Whats next for Hopkins besides retirement?

[Dia bando]

His appeal to me, is not unlike, a snot sandwich. I don't like them.

Speaking from experience here, are we?

There's nothing wrong with disliking
a boxer. But because we don't like a fighter, it doesn't make them any better or worse a fighter.

I don't believe Hopkins and I could ever have a conversation, but I really respect him as a fighter.

So what you are saying, is Hopkins is a COCK I no that Hagler would have beat the crap out of him,
now there's a great fight. Hopkins is not fit to carry, HAGLER'S jockstrap.

[donnydarkoIRL]

So what you are saying, is Hopkins is a COCK I no that Hagler would have beat the crap out of him,
now there's a great fight. Hopkins is not fit to carry, HAGLER'S jockstrap.

When you look back at the history of the Middleweight division, even as far as 1970, the most respected middleweights have not been the most amiable of gentlemen.
Hopkins, Hagler, Monzon; all were "bad guys" who were attractions because of there imposing personas, even the aura od menace surrounding them. (particularly Monzon.)
Before that you had street gladiators such as Graziano, LaMotta.
Even before that you had Mickey Walker and Harry Greb.

All of these fighters were notoriously tough, rugged veterans who were awarded the respect of the boxing public because of their performances; certainly not their winning personalities.


Regrding your last point; the hypothetical match between Hagler and Hopkins; I'm afraid I don't understand.
You say "now there's a fight."
Yet you mention that Hopkins " is not fit to carry, HAGLER'S jockstrap" and "Hagler would have beat the crap out of him."
With these sentiments, why would Hagler vs. Hopkins be a good fight?
If you truely believe that, then the only way this would be a good fight is if you watch boxing to see sadistic, one sided beatings.

[Dia bando]

So what you are saying, is Hopkins is a COCK I no that Hagler would have beat the crap out of him,
now there's a great fight. Hopkins is not fit to carry, HAGLER'S jockstrap.

When you look back at the history of the Middleweight division, even as far as 1970, the most respected middleweights have not been the most amiable of gentlemen.
Hopkins, Hagler, Monzon; all were "bad guys" who were attractions because of there imposing personas, even the aura od menace surrounding them. (particularly Monzon.)
Before that you had street gladiators such as Graziano, LaMotta.
Even before that you had Mickey Walker and Harry Greb.

All of these fighters were notoriously tough, rugged veterans who were awarded the respect of the boxing public because of their performances; certainly not their winning personalities.


Regrding your last point; the hypothetical match between Hagler and Hopkins; I'm afraid I don't understand.
You say "now there's a fight."
Yet you mention that Hopkins " is not fit to carry, HAGLER'S jockstrap" and "Hagler would have beat the crap out of him."
With these sentiments, why would Hagler vs. Hopkins be a good fight?
If you truely believe that, then the only way this would be a good fight is if you watch boxing to see sadistic, one sided beatings.

For Hopkins I would love to see him, take a one sided SADISTIC beating yes I would really really really
enjoy it wonderful.

[DavilaJones]

Hagler was a god damn excellent boxer but I don't think anyone could give Hopkins a beat down. If the fastest man in the Middleweight division couldn't do it I highly doubt Hagler could. As to who would win? Damn I don't know.

Hopkins has problem with boxers with high punch output or those who don't always come towards him, Hagler like most solid boxers rather box with you instead of going side to side or pressuring a counter boxer. I don't know why he has a persona of a brawler where in fact he was a great mid-range boxer.

[Dia bando]

Hagler was a god damn excellent boxer but I don't think anyone could give Hopkins a beat down. If the fastest man in the Middleweight division couldn't do it I highly doubt Hagler could. As to who would win? Damn I don't know.

Hopkins has problem with boxers with high punch output or those who don't always come towards him, Hagler like most solid boxers rather box with you instead of going side to side or pressuring a counter boxer. I don't know why he has a persona of a brawler where in fact he was a great mid-range boxer.

I must be missing something,! Hopkins is abysmal a very unattractive style technically horrible to watch,
Hagler on the other hand, technically head and shoulders above Hopkins in ever department , and I
no who would win HAGLER,

[roberto duran legend]

Hagler was a god damn excellent boxer but I don't think anyone could give Hopkins a beat down. If the fastest man in the Middleweight division couldn't do it I highly doubt Hagler could. As to who would win? Damn I don't know.

Hopkins has problem with boxers with high punch output or those who don't always come towards him, Hagler like most solid boxers rather box with you instead of going side to side or pressuring a counter boxer. I don't know why he has a persona of a brawler where in fact he was a great mid-range boxer.

Well if Marvin fought like he did against Hearns old Bhop would be in trouble then.

[Boxer4life]

this is too obvious......we all know we want to see a third fight with jones of course

[donnydarkoIRL]

For Hopkins I would love to see him, take a one sided SADISTIC beating yes I would really really really
enjoy it wonderful.

Dia, I am a boxer and this sport means a lot to me.

I see the smiley, but that just makes me sick.