-
Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
What kind of fighter does he amount to really? Definitely not someone you would call great. Remove all those illegal blows, headbutts rabbit punches, lowblows, holding, and play-acting, he is reduced to nothing but an average fighter.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
What kind of fighter does he amount to really? Definitely not someone you would call great. Remove all those illegal blows, headbutts rabbit punches, lowblows, holding, and play-acting, he is reduced to nothing but an average fighter.
Ridiculous post have you never seen his fight vs Tito or any of his other good fights for that matter ?? his fight vs Tito was one of the best boxing exhibitions i've ever seen in Middleweight boxing history, bad rep for bad mouthing a great fighter like Hopkins.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
What kind of fighter does he amount to really? Definitely not someone you would call great. Remove all those illegal blows, headbutts rabbit punches, lowblows, holding, and play-acting, he is reduced to nothing but an average fighter.
Ridiculous post have you never seen his fight vs Tito or any of his other good fights for that matter ?? his fight vs Tito was one of the best boxing exhibitions i've ever seen in Middleweight boxing history, bad rep for bad mouthing a great fighter like Hopkins.
We all saw the Tito fight, and Nard was clearly the bigger man. And Tito was all so predictable, even DLH beat him IMO. Now take away all those illegal tactics Hopkins resorts to in his fights, which I think consists of almost 99% of his whole repertoire, and he is not a fighter to even talk about.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
What kind of fighter does he amount to really? Definitely not someone you would call great. Remove all those illegal blows, headbutts rabbit punches, lowblows, holding, and play-acting, he is reduced to nothing but an average fighter.
:looroll:............:beatdeadhorse:.....pretty obvious to any boxing fan that it has been much more than that tired mantra that has been Hopkins keys through career..:p
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
What kind of fighter does he amount to really? Definitely not someone you would call great. Remove all those illegal blows, headbutts rabbit punches, lowblows, holding, and play-acting, he is reduced to nothing but an average fighter.
Ridiculous post have you never seen his fight vs Tito or any of his other good fights for that matter ?? his fight vs Tito was one of the best boxing exhibitions i've ever seen in Middleweight boxing history, bad rep for bad mouthing a great fighter like Hopkins.
We all saw the Tito fight, and Nard was clearly the bigger man. And Tito was all so predictable, even DLH beat him IMO. Now take away all those illegal tactics Hopkins resorts to in his fights, which I think consists of almost 99% of his whole repertoire, and he is not a fighter to even talk about.
Actually...I thought Hopkins fought the cleanest fight of his career when he beat Tito.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
What kind of fighter does he amount to really? Definitely not someone you would call great. Remove all those illegal blows, headbutts rabbit punches, lowblows, holding, and play-acting, he is reduced to nothing but an average fighter.
:looroll:............:beatdeadhorse:.....pretty obvious to any boxing fan that it has been much more than that tired mantra that has been Hopkins keys through career..:p
If you really think about it, without the dirty tactics, Taylor and Wright would've schooled Hopkins, in the same manner that Joe almost schooled him, if not for the frigging ref, who might as well have said, "We love you Nard, you're the best fighter in the world, it's a pleasure to referee your fight, I am not worthy".
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rene69
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Ridiculous post have you never seen his fight vs Tito or any of his other good fights for that matter ?? his fight vs Tito was one of the best boxing exhibitions i've ever seen in Middleweight boxing history, bad rep for bad mouthing a great fighter like Hopkins.
We all saw the Tito fight, and Nard was clearly the bigger man. And Tito was all so predictable, even DLH beat him IMO. Now take away all those illegal tactics Hopkins resorts to in his fights, which I think consists of almost 99% of his whole repertoire, and he is not a fighter to even talk about.
Actually...I thought Hopkins fought the cleanest fight of his career when he beat Tito.
Maybe he didn't need to as he was obviously fighting a much smaller fighter. :rolleyes:
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rene69
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
We all saw the Tito fight, and Nard was clearly the bigger man. And Tito was all so predictable, even DLH beat him IMO. Now take away all those illegal tactics Hopkins resorts to in his fights, which I think consists of almost 99% of his whole repertoire, and he is not a fighter to even talk about.
Actually...I thought Hopkins fought the cleanest fight of his career when he beat Tito.
Maybe he didn't need to as he was obviously fighting a much smaller fighter. :rolleyes:
Ha! You said that his whole repertoire was 99% dirty, that's how he wins right?.
He used that other 1% to beat Trinidad. He fought a clean fight and won...reguardless.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
What kind of fighter does he amount to really? Definitely not someone you would call great. Remove all those illegal blows, headbutts rabbit punches, lowblows, holding, and play-acting, he is reduced to nothing but an average fighter.
:looroll:............:beatdeadhorse:.....pretty obvious to any boxing fan that it has been much more than that tired mantra that has been Hopkins keys through career..:p
If you really think about it, without the dirty tactics, Taylor and Wright would've schooled Hopkins, in the same manner that Joe almost schooled him, if not for the frigging ref, who might as well have said, "We love you Nard, you're the best fighter in the world, it's a pleasure to referee your fight, I am not worthy".
Ok Honestly........Thats just super sized ignorance there.The thing that could make Calzaghe better is that HE was the one in school here..Not Hopkins.This was his training ground and "Proof test",and he adjusted well.The shit ref hurt BOTH guys.If you deny that Hopkins credentials and respect was undeserved and non-existent,,regardless of your personal preference ,you are a biased fan-boy caught up in the moment....:-X
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
:looroll:............:beatdeadhorse:.....pretty obvious to any boxing fan that it has been much more than that tired mantra that has been Hopkins keys through career..:p
If you really think about it, without the dirty tactics, Taylor and Wright would've schooled Hopkins, in the same manner that Joe almost schooled him, if not for the frigging ref, who might as well have said, "We love you Nard, you're the best fighter in the world, it's a pleasure to referee your fight, I am not worthy".
Ok Honestly........Thats just super sized ignorance there.The thing that could make Calzaghe better is that HE was the one in school here..Not Hopkins.This was his training ground and "Proof test",and he adjusted well.The shit ref hurt BOTH guys.If you deny that Hopkins credentials and respect was undeserved and non-existent,,regardless of your personal preference ,you are a biased fan-boy caught up in the moment....:-X
:rolleyes:
Giving Hopkins an eternity to rest did not hurt Hopkins. Letting Hopkins hold 90% of the time did not hurt Hopkins. Letting Hopkins lowblow, headbutt and rabbitpunch did not hurt Hopkins. What frigging fight did you see?
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
If you really think about it, without the dirty tactics, Taylor and Wright would've schooled Hopkins, in the same manner that Joe almost schooled him, if not for the frigging ref, who might as well have said, "We love you Nard, you're the best fighter in the world, it's a pleasure to referee your fight, I am not worthy".
Ok Honestly........Thats just super sized ignorance there.The thing that could make Calzaghe better is that HE was the one in school here..Not Hopkins.This was his training ground and "Proof test",and he adjusted well.The shit ref hurt BOTH guys.If you deny that Hopkins credentials and respect was undeserved and non-existent,,regardless of your personal preference ,you are a biased fan-boy caught up in the moment....:-X
:rolleyes:
Giving Hopkins an eternity to rest did not hurt Hopkins. Letting Hopkins hold 90% of the time did not hurt Hopkins. Letting Hopkins lowblow, headbutt and rabbitpunch did not hurt Hopkins. What frigging fight did you see?
Hopkins was allowed to hold 90% of the time .Clean your spec's bro...so That was a phantom make believe Joe Cortez..The same Cortez you were just whining about...that was staying out of the clinches and NOT breaking them every 8 seconds so no inside game could unfold??Calzaghe GAVE hopkins the oppurtunity to take an advantage by putting himself in that predicament with the low blow...
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Ok Honestly........Thats just super sized ignorance there.The thing that could make Calzaghe better is that HE was the one in school here..Not Hopkins.This was his training ground and "Proof test",and he adjusted well.The shit ref hurt BOTH guys.If you deny that Hopkins credentials and respect was undeserved and non-existent,,regardless of your personal preference ,you are a biased fan-boy caught up in the moment....:-X
:rolleyes:
Giving Hopkins an eternity to rest did not hurt Hopkins. Letting Hopkins hold 90% of the time did not hurt Hopkins. Letting Hopkins lowblow, headbutt and rabbitpunch did not hurt Hopkins. What frigging fight did you see?
Hopkins was allowed to hold 90% of the time .Clean your spec's bro...so That was a phantom make believe Joe Cortez..The same Cortez you were just bitching about...that was staying out of the clinches and NOT breaking them every 8 seconds so no inside game could unfold??Calzaghe GAVE hopkins the oppurtunity to take an advantage by putting himself in that predicament with the low blow...
So it was Cal's fault that Nard acted hurt? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
:rolleyes:
Giving Hopkins an eternity to rest did not hurt Hopkins. Letting Hopkins hold 90% of the time did not hurt Hopkins. Letting Hopkins lowblow, headbutt and rabbitpunch did not hurt Hopkins. What frigging fight did you see?
Hopkins was allowed to hold 90% of the time .Clean your spec's bro...so That was a phantom make believe Joe Cortez..The same Cortez you were just bitching about...that was staying out of the clinches and NOT breaking them every 8 seconds so no inside game could unfold??Calzaghe GAVE hopkins the oppurtunity to take an advantage by putting himself in that predicament with the low blow...
So it was Cal's fault that Nard acted hurt? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yes, even though the low tap was nothing. He gave Hopkins that out.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Couldnt be. Looks like Nard was looking for an opportunity to rest. The punch was borderline, and DEFINITELY higher than lots of punches from Bernard. Now Nard shamelessly acting hurt cannot, is not, and should not be attributed in any way to Joe Calzaghe. That's all Nard's bitchery.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Couldnt be. Looks like Nard was looking for an opportunity to rest. The punch was borderline, and DEFINITELY higher than lots of punches from Bernard.
The punch was nothing, but Calzaghe gave Hopkins an advantage by straying a punch a bit low and Hopkins capitalized on it.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
some of you people have forgotten the tru routes of boxing, "dirty" tactics are apart of the game.
Boxing will never see any beasts in the ring now days its gone to soft.
mma 4tw
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
:rolleyes:
Giving Hopkins an eternity to rest did not hurt Hopkins. Letting Hopkins hold 90% of the time did not hurt Hopkins. Letting Hopkins lowblow, headbutt and rabbitpunch did not hurt Hopkins. What frigging fight did you see?
Hopkins was allowed to hold 90% of the time .Clean your spec's bro...so That was a phantom make believe Joe Cortez..The same Cortez you were just bitching about...that was staying out of the clinches and NOT breaking them every 8 seconds so no inside game could unfold??Calzaghe GAVE hopkins the oppurtunity to take an advantage by putting himself in that predicament with the low blow...
So it was Cal's fault that Nard acted hurt? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
There is cause and effect in the ring.Hopkins took advantage of Calzaghes mistake....he gained the upper hand and won the rest of the round.....Its called gamesmen ship and tactics.You dont have to like it!You seem to be obsessed and absorbed with what was mostly Pre fight talking points...News flash..Calzaghe was declared the winner....
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rene69
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Couldnt be. Looks like Nard was looking for an opportunity to rest. The punch was borderline, and DEFINITELY higher than lots of punches from Bernard.
The punch was nothing, but Calzaghe gave Hopkins an advantage by straying a punch a bit low and Hopkins capitalized on it.
Capitalize is a positive term, and therefore inappropriate to the sham acting. We don't glorify beyootchery in saddo.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BoxingsEasy
some of you people have forgotten the tru routes of boxing, "dirty" tactics are apart of the game.
Boxing will never see any beasts in the ring now days its gone to soft.
mma 4tw
Yeah but the thing is if Nard holds it's ok but if Hatton does it's not. Or if Floyd elbows it's ok but if other's do it's not. A small helping of dirty tactics are OK for as long as there is consistency in rulings.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Hopkins was allowed to hold 90% of the time .Clean your spec's bro...so That was a phantom make believe Joe Cortez..The same Cortez you were just bitching about...that was staying out of the clinches and NOT breaking them every 8 seconds so no inside game could unfold??Calzaghe GAVE hopkins the oppurtunity to take an advantage by putting himself in that predicament with the low blow...
So it was Cal's fault that Nard acted hurt? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
There is cause and effect in the ring.Hopkins took advantage of Calzaghes mistake....he gained the upper hand and won the rest of the round.....Its called gamesmen ship and tactics.You dont have to like it!You seem to be obsessed and absorbed with what was mostly Pre fight talking points...News flash..Calzaghe was declared the winner....
Faking, lying, pretending, they're all sheet in my book. As it should be in yours. Boxing is first and foremost, a gentleman's sport.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rene69
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Couldnt be. Looks like Nard was looking for an opportunity to rest. The punch was borderline, and DEFINITELY higher than lots of punches from Bernard.
The punch was nothing, but Calzaghe gave Hopkins an advantage by straying a punch a bit low and Hopkins capitalized on it.
Capitalize is a positive term, and therefore inappropriate to the sham acting. We don't glorify beyootchery in saddo.
Uh...Hopkins got what he was looking for when Cortez called the time out. So in reality, it was a positive outcome for Hopkins... but that was it.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rene69
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rene69
The punch was nothing, but Calzaghe gave Hopkins an advantage by straying a punch a bit low and Hopkins capitalized on it.
Capitalize is a positive term, and therefore inappropriate to the sham acting. We don't glorify beyootchery in saddo.
Uh...Hopkins got what he was looking for when Cortez called the time out. So in reality, it was a positive outcome for Hopkins... but that was it.
Please, let's not get into any semantics here. Kuntery is kuntery. What Hopkins did is a beetch move. Call a spade if you see a spade. It's not different when Chico spit his mouthpiece out.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
So it was Cal's fault that Nard acted hurt? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
There is cause and effect in the ring.Hopkins took advantage of Calzaghes mistake....he gained the upper hand and won the rest of the round.....Its called gamesmen ship and tactics.You dont have to like it!You seem to be obsessed and absorbed with what was mostly Pre fight talking points...News flash..Calzaghe was declared the winner....
Faking, lying, pretending, they're all sheet in my book. As it should be in yours. Boxing is first and foremost, a gentleman's sport.
Boy...you are naive.Was that on the "newbies" pamphlet they past out at the job-fare you went too?The greatest of fighters...and even the not so greats maximize there oppurtunitys given AND taken within the called rules to achive victory.Get over it ...
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rene69
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Capitalize is a positive term, and therefore inappropriate to the sham acting. We don't glorify beyootchery in saddo.
Uh...Hopkins got what he was looking for when Cortez called the time out. So in reality, it was a positive outcome for Hopkins... but that was it.
Please, let's not get into any semantics here. Kuntery is kuntery. What Hopkins did is a beetch move. Call a spade if you see a spade. It's not different when Chico spit his mouthpiece out.
And that's what gave Chico the win if memory serves me right. He took advantage of his situation and gave it a positive outcome.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
There is cause and effect in the ring.Hopkins took advantage of Calzaghes mistake....he gained the upper hand and won the rest of the round.....Its called gamesmen ship and tactics.You dont have to like it!You seem to be obsessed and absorbed with what was mostly Pre fight talking points...News flash..Calzaghe was declared the winner....
Faking, lying, pretending, they're all sheet in my book. As it should be in yours. Boxing is first and foremost, a gentleman's sport.
Boy...you are naive.Was that on the "newbies" pamphlet they past out at the job-fare you went too?The greatest of fighters...and even the not so greats maximize there oppurtunitys given AND taken within the called rules to achive victory.Get over it ...
Greats maximize their opportunities, but they RARELY prtend things they are not. And they go on to beat their opponents. Thus my conclusion, Hopkins = not great.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rene69
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rene69
Uh...Hopkins got what he was looking for when Cortez called the time out. So in reality, it was a positive outcome for Hopkins... but that was it.
Please, let's not get into any semantics here. Kuntery is kuntery. What Hopkins did is a beetch move. Call a spade if you see a spade. It's not different when Chico spit his mouthpiece out.
And that's what gave Chico the win if memory serves me right. He took advantage of his situation and gave it a positive outcome.
Props to Chico for delivering killer blows, but boos for the mouthpiece.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Faking, lying, pretending, they're all sheet in my book. As it should be in yours. Boxing is first and foremost, a gentleman's sport.
Boy...you are naive.Was that on the "newbies" pamphlet they past out at the job-fare you went too?The greatest of fighters...and even the not so greats maximize there oppurtunitys given AND taken within the called rules to achive victory.Get over it ...
Greats maximize their opportunities, but they RARELY prtend things they are not. And they go on to beat their opponents. Thus my conclusion, Hopkins = not great.
Yeh,I guess Joe just beat another also ran OK type,has yet to garner a win over a great.Its pointless huh hype-man...your obviously invested in your closed mind.Good luck with that
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Boy...you are naive.Was that on the "newbies" pamphlet they past out at the job-fare you went too?The greatest of fighters...and even the not so greats maximize there oppurtunitys given AND taken within the called rules to achive victory.Get over it ...
Greats maximize their opportunities, but they RARELY prtend things they are not. And they go on to beat their opponents. Thus my conclusion, Hopkins = not great.
Yeh,I guess Joe just beat another also ran OK type,has yet to garner a win over a great.Its pointless huh hype-man...your obviously invested in your closed mind.Good luck with that
Joe, beating a good fighter in Hopkins who had a PhD in dirty fighting and the ref in his pocket, makes him a great fighter.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Greats maximize their opportunities, but they RARELY prtend things they are not. And they go on to beat their opponents. Thus my conclusion, Hopkins = not great.
Yeh,I guess Joe just beat another also ran OK type,has yet to garner a win over a great.Its pointless huh hype-man...your obviously invested in your closed mind.Good luck with that
Joe, beating a good fighter in Hopkins who had a PhD in dirty fighting and the ref in his pocket, makes him a great fighter.
I just repped ya...you are a biased narrow mind on this one.Foe s!!! sake Calzaghe won.Does Hopkins owe you child support or something?waste of space
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Yeh,I guess Joe just beat another also ran OK type,has yet to garner a win over a great.Its pointless huh hype-man...your obviously invested in your closed mind.Good luck with that
Joe, beating a good fighter in Hopkins who had a PhD in dirty fighting and the ref in his pocket, makes him a great fighter.
I just repped ya...you are a biased narrow mind on this one.Foe s!!! sake Calzaghe won.Does Hopkins owe you child support or something?waste of space
I am not so biased as to put a pic of Hopkins in my avatar. Is Hopkins your daddy or something?
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Joe, beating a good fighter in Hopkins who had a PhD in dirty fighting and the ref in his pocket, makes him a great fighter.
I just repped ya...you are a biased narrow mind on this one.Foe s!!! sake Calzaghe won.Does Hopkins owe you child support or something?waste of space
I am not so biased as to put a pic of Hopkins in my avatar. Is Hopkins your daddy or something?
As far as I know,Were still waiting on the results:p Do your homework Einstein,I have always claimed my self A Hopkins supporter with out pause....but have not wallowed on the floor like a wet toddler (After A WIN) or held such proud disdaine for Calzaghe as you are so easy to do with Hopkins.Hey,Do what you do..Its tranparent.This has peaked...go get smacked around by some one else.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
I just repped ya...you are a biased narrow mind on this one.Foe s!!! sake Calzaghe won.Does Hopkins owe you child support or something?waste of space
I am not so biased as to put a pic of Hopkins in my avatar. Is Hopkins your daddy or something?
As far as I know,Were still waiting on the results:p Do your homework Einstein,I have always claimed my self A Hopkins supporter with out pause....but have not wallowed on the floor like a wet toddler (After A WIN) or held such proud disdaine for Calzaghe as you are so easy to do with Hopkins.Hey,Do what you do..Its tranparent.This has peaked...go get smacked around by some one else.
The only thing transparent here is your Calzaghe hate. And your love for Hopkins, Mayweather, etc.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Im done with you ignoramous....Last thing I Have EVER been accused of is being a Mayweather fan ..WTF.....gotdamn your fucking stupid.Up the dosage.:dunce:
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
One thing we sa topnight was that when Hopkins couldnt bully Calzaghe, Calzaghe gave him the same treatment back. Hopkins showed that he wasnt the greatest swallower of his own medicine.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JLAQ
Couldnt be. Looks like Nard was looking for an opportunity to rest. The punch was borderline, and DEFINITELY higher than lots of punches from Bernard. Now Nard shamelessly acting hurt cannot, is not, and should not be attributed in any way to Joe Calzaghe. That's all Nard's bitchery.
Hopkins was acting to try to get Cortez to take some points away from Joe where he would have a chance to win a decision.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Im done with you ignoramous....Last thing I Have EVER been accused of is being a Mayweather fan ..WTF.....gotdamn your fucking stupid.Up the dosage.:dunce:
Hey, easy on the insults. Or are you running out of arguments? :rolleyes:
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cpcompany
One thing we sa topnight was that when Hopkins couldnt bully Calzaghe, Calzaghe gave him the same treatment back. Hopkins showed that he wasnt the greatest swallower of his own medicine.
Well said. The bully just got bullied.
-
Re: Without Hopkin's dirty tactics
Hopkins is a master at using the entire ring and circling his opponent to stay out of range of their most dangerous punch. Bernard is one of the few fighter's ever to have never been in serious danger of being stopped. That is his true gift, not dirty tactics.