"Imagine a 48 year old".............I'm still imagining...

None of the names you mention were anything but exceptions to the rule anyway and none won consistently... or were at or anywhere near the top of the rankings...

Poor rebuttal...

Lol classic Truss, when it doesn't suit your argument they're suddenly 'exceptions to the rule'

They aren't 48 either.........

Yeh, because 1 or 2 years here or there makes a difference to your argument...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Making a mockery of the sport.............

I agree to an extent. Just saying I am uneasy with Hopkins beating up these guys (Ok yes, yes he's 48 aint that great!) but then very publicly stating he will never fight Ward. Just saying if he was 34 saying these things then he'd be pilloried for being a ducker but gets a pass by playing the "age card".

Yeh because 1 or 2 years...........

Mate I asked the question stating 48 year olds specifically............

So it does make a difference.

Hopkins' age doesn't bother me so much it's his milking his age and only taking on guys he knows he can beat that does. Pavlik, Pascal, Cloud and possibly Cleverly in the futire are all limited guys he knows he can beat. Just saying he's trading on that. I may be getting a bit precious about his blatant ducking of Ward and the fact he's using his 48 as an excuse to do so.

Super D Boon wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Making a mockery of the sport.............

I agree to an extent. Just saying I am uneasy with Hopkins beating up these guys (Ok yes, yes he's 48 aint that great!) but then very publicly stating he will never fight Ward. Just saying if he was 34 saying these things then he'd be pilloried for being a ducker but gets a pass by playing the "age card".

He called ward out after the fight on saturday

What bothers me is he fights 30 seconds a round...spoils the rest and the fan-boy-refs don't take any action..

Like Chris said earlier though nobody is claiming Hopkins is the best light heavy in the world or top dog in the division but it does not really matter, what is true though is that at 48 he has no business being anywhere near the top of the sport and whether you like his style or not or whether you appreciate his level of activity or otherwise there is no denying he is in the top four light heavies in the world which is remarkable.

If he was a 40 year old tennis player who could not beat Federer or Djokovik but could consistently still make semi finals and finals of grand slam events would we slate him for not being able to beat them two or laud him for being the best of the rest. My guess is it would be the latter, not sure the situation for Bernard is any different.

No 40 year old tennis players do though.....which is my point.

Got to be honest Truss, not sure I see the point, if someone did similar in a sport, as is the case with Giggs in football we would praise them and laud the acheivement not sure why we wouldn't do the same for Hopkins.

Giggs isn't 48 and he's not likely to get seriously hurt!!

Look for a guy to be dominating at nearly 50 at Boxing highlights it's dearth of talent..

I don't mind people having opposite views............although I wish some would air them in a nicer way.

I agree to an extent it highlights the dearth of talent, I also think it illustrates how ridiculous the multiple governing bodies and belt situation is but that is not a bad thing as far as I am concerned. The sport has issues and nobody in power within the sport seems bothered about addressing these issues. If it takes Hopkins picking world titles up in his late 40’s to highlight these problems more power to him as far as I am concerned.

Funny the fight with Cloud Hopkins didn't hold on as much as usual because Cloud seemed more than happy to fight at the range and pace that Hoppo wanted. And Ward confirmed that Hopkins said there is no amount of money that would make Hoppo fight him. If Victor is right though then hats off to BHop.

Am I the only one who's uneasy about BHop being so public about his ducking of Ward?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Giggs isn't 48 and he's not likely to get seriously hurt!!

Look for a guy to be dominating at nearly 50 at Boxing highlights it's dearth of talent..

I don't mind people having opposite views............although I wish some would air them in a nicer way.

Julius Boros: 1968 PGA Championship, 48 years, 4 months, 18 days

Only seven weeks away from his 49th birthday, Jimenez took the UBS Hong Kong Open for a third time with a one-stroke victory over Swede Fredrik Andersson Hed.

Formula One - 46 years / 41 days: Juan-Manual Fangio (German G. P. 1957)

Olmpics - Dara Torres was the story at the 2008 games in Beijing when she won three Silver medals at the age of 41.


As the above shows, there is someone in every sport who makes your argument redundant.

The Ward thing has me confused, after his rant Andre said that Hopkins wouldn't fight him for any amount of money on either Showtime or HBO but then after the fight said he was interested in the fight. Ward did say though that he couldn't hear what Hopkins was saying so maybe there were mixed messages.

I can only applaud and stand in awe of him to be honest; Pavlik, Pascal and Cloud aren't all time greats but they were all world class and Hopkins used all his experience to beat them all comfortably. To put it into context his more illustrious counterpart Jones would be unable to compete against any of them so the lack of talent can't be the sole reason he's still able to win.

Watching the fight yesterday the commentary of Ward was really interesting, he kept saying that Cloud is at his best when he's able to set his feet and unload his right hand, he also looks average at against a moving target. So Hopkins uses a modicum of movement constantly circling to his right so negating the main threat of Cloud, it was a very simple gameplan but one that very few 48 year olds would have been able to do.

1968................nearly 50 years ago...............and it's golf.........

Also Truss, if we can flip the situation I would be interested to know your opinion to know if someone can be too young to win belt.

So if a young gun came through and won a world title in a division after only 10 fights for example. Would this mean that the division is poor and the younger boxer who is only 19 for example is bad for the sport as he hasn't learnt the ropes, had the tough fights and so on. What to you is an acceptable age/amount of fights to be fighting at the top level?

Should it not be if you're good enough then you're good enough?

If a kid has the skills at 19 to go with the natural speed, reflexes and a full youthful tankof gasoline I would applaud them....

Archie Moore

Aged 45 draws with future world champion Willie Pastrano, a fight many thought the old Mongoose had won.
Aged 44 knocks out former heavyweight title challenger Pete Rademacher and outpoints Rinaldi in defence of his light heavyweight title
3 days before his 42nd birthday gets knocked down 3 times in the first round before turning it around and knocking out Yvon Durelle.

Never rated Cloud, even back on the old 606 I was highly dismissive of both him and Bad Chad. Clinton Woods made Cloud look decidely average before nerves got the better of him and all Clinton did was keep him behind the jab. Cloud was clueless for the first few rounds.

However, irrespective of how poor I think Cloud is, is doesn't take away from the fact that he was schooled by Hopkins and it shouldn't detract from Hopkins ability to do this again and again. When he does things like this it's almost impossible to dislike the guy.

Whilst I can see TRUSS's point about a guy nearly 50 years old being viewed as a shining light in the sport as beign less than desirable I also think he's being a big ol' grumpy pants about it.

Sometimes you just have to marvel at things in the sport. Guys that age still winning world titles, guys holding titles at multiple weights, guys going on record breaking winning streaks. If it was so easy, it would be happening with monotonous regularity.

I'd like to see Hoppo retire but sadly very few retire on a high.

What did he do at 48??

It should be impossible not to give credit to B-hops sublime talent. Though, I can see why many don't because much of what he does is so subtle. No one is saying he has the best engine in the world, and yes at his age it will be more difficult to deal with sustained pressure. However, Bernard hits hard enough, and accurate enough, for only the brave to continue their attack's and not to be dissuaded. He also has a wealth of experience which allows him to spoil those with the gumption to try this. That said, it's only fair to say "as a fight wears the sting in his shots will lessen and he'll be more vulnerable". Yes, perhaps, but he never wastes a shot therefore he doesn't expel needless energy.

When footballers age they lose a yard of pace, but the best are still found in the right positions. There pace didn't get them there; their experience and ability to read the game did. That's the same with with B-hop.

No one is saying he is THE MAN at the weight. But, irrespective of age, he should be given credit for what he is doing, beating legitimate contenders. And when you factor his age into the equation, he deserves even more credit.

I'd be interested to know how the 606 historians would consider B-hops opponents, since the age of 40, doing in the other modern era's.

I personally think they could hold their own, none of them a champ, but hold there own with some of the top 10.

This only adds to how well B-hop is doing at the ripe old age of 79.

hold their own with who...Foster, Spinks, Jones jr???

Not very likely Mate....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:hold their own with who...Foster, Spinks, Jones jr???

Not very likely Mate....

now now TRUSS lets not put words in my mouth.....

TheMackemMawler wrote: I personally think they could hold their own, none of them a champ, but hold there own with some of the top 10.

I imagine Cleverly could bang out some of the top 10.........in other eras...

Ramzi Hassan, JB williamson...........Don't mean anything.

What it means is that B-hop would at least be in the Top 10 of the some other eras at the age of 48/9.... and deserves credit for it.

Who knows what Moore did at 48 Truss, he could potentially have done all the things I mentioned but he was a boxer who had fought well over 200 times against the highest level of opposition possible but was still able to be the man to beat at the age of 44.

Although it's now 5 years ago his fight with Calzaghe is the most important factor here, he managed to give a great boxer (yes Calzaghe was great) the toughest fight of his life and many (not me) thought he had done enough to win. I'm not sure how many 43 year old former middleweights give Calzaghe any trouble at all.

Light heavyweight is traditionally a pretty strong division. A major factor in Hopkins favour now is the dilution of the divisions by having almost twice as many now as in earlier years. Before the days of 17 divisions, light heavyweight would be a meeting point for potentially any top fighter between above 160 and below 180 so the divison would be far stronger than nowadays where you have SMW or CW stealing some of the talent.

How many of the super middleweights would you make a favourite over him though Manos, Ward and possibly Froch?

If getting into an alphabet top 10 is a great achievement...then I'll agree with you.

Not just an alphabet top ten though is it, he's rated at number two behind Dawson at light heavyweight by the ring magazine.

Talking about prior top 10s in different eras..

Do keep up..