GIMME HEAD...Bernard or Holyfield???...

It's closer to Ice Skating when Derrick Gainer fights Juan Manuel Marquez.

 

What are you talking about. Tanya Hardin made sure to put more violence on Icd skating than in that fight.

 

The only reason Hopkins has lasted this long and is still boxing at his age is because of his wretched fucking style. He throws about 28 punches a round,then headbutts and holds/dry fucks for the remaining 2:35 of every round::

THAT'S WHY HE'S LASTED SO LONG!!!!!!!!!!

I laugh when people say it's impressive that Hopkins can still box at his age!:doh:

 

Who was more impressive over 40? Very few guys, if any.

Archie Moore, depending on which birthday you go by. While the comeback against Durelle was amazing, it's not like Durelle was some excellent fighter. George Foreman, but he also had a pretty low punch output, and was very selective in whom he fought.

 

42 is not ancient by any means. Yes that's unusually old for a top boxer/martial artist. But like I mentioned,it's Hopkins style that has made him last this long. Outside of throwing 28 punces a round,he holds for the remainder of it.

 

monzon, hearns, lamotta...yes

hagler, robinson...no

 

robinson was beatable at 160. hence, he's a 5 time middleweight champion.

i think monzon, hagler and robinson all give him tough fights, but it's quite possible that hopkins beats them all or vice versa.

at worst case scenario, hopkins loses a close controversial decision.

 

even great fighters are sometimes overwhelmed by superior speed, strenght or whatever, but hopkins is one of those fighters who refuses to lose.

i can't envision anyone beating him w/o any subsequent debate.

 

Are you taking into account that Hopkins is cheating or actually fighting? It makes a big difference when you can't ram your head into another fighter like a rhino and are forced to throw punches.

Also remember Jerbum Taylor soundly beat Borenard twice just based on activity. Hagler, Hearns, Monzon, Robinson would absolutely school the shit out of Borenard in a boxing match. In a dirty alley, Hopkins probably wins against them all except Hagler.

 

Except when he gives up 7 rounds a fight to a guy and then claims he was robbed twice.
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

 

yet you tell me that i'm following your posts. fuck off.

 

That's the response I expected from you to a valid point. :clap:

 

last time i checked, both hopkins-taylor fights were close. i thought hopkins won both and so did many others.

seems to me like those who hate hopkins do their best to give close rounds to the other guy.

 

Last time I checked you weren't being paid for your "opinion" and Hopkins lost twice to Taylor.

You seem to think a lot of people won fights that they didn't.

But the fact is 5 judges disagreed with you on both counts and so did the majority of the media.

So Hopkins can be favored to beat 5 all-time greats but can't beat Jerbum Taylor after two chances? :doh:

 

your analysis is inept. that and you don't pay attention.

MOST of the ringside observers had Hopkins beating Taylor by a wide margin in their first fight. opinions on the rematch was more split.

i dont get paid for my opinion? who does around here? you're an idiot.

i judge amateur boxing cards in Virginia and unlike you, i dont pull random shit out of my ass.

i'll take my opinion over yours any day son.

 

Isn't that the same opinion that was responsible for "He got away with it and won" ??

 

never said nor implied that robinson was unbeatable at 160. your point is valid however, considering robinson is universally recognized as the best boxer who's ever lived AND considering when we make these hypothetical (or mythical) fights, the tendency is to match up each guy at their relative best. using this critera, phonetap is of the opinion that sugar ray robinson at his best, beats hopkins at his best. this in no way, shape or form, diminishes anything hopkins has done nor shortchanges the truly great fighter he is...

 

I hate to inform you, but you're in the minority if you think Taylor won, buddy.

 

a majority of the judges disagree

 

Exactly. I believe it was 5 - 1, so I don't know where this majority came from. I'm guessing Borenard nuthuggers.

 

Or maybe a very large majority of the media.


Do judges suck or are they right 100% of the time? Pick one and stick to it.

 

i guess it's everyone's perogative to go around claiming that a fighter "won" a fight he didn't officially win. but it makes for a pretty flimsy premise on which to base an argument.

especially when you consider the number of such claims that turn out to be complete myths:

1. whitaker lop-sidedly beat chavez
2. whitaker was robbed blind in the first ramirez fight
3. wright was robbed against vargas
4. quartey was robbed against odh

 

Seriously, I thought most of the media had the fights for Taylor. I could be wrong, but I swear I remember guys on here complaining about it. They were lackluster fights, probably could've been scored a million different ways, but in no way was anyone "ROBBED". Bernard didn't do enought to claim he got robbed.

 

This post really makes you come off as completely new, 'Bama. Have you only seen a couple of Hopkins fights?

 

That's because whenever there's a close fight when people don't agree with the decision, then people cry "robbery". Whitaker won 8-4 over Chavez IMO, but it was mainly the amount by which he won the rounds over Chavez as opposed to Chavez's rounds that annoyed people. They weren't enough for 10-8, but they were wider margins than the close rounds that Chavez won. Wright always claims he's robbed, but both Vargas and Taylor were close fights (that I thought Winky won).

Quartey-De La Hoya was no robbery, but you really have to be pretty damn generous to score it for DLH.

 

I remember the majority of the media scoring the first fight for Hopkins...I don't know about the 2nd one.

They were both close fights with lots of close rounds, they weren't robberies or anything.

But Duane Ford giving the 12th round to Taylor in the first fight was just ridiculous.

 

absoulutely.

 

Tell me that Hopkins has fought any different the past 7 years. Hopkins was done in 1999 and has found a stinky way to continue his career. Kudos to him.

Now people are claiming he should be P4P #1 or #2 which is 5 or 6 places above his x2 conqueror. Yeah, something is wrong, but it's not with me. ::

 

you are really an idiot if you dont think the chavez and ramirez fights weren't robberies.

 

Yep... When he bases Hopkins inability to beat All-Time Great MW's on his performances against Taylor, in which Hops was 40+ years old, it says something about ol' Bama's lack of boxing knowledge...