What/who next for Danny Green?

[doublehook2]

haha it's always a good start when on only their second post they get accused of being on crack.

Should be a good addition to the boards, nice to have people to disagree with.

Well I don't take it too personally beacuse I know that most casual boxing fans have given up on Roy Jones. So anyone giving credit to Roy Jones will probably be accused of being on crack. But, even on this very forum and other forums like eastside boxing, there were more than a few that thought Jones still got the best of Hopkins.

Regardless of what you think about who won, I think you gotta give credit to Roy Jones for fighting a cleaner fight and landing some great punches in the middle and late rounds. The fight itself wasn't a classic or an all time great, but I did think you could take a lot away from that fight from what actually happened. (you know by watching it round by round, with the commentary off)

I have no problem if people disagree with my view, but it would serve them well to explain why rather than just dismissing the argument altogether.

In the RJJ - BHop fight, the proof is really in the pudding. Hopkins threw more punches, Hopkins fouled more, Hopkins tied Jones up more. But at the end of the day, Jones was the one who landed the more flashy punches and did the more creative work in there. And as a boxing fan watching a fight between two legends, I think you gotta appreciate that. It wasn't just a trash fight. It was a pretty incredible match considering the age of the fighters. It was much more entertaining and competitive than Pacquiao - Clottey, which was a snooze fest at best. I would go as far to say that Jones - Hopkins was more exciting than Pacquiao - Clottey, Pavlik - Martinez, and Bute - Miranda. And most people just want to dismiss it as insignificant and uncompetitive, when in reality it was much more than that.

[ElTerribleMorales]

haha it's always a good start when on only their second post they get accused of being on crack.

Should be a good addition to the boards, nice to have people to disagree with.

Well I don't take it too personally beacuse I know that most casual boxing fans have given up on Roy Jones. So anyone giving credit to Roy Jones will probably be accused of being on crack. But, even on this very forum and other forums like eastside boxing, there were more than a few that thought Jones still got the best of Hopkins.

Regardless of what you think about who won, I think you gotta give credit to Roy Jones for fighting a cleaner fight and landing some great punches in the middle and late rounds. The fight itself wasn't a classic or an all time great, but I did think you could take a lot away from that fight from what actually happened. (you know by watching it round by round, with the commentary off)

I have no problem if people disagree with my view, but it would serve them well to explain why rather than just dismissing the argument altogether.

In the RJJ - BHop fight, the proof is really in the pudding. Hopkins threw more punches, Hopkins fouled more, Hopkins tied Jones up more. But at the end of the day, Jones was the one who landed the more flashy punches and did the more creative work in there. And as a boxing fan watching a fight between two legends, I think you gotta appreciate that. It wasn't just a trash fight. It was a pretty incredible match considering the age of the fighters. It was much more entertaining and competitive than Pacquiao - Clottey, which was a snooze fest at best. I would go as far to say that Jones - Hopkins was more exciting than Pacquiao - Clottey, Pavlik - Martinez, and Bute - Miranda. And most people just want to dismiss it as insignificant and uncompetitive, when in reality it was much more than that.

if anything it showed that Hopkins is finally on the slide, not that Jones is still world class