Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
[QUOTE=Spicoli;1280767]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
His entire career was adaptability, literally from very early search and destroy to retooling his approach to the far too often broad brush and dismissal of the defensive sniper stuff he does. Yeh, sometimes it's ugly, but it's also gritty, cagey and full of guile you don't just learn overnight. Both fighters regardless of fandom can be very hunt and peck Agreed. .
Bhop adopted for sure, but can we say he was more adaptive than Floyd?
No,I don't think we can. You're right, IMO it is because PBF is way more talented than Hop. Whenever Bhop ran into a tough style for him, he seemed to lose.
Agreed; sooner or later he took on ALL challenges, but didn't win all those he took on. , He never made the adjustments to Jermain Taylor to find a way to win.
I disagree, he made them well, just too late- by the 6th round, it was too late. He even had a second chance, and again could not adapt.
Same thing he waited too late, but styles makes fights, so Hop has little exuses, me too. Taylor won II clean. He couldn't adapt to Cazlaghe
I don't think it was adaptating, it was workrate. Dawson-
again a certain style that Hopkins skill level can't surpass when talent, workrate & a fighter who likes to counter as well, or Kovalev.
Krusher is the only loss Hop had, that I think a younger Hop could've defeated- the one that fought Echols, that Hop had more energy to burn..we are talking 49 years old. Like Kovalev said, it wasn't and easy fight. He kept doing the same thing.
Floyd has consistently made adjustments and gotten stronger as the fight progressed. We saw it with Mosley. With Castillo, who arguably should have won the first fight, he adjusted and dominated the rematch. With Oscar, he adjusted and controlled the mid and later parts of the fight. He took over the mid and later rounds vs Maidana and dominated the rematch.
True, IMO every word, PBF isn't just talented like Ali, SRL & RJJ, he is also a skilled craftsman, sharpshooter, agile & tireless.
Floyd has been adapting his style seamlessly into his advanced age, as his legs have started to go we've seen him start working smarter to compensate
Isn't it a shame we will never have seen it vs. PW, AM, Khan or Pac?. .
Ya know. I put Taylor 1 squarely on Hopkins. He assumed, he let his fat ego get in the way and did indeed grow stronger down the stretch, Hopkins has gotten stronger in the late rounds for the longest time, but he refused to insist on a ko there. He pooched it. That was a 1 point fight...and Taylor was rocking and rolling late.
I agree. I also think Hop didn't realize that a young Taylor couldn't work 12 rounds- so this actually means Hop misdjudged Taylor & waited way to late to turn it on- By 10-12 round he schooled Taylor, but too little to late
Hopkins adapted to Oscar as well. He left him in a heap. And before we start railing on Oscar not being a middle (I do agree and hated that fight)...its not as if Mayweather has never beat on a guy who jumps a division just to make an "event"? At least Oscar had previously made the weight..and fought there albeit getting his ears boxed.
DLH was the golden egg. Previous to DLH PBF never sold out, never had a PPV he led. I fault neither Hop nor PBF for taking on DLH. DLH was the cash cow. Hopkins had been in "tough" and adapted well enough. Ask Allen, Mercado and Echols how he adapted and came back.
Agreed, but only diehard fans can appreciate those names. With a jacked up shoulder and basically bashing the latter with one arm no less.
Echols II you mean? yeah thing of beauty to see him fight almost two rounds with one arm, then outta nowhere --did a move like a karate man, popping his shoulder back in place..I thought it was B.S theatrics- but nevertheless he fought one armed beautifully, then ended the fight like a marksman. No one expected less off Mayweather when he adapted to Marcos-Maidana.
(True) At the same point in his career Hopkins was adapting to an entirely different division and second career..legitimately..and dominating THE recognized Lt heavyweight champion not to mention a top ranked p4p fighter in Tarver.
I wonder if Tarver gaining weight to play Mason Dixon drained him. When I watch the underated fights of Tarver vs Johnson those were punchfests. where did all that energy go?
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
[QUOTE=SlimTrae;1280786]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
His entire career was adaptability, literally from very early search and destroy to retooling his approach to the far too often broad brush and dismissal of the defensive sniper stuff he does. Yeh, sometimes it's ugly, but it's also gritty, cagey and full of guile you don't just learn overnight. Both fighters regardless of fandom can be very hunt and peck Agreed. .
Bhop adopted for sure, but can we say he was more adaptive than Floyd?
No,I don't think we can. You're right, IMO it is because PBF is way more talented than Hop. Whenever Bhop ran into a tough style for him, he seemed to lose.
Agreed; sooner or later he took on ALL challenges, but didn't win all those he took on. , He never made the adjustments to Jermain Taylor to find a way to win.
I disagree, he made them well, just too late- by the 6th round, it was too late. He even had a second chance, and again could not adapt.
Same thing he waited too late, but styles makes fights, so Hop has little exuses, me too. Taylor won II clean. He couldn't adapt to Cazlaghe
I don't think it was adaptating, it was workrate. Dawson-
again a certain style that Hopkins skill level can't surpass when talent, workrate & a fighter who likes to counter as well, or Kovalev.
Krusher is the only loss Hop had, that I think a younger Hop could've defeated- the one that fought Echols, that Hop had more energy to burn..we are talking 49 years old. Like Kovalev said, it wasn't and easy fight. He kept doing the same thing.
Floyd has consistently made adjustments and gotten stronger as the fight progressed. We saw it with Mosley. With Castillo, who arguably should have won the first fight, he adjusted and dominated the rematch. With Oscar, he adjusted and controlled the mid and later parts of the fight. He took over the mid and later rounds vs Maidana and dominated the rematch.
True, IMO every word, PBF isn't just talented like Ali, SRL & RJJ, he is also a skilled craftsman, sharpshooter, agile & tireless.
Floyd has been adapting his style seamlessly into his advanced age, as his legs have started to go we've seen him start working smarter to compensate
Isn't it a shame we will never have seen it vs. PW, AM, Khan or Pac?. .
Ya know. I put Taylor 1 squarely on Hopkins. He assumed, he let his fat ego get in the way and did indeed grow stronger down the stretch, Hopkins has gotten stronger in the late rounds for the longest time, but he refused to insist on a ko there. He pooched it. That was a 1 point fight...and Taylor was rocking and rolling late.
I agree. I also think Hop didn't realize that a young Taylor couldn't work 12 rounds- so this actually means Hop misdjudged Taylor & waited way to late to turn it on- By 10-12 round he schooled Taylor, but too little to late
Hopkins adapted to Oscar as well. He left him in a heap. And before we start railing on Oscar not being a middle (I do agree and hated that fight)...its not as if Mayweather has never beat on a guy who jumps a division just to make an "event"? At least Oscar had previously made the weight..and fought there albeit getting his ears boxed.
DLH was the golden egg. Previous to DLH PBF never sold out, never had a PPV he led. I fault neither Hop nor PBF for taking on DLH. DLH was the cash cow. Hopkins had been in "tough" and adapted well enough. Ask Allen, Mercado and Echols how he adapted and came back.
Agreed, but only diehard fans can appreciate those names. With a jacked up shoulder and basically bashing the latter with one arm no less.
Echols II you mean? yeah thing of beauty to see him fight almost two rounds with one arm, then outta nowhere --did a move like a karate man, popping his shoulder back in place..I thought it was B.S theatrics- but nevertheless he fought one armed beautifully, then ended the fight like a marksman. No one expected less off Mayweather when he adapted to Marcos-Maidana.
(True) At the same point in his career Hopkins was adapting to an entirely different division and second career..legitimately..and dominating THE recognized Lt heavyweight champion not to mention a top ranked p4p fighter in Tarver.
I wonder if Tarver gaining weight to play Mason Dixon drained him. When I watch the underated fights of Tarver vs Johnson those were punchfests. where did all that energy go?
Yeh, that's a helluva lot of weight and Hopkins knew just that. But a man works on what's in front of him and on the other end Hopkins was coming up. That's why they basically jumped him early and set pace. Ironically its always brought up with Tarver-Jones jr too and both came back in the same amount of time 7,8 months. Tarver was 'bigger' but no where near stronger vs Hopkins. I honestly don't think it would have dictated a different result(s)..styles, minds sets etc . Tarver had that knack for waiting and watching, Johnson was a buzzsaw and Tarver was doing a Hopkins style late in second fight. Johnson brought guys into the trenches god love em.
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
La Cucaracha
When was the last time Floyd was in a fight where he wasn't the overwhelming favorite :confused:
When you've been the #1 p4p in the sport for nearly 10 years, and you've gone 18 years in boxing without taking a loss, bookies will generally put you as the favourite.
I think if he signed to fight Golovkin next the odds would be close ;) when he was supposed to fight Wright I think it would have been close :) when Martinez was chasing Floyd and Pac after destroying Williams would have been another challenge ;)
Calling someone out and actually fighting them are not the same thing :p I'll call you out right now but it don't mean sh-t until we actually fight :-X
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SlimTrae
Agree, being an internet forum- we nitpick all fighters we don't agree with. Kinda hard to do with fighters from 1920's-1970's.
Most of us aren't old enough to question Benny Leonards comp or Gene Tunney's comp. Who their comp beat, what weight they walked around at, what they ate for breakfast...
Iam-- broke it down-scientfically- didn't miss jack! LOL! but that is hard to do for fighters of yesteryear.
Now about that post to me...:mad: lol!
I remember Hopkins turning down Kovalev as a replacement opponent for him a short time ago, saying Kovalev didn't deserve to fight him. You said that like it was way back in 2002'...: :lickish:
I remember Hopkins turning rejecting a 2.5 million dollar offer from Frank Warren to fight Joe Calzaghe in 2004. My Opinion only- when a fighter like Hop or Froch has been in the trenches for years- are they really ducking? If Froch says Chavez or retire..same with Hop. Hop fought an in shape Calzaghe 4 years later who had his BEST wins 04-07 in a young Lacy- whooped his ass agree? Young Kessler undefeated, outgritted him- DAMN good fight was it not? & In between a once loss- Bika and Hop took that Calzaghe on. I have no qualms with his (timing) to fight an undefeated JC.
I remember Hopkins being accused of ducking Chad Dawson when Dawson was the next big thing coming. IMO neither Hop nor Dawson could sell seats. Hop needs an opponent with popularity to sell a fight. remember how empty the arena was for Hop-RJJ II? Yet, Hop fought the young undefeated Cloud-& Cloud called out Dawson & said all he fought were old geezers in Johnson & Tarver. So Hop simply knew there was no money in that fight. So Hop fought his conquerer Pascal- and that wasn't impressive? To beat the man who beat Dawson? When Dawson can't sell in conneticut, but Pascal packs a punch and the house in Canada?
I remember Hopkins turning down a 60/40 split to fight then-p4p king Roy Jones.
Most of these fights all occurred in the last 5-10 years of a man who has fought 20+ years. Hopkins I think you & I agree is an egomaniac. Once he got that fat ass Tito $$ payday- he wanted 50%. Then with DLH payday too? If you remember RJJ called out Tito & DLH as well- plus we KNOW how many fights RJJ is questioned on missing. We don't need to name them.
But you're right... it's all about the legacy for Hopkins, he doesn't care one bit about money.
He couldn't have cared for the money when he took on RJJ II, remember how empty the arena was?
Hop's 1st 10 years was all about holding down one division-this is why noone can call him a ducker for nearly a decade 1/2.
And if we hold him accountable for fighting Tito as a fighter moving UP..then shouldn't we do that for all?
Haglar then would have to be the weakest MW of all time if we hold HIM to that standard.
Duran started at what weight? Hearns? Leonard? See then he fought guys who weren't natural MW's.
To me though that is bullshit. A fighter's natural weight is what he walks around at. NOT STARTED.
Then Holyfield too, remember he was called a blown up CW. So then Tyson lost to a blown up CW? No bro... Holyfied, like Duran, Hearns, Leonard and YES TITO T..all gained weight. Plus Tito beat the hell outta MW top contender in Joppy to prove he was a legit MW.
Only Ray Robinson can make that claim- he was never a LHW...he fought at it lost and went back down...If Tito did that then okay, but in reality. Tito is a big victory for Hopkins at MW.
Pavlik was a Knockout artist who was considered the man- he walked around at 170 so that's where they fought. Not Hop's fault Pav fell apart afterwards.
I dunno man, sounds like a lot of justifying to me. It seems like you're going the extra mile to give Hopkins the benefit of the doubt on everything, but taking Floyd to task on everyone he never fought.
At the time Calzaghe made the offer to fight Bhop, Calzaghe was the undisputed #1 a 168, and Hopkins was the undisputed king of 160. Calzaghe's camp offered him a career high payday, Hopkins refused/priced himself out, and went on to fight a string of mediocre fighters for much less money.
If Floyd had done the same thing, do you think people would have given him the benefit of the doubt on that like you have? I don't think so.
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
"A teleconference was set up in my office in New York for July 30th, 2002, and on the call was myself, Don King who was in the room, Frank Warren and Bernard Hopkins' lawyer, Arnold Joseph. Along with Arnold was a woman named Linda Carter, who was there on behalf of Bernard. We asked Arnold if Bernard wanted to fight Joe Calzaghe and we asked him how much money would he want if he did. The response we got was $3million and the fight would have to take place in the United States. After a little scratching of the head, we said 'Okay, done.' Frank Warren agreed on the spot, Don King agreed and we agreed so as far as we were concerned all parties were singing off the one hymm sheet. Arnold excused himself with Linda and I can only assume it was to call Bernard. Either that day or the next day, they came with a new demand: $6million, double the sum that had been agreed, the deal blew up.....he had then and still has no desire to fight Joe Calzaghe, that much is pretty clear.
Joe gets criticised sometimes for not having fought the big-name Americans, but in this case the fault has never rested with him."
- Jay Larkin, then Showtime TV Network's Senior Vice-President of Sports and Event Programming.
That's a more blatant duck than anything Floyd has been accused of.
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
"A teleconference was set up in my office in New York for July 30th, 2002, and on the call was myself, Don King who was in the room, Frank Warren and Bernard Hopkins' lawyer, Arnold Joseph. Along with Arnold was a woman named Linda Carter, who was there on behalf of Bernard. We asked Arnold if Bernard wanted to fight Joe Calzaghe and we asked him how much money would he want if he did. The response we got was $3million and the fight would have to take place in the United States. After a little scratching of the head, we said 'Okay, done.' Frank Warren agreed on the spot, Don King agreed and we agreed so as far as we were concerned all parties were singing off the one hymm sheet. Arnold excused himself with Linda and I can only assume it was to call Bernard. Either that day or the next day, they came with a new demand: $6million, double the sum that had been agreed, the deal blew up.....he had then and still has no desire to fight Joe Calzaghe, that much is pretty clear.
Joe gets criticised sometimes for not having fought the big-name Americans, but in this case the fault has never rested with him."
- Jay Larkin, then Showtime TV Network's Senior Vice-President of Sports and Event Programming.
That's a more blatant duck than anything Floyd has been accused of.
How can Hopkins be accused of ducking a fighter he fought????? I've heard it all now. It isn't Floyd who causes hate, it's his delusional fans. Hopkins is called a ducker for fighting a guy, just not the first time he was offered the fight??? That is just stupid. Honestly, that is a really stupid statement. I'm embarrassed for you...
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
i was challenged to make a thread about this to state my case as to why floyd has had a greater career than bhop. i will mainly talk about opposition and how they fared in these fights.
bhop:
jones: bhop was green and jones had a broken hand. jones easily won this fight. no controversy. no shame in losing this fight though because most people arent going to beat jones.
johnson: this was before johnson was really the road warrior that we all got to know him as. he handed johnson his first loss and only stoppage loss (although by cuts) in his career until his most recent fight. good win.
trinidad: trinidad moved up in weight for this fight and was a heavy favorite for some reason. he had just recently gotten a gift decision against de la hoya. he was a good fighter but very one dimensional. bad style for bhop. good win but i wouldnt say great because of the weight factor.
de la hoya: i couldnt believe this fight was happening because de la hoya was nowhere near the size of bhop. i thought that it would be a complete blowout and assumed this fight happened just for money sake. de la hoya actually did a lot better than i expected but bhop was too big and eventually landed a good shot. not a great win because of the size difference. and remember that de la hoya had just gotten a gift against sturm right before this fight.
taylor: taylor came up through the rankings quickly. i never thought he was that great but i believe he had the style to beat bhop because of his reach and jab. i thought that taylor won the first fight and bhop won the second. pretty good win.
tarver: by this time, i think that most people thought that bhop was done (including me) because he just had back to back losses to taylor and was 40 years old. this win was impressive but i think its a bit blown out of proportion because no one was expecting him to come out like the bhop of old and win. solid win either way.
calzaghe: not much to say about this fight. could have gone either way but he did pretty well. bhop didnt necessarily impress but didnt really hurt his case either.
pavlik: pavlik became the MW champ and was thought to be too much for bhop. again, i think that this win is a little blown out of proportion because of bhops age and what everybody expected to happen in the fight. good win but again, a bit blown out of proportion.
dawson: we will refrain from talking about the first fight. the second fight was all dawson. wrong style for bhop. he was too quick and had too good of a jab.
kovalev: maybe age had to do with it although i dont think any version of bhop would have won this fight. kovalev was too big and too disciplined.
those are his 10 best/noticable opponents i would say. he came up short against a few of them which is fine. i dont expect everybody to go undefeated. but honestly, who is his best win? i would say that tarver and pavlik are probably his most impressive wins. both good fighters who he easily beat. you could argue tito but again, the weight issue makes me less impressed although its still a good win and impressive. so his best wins arent really anything great. like i said before, his longevity at the top makes his legacy more than his actual resume or his greatness in the ring.
floyd:
hernandez: not really a close fight. floyds first title win. he did it while he was still young and did it impressively against a good veteran. good win.
corrales: was a favorite to beat floyd and was thought to be very dangerous. floyd absolutely destroyed corrales. great win.
castillo: disputed first win but decisive second win. castillo was a good, tough fighter who was an experienced fighter. i know the excuse in the first fight was that his hands were bad but whatever. good win in the second fight.
judah: bad style match up for floyd but he adapted after the first 4 rounds and took over the fight pretty easily. pretty good win.
de la hoya: although he may have been past his best, the fight was at 154 which was a disadvantage to floyd. personally, i thought that de la hoya was still good at this time and thought that he would win convincingly. i was impressed at this win at least. good win.
hatton: undefeated and was a solid fighter. i was never super impressed by hatton but he was a good fighter either way. and people talk about hatton having to move up in weight but floyd started at a smaller weight and i guarantee that floyd walked around lighter than hatton did (obviously). very good win.
marquez: there is controversy to this win with the whole weight issue. i agree that floyd definitely had the weight advantage. tainted win but still alright.
mosley: mosley was old but still decent. just came off a destruction win against margo. this is also the same mosley that roach wouldnt allow pac near even though mosley constantly asked for the fight at this time. other than round 2, floyd completely embarrassed mosley and pretty much ended his career.
cotto: bad style match up for floyd i believe. one of his tougher fights but still convincingly won. cotto has shown that he still has it so i wouldnt say that cotto was way past his best or anything. very good win.
canelo: up and coming 154 pounder. floyd went up and weight and shut him out. the fight wasnt close. good win.
it was harder picking floyds top 10. he had some other fighters that could have been in there. his best wins are probably castillo, de la hoya, and cotto. he also beat all of those fighters (castillo can be debated though).
so if you look at both of their top 10 wins, you may be able to say that bhop has a better resume (although i would disagree) but he lost to many of his best opponents while floyd beat them all and beat most of them convincingly. floyd is hands down the greater fighter. he will go down as one of the greatest fighters ever known for his skills while bhop will go down as an anamoly who could hold up at an advanced age unlike anybody that the sports world has ever seen.
so the answer is that floyd is definitely better while bhop has a very impressive accomplishment with his longevity.
Pretty much a completely biased and worthless comparison. You basically spun Floyd's wins to be more impressive and downplayed Hops. I felt gross reading it because it was so biased.
Genaro Hernandez: It was his last fight vs. Floyd and he said prior to the fight he was going to retire right after because he wasn't at his best any longer. You left that out.
Castillo: Unranked p4p, beat Floyd in the first fight and not much more than a solid pro fighter. I give Floyd credit for taking him on with no tune up, and he was a solid win, but lets keep it in perspective.
Judah: JUDAH???? Pancaked in two rounds by Kostya and beaten up by limited Baldomir????? HAHAHA. What a joke. Complete joke of a thread. Floyd adjusted after 4 rounds????? Judah is NOTORIOUS for fading after four rounds.
Oscar: WAY passed his best. Nowhere near what he was in his prime. You give Hop zero credit for the win, which I agree with, so Floyd gets even less. Garbage win and he had to come from behind when Oscar stopped jabbing.
Canelo: Good win? Cause he is so experienced and so effective against slick boxers, right? Because he was SO dominant vs. elite boxers like Lara and Trout. Come on buddy. One other clown on this post thread already has Canelo as a HOFer. What a joke. The kid is green and is only effective counter punching. Weak win for Floyd.
Floyd wins over p4p ranked guys (at time of fight): Chico (#6), Hatton (#7), Mosely (#3) and JMM (#5). Mosely may have been overrated coming off Margarito win and JMM was jumping up two weight classes.
Hop wins over p4p: Tito (#2), Winky (#3), Tarver (#7), Pavilik (#5). Tito had destroyed Joppy, the #2 middleweight in his previous fight, Hop jumped up to fight Tarver and met Pavilik at 170. Only Winky was the underdog of that group.
Hop additional fights vs. p4p: Roy Jones (#10): Hands down better than anyone Floyd ever fought. Not even close, Floyd has never faced anyone as good as Jones or even in the vicinity. Joe C. (#2): Hop was well past his best and lost a disputed decision to the prime, undefeated HOFer. Floyd never fought anyone on Calzaghes level.
There is no debate as to who had the better opposition. Not even close. Only delusional Floyd cheerleaders can even suggest that there is a realistic debate. I can see the case for guys ranking Floyd higher because they favor his consistency and brilliance in the ring, but it is laughable when clowns come on here and try and say with a straight face that there is room for debate over quality of opposition. Hop fought much tougher comp, which is why he has more losses on his record.
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
Ironic how you called my opinion bias yet you were super bias in your post. I don't consider it bias what I wrote. I am just saying what I think is true. Plus, I am no more of a Floyd can than a Bhop fan. If anything, I like Bhop more.
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Ironic how you called my opinion bias yet you were super bias in your post. I don't consider it bias what I wrote. I am just saying what I think is true. Plus, I am no more of a Floyd can than a Bhop fan. If anything, I like Bhop more.
You didn't write like that was the case at all. I honestly feel like your post is completely biased. Nothing personal and no hard feelings, just completely disagree. The fact that Hop taking on a prime Roy was not highlighted and was glanced over kind of illustrates why I feel this way. Sorry if I offended you, just really seemed biased to me.
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Ironic how you called my opinion bias yet you were super bias in your post. I don't consider it bias what I wrote. I am just saying what I think is true. Plus, I am no more of a Floyd can than a Bhop fan. If anything, I like Bhop more.
You didn't write like that was the case at all. I honestly feel like your post is completely biased. Nothing personal and no hard feelings, just completely disagree. The fact that Hop taking on a prime Roy was not highlighted and was glanced over kind of illustrates why I feel this way. Sorry if I offended you, just really seemed biased to me.
I don't get offended over the internet so don't worry about that. I mentioned that there was no embarrassment in losing to Jones. Since it was a loss, I didn't know what else to say. It wasn't really a good loss but it wasn't a bad one either. And I did mention somewhere in this thread that Jones is the one fighter that Bhop fought that was way above anybody that Floyd fought.
And I made a point at the end of my original post that you could make an argument whose opposition was better but IMO I think that Floyd has the better wins.
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
How can Hopkins be accused of ducking a fighter he fought????? I've heard it all now. It isn't Floyd who causes hate, it's his delusional fans. Hopkins is called a ducker for fighting a guy, just not the first time he was offered the fight??? That is just stupid. Honestly, that is a really stupid statement. I'm embarrassed for you...
Calm down, dummy. You don't get embarrassed for me, I get embarrassed for you. You're not smart enough to be embarrassed for anyone on here other than Greenbeanz and Bill Paxton.
That was brought up in response to a claim that Hopkins took every tough fight offered and only cared about legacy. He ducked Calzaghe in the early 2000s, that's indisputable. Whether he fought him or not eventually is irrelevant.
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
You can not blame Hopkins for not taking Joe at super middle. He use Joe as a negotiating tool to get Oscar which was a bigger money and easier fight.
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
You can not blame Hopkins for not taking Joe at super middle. He use Joe as a negotiating tool to get Oscar which was a bigger money and easier fight.
There were at least 2 or 3 fights in between Joe's proposition and the DLH fight though. DLH was newly at 154 at that time, he hadn't even forayed up to MW.
For the record, I don't blame Hopkins for not jumping up to face Calzaghe, every champ in the history of boxing has done the same kind of thing. I'm just saying we should stop being naive children about it and pretending people only care about legacy and don't factor in risk/reward. It's just silly.
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
You can not blame Hopkins for not taking Joe at super middle. He use Joe as a negotiating tool to get Oscar which was a bigger money and easier fight.
There were at least 2 or 3 fights in between Joe's proposition and the DLH fight though. DLH was newly at 154 at that time, he hadn't even forayed up to MW.
For the record, I don't blame Hopkins for not jumping up to face Calzaghe, every champ in the history of boxing has done the same kind of thing. I'm just saying we should stop being naive children about it and pretending people only care about legacy and don't factor in risk/reward. It's just silly.
No way. Bhop has never thought about the risk/reward for any fight. You take that back. He purely fights for legacy.
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
You can not blame Hopkins for not taking Joe at super middle. He use Joe as a negotiating tool to get Oscar which was a bigger money and easier fight.
There were at least 2 or 3 fights in between Joe's proposition and the DLH fight though. DLH was newly at 154 at that time, he hadn't even forayed up to MW.
For the record, I don't blame Hopkins for not jumping up to face Calzaghe, every champ in the history of boxing has done the same kind of thing. I'm just saying we should stop being naive children about it and pretending people only care about legacy and don't factor in risk/reward. It's just silly.
No way. Bhop has never thought about the risk/reward for any fight. You take that back. He purely fights for legacy.
Hop does fight for legacy. He just fought the guy at 175 that everyone else was running from. He fought him for like, $1M. That isn't a great payday for that kind of risk, especially when you consider Floyd gets over $20M for MAIDANA. Joe C., at that time, didn't do much for Hops legacy. Another super fight did. Hop was chasing Roy and Oscar at that point, and I can't remember ANYONE other than Joe pushing for that fight. Compare that demand for the overwhelming push from EVERYONE for Floyd to fight Manny.
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
How can Hopkins be accused of ducking a fighter he fought????? I've heard it all now. It isn't Floyd who causes hate, it's his delusional fans. Hopkins is called a ducker for fighting a guy, just not the first time he was offered the fight??? That is just stupid. Honestly, that is a really stupid statement. I'm embarrassed for you...
Calm down, dummy. You don't get embarrassed for me, I get embarrassed for you. You're not smart enough to be embarrassed for anyone on here other than Greenbeanz and Bill Paxton.
That was brought up in response to a claim that Hopkins took every tough fight offered and only cared about legacy. He ducked Calzaghe in the early 2000s, that's indisputable. Whether he fought him or not eventually is irrelevant.
I didn't think it was possible, but I just became even more embarrassed for you. That response, when you are poopy pants like that, I really feel bad that I hurt your feelings and you made that response. I was too harsh on you.
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
You can not blame Hopkins for not taking Joe at super middle. He use Joe as a negotiating tool to get Oscar which was a bigger money and easier fight.
There were at least 2 or 3 fights in between Joe's proposition and the DLH fight though. DLH was newly at 154 at that time, he hadn't even forayed up to MW.
For the record, I don't blame Hopkins for not jumping up to face Calzaghe, every champ in the history of boxing has done the same kind of thing. I'm just saying we should stop being naive children about it and pretending people only care about legacy and don't factor in risk/reward. It's just silly.
No way. Bhop has never thought about the risk/reward for any fight. You take that back. He purely fights for legacy.
Hopkins did want to become light heavyweight champion to secure his legacy by achieving something Ray Robinson could not do.
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ruthless rocco
Bernard was such a dirty cheater.
How can people seriously think that a guy who broke as many rules as possible in almost every fight he was in could be considered better than a guy who is a boxing genius who fought within the rules?
It's ridiculous that this is even a discussion!
It's all about age. You old people need Bernard in order to feel relevant in a world that's passing you by.
Dirty low shot there, (who are you BHop?;D)
Plenty of us old guys in here as you put it, are more with Floyd on this one.
Trouble is people like to run off into extremes trying to prove a piece.
Both are great, both have steered their way through to a degree, one more than the other, but that one has more more ring skill,so it all evens its self out.
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
You can not blame Hopkins for not taking Joe at super middle. He use Joe as a negotiating tool to get Oscar which was a bigger money and easier fight.
There were at least 2 or 3 fights in between Joe's proposition and the DLH fight though. DLH was newly at 154 at that time, he hadn't even forayed up to MW.
For the record, I don't blame Hopkins for not jumping up to face Calzaghe, every champ in the history of boxing has done the same kind of thing. I'm just saying we should stop being naive children about it and pretending people only care about legacy and don't factor in risk/reward. It's just silly.
No way. Bhop has never thought about the risk/reward for any fight. You take that back. He purely fights for legacy.
Hopkins did want to become light heavyweight champion to secure his legacy by achieving something Ray Robinson could not do.
I know but I was pointing out the joke that he has never considered anything but legacy when taking a fight.
Re: Comparing Floyd and Bhop's opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
I didn't think it was possible, but I just became even more embarrassed for you. That response, when you are poopy pants like that, I really feel bad that I hurt your feelings and you made that response. I was too harsh on you.
Zzzzzzzzz.
Boring trolls get put on the "pay no mind" list. Congrats.
