I just think that if Pascal can hurt Hopkins Dawson can do better. Not necessarily my pick, but it wouldn't surprise me.
I'm telling, Bernard is going to win. Forget about Pascal hurting Hopkins or anything else, Hopkins is just a much, much better fighter than Dawson. Dawson also lacks balls, even if he does hurt Nard, he doesn't have what it takes to step it up and take him out, plus Hopkins is too crafty for that. Dawson is right alongside Arabham and Lopez as the most overrated fighters of this current generation.
Dawson is better than Hopkins. I think the best version of Dawson is better than the best version of Hopkins. Right now? Dawson will get a clear and rather easy win.
I dunno, you tell me what you think the best version is. I think any version of Hopkins from 1994-2004 is vastly superior to Dawson. Not limited to that particular timeframe, either.
I think his best win is Tarver, and Dawson did the same thing to Tarver and then to Glen equally well or better. But that can't be the best Hopkins because it follows the Jermain Taylor disasters, so... The first Mercado fight (1994) is less forgivable than Dawson's Pascal fight, imo. I think you have to look to the Holmes, Joppy, Tito, Glen Johnson guy...and however good that fighter is, it's more likely that he's no better than the best Dawson than it is that he is "vastly" superior to Dawson.
Not only was Mercado a pretty good fighter, but Hopkins hadn't adjusted to the altitude in Ecuador when they fought. Aside from the fact that he didn't lose to Mercado - even in his home country - he rematched him and dominated him. If you don't think the Hopkins who dominated Johnson in '97 is superior to Dawson based on having just seen both fighters fight, I really don't know what to tell you.
Even by your standards this is fucking retarded. This has to be not only the stupidest thing you've ever said, but one of the dumbest things in fightbeat history, almost alongside Joppy lost because of the ring. Dawson is average at world level and Hopkins is one of the best middleweights of all time. It's like saying Juan Manuel Lopez is better than Pacquiao, just makes no sense at all.
i dont think its a big stretch to say that dawson at his best is better than a light heavyweight hopkins at his best. obviously if dawson doesnt dominate this version of hopkins then it would be hard to continue to argue as much
Maybe so but that isn't what Mike wrote. What Mike wrote was so utterly moronic it brings down the quality of the whole forum. Imagine if a new guy was checking out this site and read that, he'd probably assume this place is full of idiots and log off forever.
You're seriously asking me based on what?! What do you base Dawson at his best being better than Hopkins at his best on?
Idiot, Dawsons an all-time great whose broken multiple records and is a first balot hall of famer. No, wait, that's Hopkins.
Well you have to admit,.. Hopkins 'PRIME' ... is very, very, very Tysonesque,.. it chops and changes, and stops and then re-emerges again.
Hopkins is a top 10 Middleweight all time Dawson isn't a top 30 light heavyweight mIKE is a fucking tool
Well, Dawson may have had his "Mercardo moment" against Pascal,.. his career is far from finished yet,.. :nono: ...
Kauks, your sig is fuckin hilarious bro :: Did Tarver even get to have a look at that before it got published?? ::
I erected it in honour of his beatdown of Danny 'Go back to your own country' Green, he done dealt with him like Freddie Dawson done did to all Australian hypes back in the day,..But I considered this a standard portrait Slice, nothing out of the ordinary really he always has this poofy kind've bitch pout,..if I recall correctly in that first Roy fight, he sneered, and cocked his head like a goose, a drag-queen with attitood but he's hard bastard, no doubt about that, a very tough moocher,.. always had a soft spot for freak-fighters even given this great victory.
I understand why you would get into a tizzy because you are a PROVEN armchair qb who tries to take credit for shit you say you predicted, but didn't, while I am going on record and will or won't be proven correct, but am willing to say it IN ADVANCE. But, in the context of today, Dawson has Adamek, Tarver, Tarver, G Johnson, G Johnson... The Adamek win, in particular, compares favorably to any win on Hopkins' resume, I think. So not only do I think he's a better fighter (at his best) by watching them, he has a win that is pretty much as good as any win that Hopkins has ever had. And it wasn't over a fighter who was naturally smaller.
in advance?? RIGHT NOW, Dawson isn't anywhere near Bernard If you believe he WILL BE, you should phrase it that way I am a proven armchair QB because I correctly picked Khan/Judah? ok, BoxRec boy... pathetic, know-nothing twat
When's the Last Time Anybody Looked IMPRESSIVE vs. Bernard Hopkins???...When's the Last Time Chad Dawson Looked Impressive vs. ANYBODY???... While REED would LIKE to B Wrong, he's Fully EXPECTING Bernard to Win a Close, Boring UD Over a PASSIVE Dawson...PERHAPS Dawson Can Do Enough to Get a DRAW, but that's the Best Case Scenario... REEDathetic:
Bernard Hopkins Beat a Younger, Fresher, UNDEFEATED Version of Glen Johnson, Who's "Naturally Smaller" than Dawson, fyi... Tarver was what, 40, when he Faced Dawson???...He was YOUNGER & More ACTIVE when Bernard Beat him...Bernard Beat Tarver MORE IMPRESSIVELY, as Well...Adamek is a Good Win, but he Dropped SIGNIFICANT Amounts of Weight to Make 175 & NEVER Fought @ that Weight Again, After the Dawson Fight (if REED's Not Mistaken)... @ the Time of the Fight, REED Thinks Bernard's Win Over Pavlik was ON PAR w/Dawson-Adamek @ WORST...Not to Mention the FACT that Bernard BEAT the Guy who BEAT Dawson... Bernard > Chad Dawson REED:shadow:
