Re: Vindication is sweet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taeth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Well I'm glad you feel finally 'vindicated' the villification you suffered for believing in a Hopkins win was something none of us would have liked to have suffered.
I like how you contradict yourself in the very same paragraph stating that you knew the fight would go this way, until us lesser posters managed to discourage your genuis but then you say he did things beyond your wildest dreams.
I actually genuinely believe your wildest dreams probably do involve boxers as well seeing as you spend all your waking hours watching your 100 fights a week.
It's a privilage for us all to have such a boxing historian and expert on our humble little site :rolleyes:
Your a dumbass lol, If you watch a lot of amateur fights its easy to see a lot of fights. I don't count exactly 100, but its around there. Because I LOVE the sport. You are a charlatan. As for the vindication, I am vindicated because I was right, and many, many people on here were wrong. Also where in the paragraph that you are quoting did I say that the people who's opinions made me think Pavlik might do better were regarded as lesser people? When a person critics what somebody else says, it actually helps if they have said it.
At least I am on a BOXING forum to debate boxing. You admitted in the hidden forum that you don't come this part of the site that much anymore. When it is the main place to discuss boxing. I am wasting my time watching fights? At least its watching boxing, not gossoping like the woman you are.
If you are telling me you have the time to watch more boxing, but you don't then what kind of fan are you? I respect guys like ICB, Preme, Trainer monkey, etc, etc. Because they are here to discuss boxing and do it intelligently. You are just here to win a popularity contest which is far gayer then anything I have done on here.
You respect Preme.........that says it all
I'm guessing he's one of the them, I would have to see his posts, I don't really pay attention to who is saying what, just what they are saying, unless I find myself involved with a person who is consistently being a prick.
Re: Positives for Pavlik.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taeth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taeth
Give me a break, not landing punches doesn't win fights.
Agreed Joe Calzaghe may of got credited with more punches on compubox, than he really did land IMO. But he still swamped Bernard Hopkins in activity, and took the fight to Bernard Hopkins and judges normally like the busier guy who takes the fight to his opponent.
I thought Bernard Hopkins won based on cleaner more effective punches. I did think alot of Joe Calzaghe's scoring punches wern't effective. But i only had Bernard Hopkins winning by 1 point based on the KD, so that means it was a very close fight and i had no problem with Joe Calzaghe winning. Although it would have been special had Bernard Hopkins had a win over Joe Calzaghe then Kelly Pavlik wow.
I had the same score, I think it was close, but only because Hopkins' stamina couldn't keep up. IMO his style is a nightmare for Joe and always has been. Joe has always done worse against the guys who like to rough it up, and Bernard is the complete backage, and doesn't really have a weakness except a low output.
Thats why i think a young Bernard Hopkins would win more clearly, because he had the stamina to fight 15 rounds let alone 12 rounds. Joe Calzaghe has always left himself open when he throws his combination punches too wide.
He has got caught straight down the pipe many times by fighters like Robin Reid, Richie Woodhall. And a younger Bernard Hopkins would counter him all night, but much more frequently than the 42 year old version did.
I actually think a younger Bernard Hopkins would have comfortably defeated Joe Calzaghe by atleast 4 rounds IMO, the younger Bernard Hopkins was an animal but was also smart enough, to know when to pick his spots and when not to.
Re: Vindication is sweet.
I've thought that as well, I don't see many guys outside Hopkins and Roy Jones, and theoretically Thomas Hearns, being able to counter Calzaghe effectively, but these three are on the ball enough to catch the big mistakes Calzaghe makes in the ring that his speed and timing make up for against more opponents. Hopkins gave of us a glimpse at how are real fight between them would have gone, except like ICB said he would counter more, with harder shots, and he would also come forwards more. Prime Hopkins was similar to Calzaghe in that he liked to be in control of the fight, and would do what was necessary to get it.
Re: Vindication is sweet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
intoccabile
At bhops age, you can't honestly expect him to try to cut to 160.
Assuming Hopkins fights and beats t he winner of Roy/Calzaghe.
Then do people stop saying " but bhop this and bhop that".
When he finally get the complete credit that is deserved despite his age?
Agreed ,Hopkins is not going down in weight,no way,He will always have detractors ,more so than most fighters due to his style....& rough house "dirty" tactics :rolleyes:,We are not baking cookies here,it's a rough squabble in there. But more so,it magnifies his persona,he likes to be the bad guy and has brought a great deal of it on himself.Sometimes it over shadows just what an all around great fighter he's been all along.
