I would just like to point out that Jermain Taylor who couldn't stop a defenseless shot fighter lost 2 times to the very same Jermain Taylor. Please include these losses when you wax poetic. Thank you.
Actually your in the majority, and I agree. Give B-Hop a rubber match at 170, and he'll leave no doubt as to who the better fighter is. Not that theres any doubt already.
I think that is ridiculous. Honestly, to me I think the first fight was absurdly easy to score. At any rate, I don't think either fight could be considered even a robbery. Imo, the judges got it right. I think Hopkins choked both fights away. I just want people to note that Hopkins lost to arguably the 2 best fighters he fought in his long middleweight reign of cans and smaller men. PLease plug those points into your analysis.
That is just bullshit. Hopkins is a better fighter. Still, I just want people to remember two things. Hopkins level of opposition was poor. Hopkins lost to the likes of Jermain Taylor legitimately. There is no way anyone who is rational can say either fight was a robbery.
When the hell did I ever say robbery? Both fights were razor close. Hopkins did less, but landed more in both fights. I think at 170, if B-Hop is less drained and shows a higher workrate, he'll beat Taylor w/o controversy.
Hopkins has suffered lymphatic cancer at every weigh in beyond Trinidad my dear Thomas,...draining a bit of juice never hurt his chances...
....ah to hell with it.....if Ike wants to believe i thought both fights were robberies then so be it.....if you get a kick out of it, then knock yourself out.... .....how about you role-play the whole thread?... ......yeah, you can be me and try and get a sense of what it is like putting forward a sane argument or two and see what an idiot that guy you are debating with is ....i'm off to bed....i look forward to discovering some brand new opinions of mine tomorrow
I didn't say you did. People like to say "I think Hopkins won" the fact is he didn't. The judges decided JT won. 5 of the 6 judges had Hopkins losing. There is too much controversy in boxing. Sometimes, you have to say I won't bith either way. I will say the first fight was a clear win for JT. The second fight I felt JT won, but had it gone the other way I wouldn't bitch.
I didn't say you did. However, people saying I thought Hopkins edged them does not mean he did. In reality, he lost and they were not robberies. I understand your opinion. I disagree whole heartedly in the first fight. The second, imo could have gone either way. However, the judges 5 of 6 gave the fights to JT. The fact is Hopkins legitimately lost 2 fights to JT.
It just goes to show Free,...many, many people, for whatever reason, just cannot, cannot, cannot BARE, kicking and screaming, for Hopkins to lose,..he's a legend, he's so crafty, he's so tricky, he's so cunning, ring guile, ring savvy, fighting his fight, no one knocks out ''Mr Unknockoutable'', the only man to ever do this against Hopkins, the only man to ever do that against Hopkins, Hopkins is a stayed, powerful, bane,... 'legend', echoing throughout the ages....all-time great top 20,..- when ranking his father, Calzaghe?,... 'aww 100 - 150 range'.
Not only that, Hopkins tried to quit against Calzaghe. He faked injuries and tried a second time. Yet, you get the same people in hushed tones, "I feel Hopkins won." or more insultingly "I feel it was a draw." The latter statement is the anthem of the balless.
True Free,.. boxing would be in a sure good way if judges scored rounds for a fighter who, fouls the most, holds the most, throws less punches, and runs backwards every round, it's not a bad precedent for the future of a suffering sport.
I saw the first hopkins taylor fight but i didn't see the second one. I had Taylor winning the first fight easily.
Which had people saying,.. "Now all Hops has got to do this time, is start fighting in round 1, instead of round 9, and he'll beat Taylor with ease!" ... He lost again. ::
I'm with Ike on the first Taylor fight. Incredibly easy to score. 7-5 Taylor. There's no possibility of any other score.
This thread makes a good point. Hopkins really hasn't beaten anyone elite save for fighters who were significantly smaller than him. And I still don't rule out a Pavlik victory if he fghts Hopkins healthy. Call me crazy - but a fighter with bronchitis and an injured shoulder doesn't peform as well as one who's healthy. Hopkins' best win was against Tarver. Other than that, his career has been a series of beating up and bullying smaller men.
So did I ... :bears: The first was VERY close and I think Hopkins craft was very deceptive. The second I thought was pretty obvious.
As Much as REED Looooooooooves Kelly Pavlik (REED STARTED his FB Bandwagon) it's HIS OWN Fault if he Went Thru w/the Fight Under those Circumstances.... Even if Pavlik's "Ailments" were LEGIT, that Victory SHOULDN'T B Held AGAINST Bernard... REED:nono:
They say sex before a fight can hurt a fighter's chances. Just think how easily Joe would have beaten Bernard if he hadn't stopped to have sex during their fight.
I'm not saying it should be held against him, but I "do" think it should be taken with a grain of salt. No reasonable person, who's seen Pavlik fight before, can watch that fight and not see that Pavlik was not himself. My guess is he went through with it because so much money was at stake if it were cancelled, and he probably still believed he could beat the 42 year old Hopkins.
Whether U Realize or NOT, U're HOLDING the Victory AGAINST Bernard N the Highlighted Sentence, Doub... WHEN had Pavlik EVER Faced a Guy as EXPERIENCED, Defensively SOUND & as QUICK as Bernard???... REED:dunno:
