Breaking Through the Hype for Hopkins Versus Taylor
Salvatore Urciuoli - 7/12/2005
Often times it's difficult to separate hype from reality as a pay per
view match approaches. This is generally true and usually proportional
to the size of the event promoted. This phenomenon can be seen in
recent fights such as DeLaHoya-Hopkins in 2004 and most recently
Mayweather-Gatti. Looking back I can remember the vast majority of
fans, writers, and pundits giving DLH no chance versus the great but
aging Hopkins. This of course changed after the 'show' began as one of
the biggest jobs of these promoters and the combatants alike is to
convince people that they are about to see a fight that could go
either way. And even though you'll have a tough time getting these
same people to admit their change of heart today, I can remember the
widespread indecision and late charge for betting on DLH. So what
substituted itself for common sense and tight rational? 'Promotion'
happened but that's not always necessarily a bad thing.
The same thing occurred in the Gatti-Mayweather fight. This bout was
an even bigger mismatch on paper than DLH-Hopkins was, but the
promotion sparked some interest even if you had the inkling of what
was going to occur. Most in the 'know' felt that Gatti had only one
chance and that was of the 'punchers' variety. Most tuned in to
witness the bout in case the near impossibility of a Gatti KO came to
fruition. This most often points directly to the fact that Floyd
seemed to be loved about as much as Genghis Kahn while Gatti was
America's sweetheart.
This brings us to the match up between Hopkins and Taylor this
Saturday night. While no one can feasibly make the argument that this
event is as bad of a mismatch as the aforementioned two, there is an
element of 'promotion' here as well. Maybe it's just HBO hype or
perhaps I'm just wary of the historical significance of this bout, but
I find it hard to believe that a Hopkins loss would preclude him from
being a top historical middleweight as suggested in the pre fight
build up. For several years the possibility has existed before every
one of his fights that Hopkins could get old overnight and at 40 and a
half years of age, should that necessarily tarnish his accomplishments
if he was to lose and suddenly look old in doing so?
Historically, the answer should be no. After all no one now condemns
Ali's career because he lost to Larry Holmes and Leon Spinks as his
physical skills visibly diminished late in his career. No sane person
will try to take away the accomplishments of Evander Holyfield even
though he outlasted his prime by some 5-7 years. Is Sugar Ray Leonard
any less of a fighter or man because he had a failed comeback attempt
or two? Absolutely not and for good reason. The immediate reaction to
a potential loss may be for some to condemn Hopkins for his loss, but
as time passes just as it did for Ali and Sugar Ray, historical
perception will correct most of these misguided viewpoints.
Most educated folks knew that those great men were simply not the any
more. The thing that made these warriors so great was their ability to
tap into 'reserves' both physically and mentally when the going got
tough. At some point or over some period of time these reserves became
tapped out and the result was sometimes sad to see, but did that take
away from the types of men that they were when they thrilled crowds
everywhere with their superhuman feats?
While Hopkins has been more steady than 'super' over his championship
reign, should a loss against a man he would have eaten for lunch 10
years ago negate 20 defenses and 12 years of being undefeated?
Absolutely and unequivocally not. If Taylor beats Hopkins and it is
obvious to everyone that he simply wasn't the same Hard Nard that
defeated Trindad several years prior, the same writers and pundits who
claim Hopkins' career rests on this fight will be parroting that he
was just too old to make it to 21 defenses. And simply because a group
of people would love to see that old crotchety Hopkins get beaten,
that doesn't change what he has accomplished in this sport.
For the record I'm going to say that Hopkins doesn't get old overnight
and he stops Taylor very late in the contest. He should continue to be
patient as always and will try to simply outwork the younger man while
doing his best to confuse Taylor into not using his youth to press the
pace of the fight. This may fly in the face of conventional wisdom but
this is something he has been successful doing in almost every one of
his fights. Each man who climbed through the ropes with Hopkins had
basically the same strategy since before his Trinidad watershed match.
They all saw an aged champion, who if forced to fight harder and
faster than he wanted to, could be outworked. None have been
successful in making that a reality. And if the man who steps through
the ropes versus Taylor this Saturday night is even 75% of what he was
in 2001 versus Trinidad, he should have no problem making his running
total 21 defenses. Even if he doesn't, and father time catches up with
him on the way to the arena on Saturday, we still get the pleasure of
watching an absolute fistic genius ride off into the sunset with his
greatness sooner or later to be judged as historically intact. And
what's wrong with that?
Discuss This Now on the NEW HCB Message Board
Send in your Questions
Copyright © 2003 - 2005 Hardcore Boxing Privacy Statement
| 
