Here's the Hopkins 'White Boy' incident

[Kev]

To be honest,I think you guys are going OTT here.

Hahaha!!! I know you think I am overly sensitive, but my paticular point is, whats good for one should be good for the other... To try to bring race into is just plain tasteless and classless and goes to show money cant buy those things..

Like stated above if Joe said said he would never lose to know N****** or a Blackman it would cause a global outrage. I take it tongue and cheek myself but its amazing the double standard thats exists.

B Hop is an old and boring fighter to watch now. A legend for sure but he throws 10 punches per round max! Constantly muay thai clinching and head butting reminds me of Vale Tudo more than boxing. He needs to sell the fight somehow and that was his card:the race thing. I also think it was done out of desperation. He was trying to get under Joe's skin and it CLEARLY didn't work so he got annoyed. ESPECIALLY when Joe mentioned his losses to JT which were both close fights and NEITHER was a robbery.
Oh and Kessler is a better fighter than almost anyone B Hop has faced.A young,hungry,strong and at the time unbeaten warrior and a natural at the weight:when were any of these words used when defining a B Hop opponent(aside from JT whom he lost to)

I agree Bhop is a snoozer who's anemic punch count and rule breaking is unbearable to watch and is actually a mockery of the lightheavy division, if wasnt affiliated with GBP would have dissapeared to obscurity by now

Calzaghe will beat him quite easily be suprised if Nard wins more than 2-3 rounds, and that Kessler statement made me laugh during the confrontation.... Kessler would desicion him quite easily as well

CC back my man. And dude,I wasn't referring to you in particular when I said things went OTT(I was actully referring to Bilbo and his usual going off topic,talking about random statistics etc.)

I'm just trying to explain the difference between a white man commentating on a black man's colour versus a black man commenting on a white's man colour.

JT Rock immediately interperets Hopkins saying he will not lose to a white man as a statement of black racial superiority over whites. He (JT Rock) only holds this view though because in the past white's actually practised racial superiority over whites and so he assumes that any statement of colour is automatically an exclamation of superiority.

However blacks have never practised racial superiority over whites so Hopkins statement that he will never lose to a white man does not presume racial superiority whatsoever, that's JT Rock ASSUMPTION.

Look at it this way, if a convicted pedophile tells you that he thinks your daughter or little sister is gorgeous you will likely be highly alarmed to say the least.

But if your Nan or doctor tells you, you would just feel proud.

Why the difference? Because of the known pasts and predicted intention's of the people giving the comments.

So, when considering racial relations, if a white man (part of a race that practised EXTENSIVE and BARBARIC racial superiority over black's) says he will not lose to a black man, it will likely be deemed an aggressive and racist statement of racial superiority.

However when a black man (part of a race that was BRUTALLY SUBJECATED and ENSLAVED by white's) says he will not lose to a white man he is not making an aggressive and racist statement of racial superiority but rather making a statement of defiance in saying he will not be beaten by a member of the race that historically subjecated his race.

It's a completely different statement of intention altogether.

It's no different to the relationship between a rapist and a past victim. If after repeatedly raping his victim the rapist was finally ordered to stop and anti raping laws were brought in, the future behaviour of the rapist toward the victim would be subject to a greater criticism than the victims future behaviour toward the rapist.

Furthermore any negative statements made by the rapist toward the victim would be regarded as possible threats of repeat behaviour whereas any negative statements made by the victim toward the rapist would hardly be seen as statements of rape intention but rather a sign of longheld resentment and bitterness.

As a Philadelphia street kid, criminal and prisoner Hopkins would have long felt the superior glare of the white man and his statement that he would not lose to a white man was clearly evidence of that resentment still present within him.

Now you can argue that his comments were not needed and in bad taste but you cannot seriously make a claim that they are racist without making that ASSUMPTION yourself based on white's past treatment of black's.

[Mad_Dog]

Hey bilbo, you do know that the Moors enslaved whites right? Happened for hundreds of years. very profitable for them.


anyhoo. Most black athletes that I grew up around considered white athletes physically inferior. Weaker. ( I am Mexican, had many a conversation about this when I was young)

so when hopkins said I would never let a white boy beat me, he said it cause he honestly feels that the black athlete is superior to the white one and he aint about to lose to him.

in a nut shell it is racist.

[No Contest]

You should be a defense attorney Bilbo

[No Contest]

Confuse the jury to a not guilty verdict....

[MIKAY]

Plain & simple, that was racist and b hop should be ashamed of himself - still want him to win as a long time fan

[Kev]

Hey bilbo, you do know that the Moors enslaved whites right? Happened for hundreds of years. very profitable for them.


anyhoo. Most black athletes that I grew up around considered white athletes physically inferior. Weaker. ( I am Mexican, had many a conversation about this when I was young)

so when hopkins said I would never let a white boy beat me, he said it cause he honestly feels that the black athlete is superior to the white one and he aint about to lose to him.

in a nut shell it is racist.

Why is it? Most white people belive that black's are physically superior. That's why we enslaved them in the first place! We originally tried to run our sugar plantations using convicts, orphaned boys and other undesirables but they kept dying in the heat. The black's were physically tougher and could endure the hellish conditions.

Being unable to even acknowladge any differences between races is just absurd, political correctness gone mad imo.

I would say it's a fact that black's are physically more gifted than whites. They are naturally more muscular, it's a genetic trait. I would say on average that white's are more intelligent, certainly when using our current method's of intelligence testing. I've also read that Asian's, especially Japanese and Chinese are more intelligent still.

Asian's are shorter than black's and white's but they also live longer.

How is any of this racist, it's just fact's regarding humanity.

We shouldn't be afraid to even acknowledge differences between us, it's when we try to subjecate and abuse another race that it becomes racist.

Anyway back on topic, Hopkins comments taking on their own didn't infere a physical superiority over white's anyway, he simply said 'I will never lose to a white man'.

The statement on it's own doesn't infere racism or assertions of superioty one way or anther you are merely interpereting it that way.

If Joe Calzaghe was to say I'd never lose to an Englishman' would that be racist? Would he in saying that be asserting an aggressive superiority of Welsh over English? Should we be troubled by those comments?

Whilst such a comment might indeed rile up some English fans and turn it into a healthy bit of nationalistic pride nobody would read anything sinister into it.

I think his comments were the best thing that could have happened to this fight. Few people were really interested before but now we have a grudge fight and if it goes ahead as planned people will be wanting to see what happens.

It was good marketing and Joe himself will benefit from the extra publicity.

[Wacko3205]

In the end...what Hopkins said was a "racial statement".

I love Hopkins through & through...but he has always had & often expressed "racist tendencies". He always & often brings up his color, slavery, & white favoritism.

No matter what Hopkins says...he's a bit of a racist...he's just normally doesn't practice it. Now I aint tryin' to act like a know Hopkins personally...but I have followed him from start to finish & I have heard & seen him pull out some pretty racist stunts...whether it be against whites, fellow blacks, chinese, or mexicans.

Hopkins is most definently a racist...but he's not really a bigot when it comes to his thoughts.

I honestly believe that Hopkins knows how & when to play the race card.

This time was one of those times. He pulled the card on Dibella, Trinidad, Echols, Oscar, & now Calzaghe.

While this instance...he was very vocal about it...it was still playful & humerous.

Sure Hopkins feels superior to Calzaghe. Sure he's gonna press the issue. Sure he's gonna be loud & proud in front of the press. Sure people are going to over react...but that's the name of the game in boxing...reaction is the key selling point...& if Hopkins really wants this fight...he & Joe both sold it to a tee.

This will be an excellent fight...if it really does materialize...& I am still skeptical.

[JT Rock]

To be honest,I think you guys are going OTT here.

Hahaha!!! I know you think I am overly sensitive, but my paticular point is, whats good for one should be good for the other... To try to bring race into is just plain tasteless and classless and goes to show money cant buy those things..

Like stated above if Joe said said he would never lose to know N****** or a Blackman it would cause a global outrage.  I take it tongue and cheek myself but its amazing the double standard thats exists.

B Hop is an old and boring fighter to watch now. A legend for sure but he throws 10 punches per round max! Constantly muay thai clinching  and head butting reminds me of Vale Tudo more than boxing. He needs to sell the fight somehow and that was his card:the race thing. I also think it was done out of desperation. He was trying to get under Joe's skin and it CLEARLY didn't work so he got annoyed. ESPECIALLY when Joe mentioned his losses to JT which were both close fights and NEITHER was a robbery.
Oh and Kessler is a better fighter than almost anyone B Hop has faced.A young,hungry,strong and at the time unbeaten warrior and a natural at the weight:when were any of these words used when defining a B Hop opponent(aside from JT whom he lost to)

I agree Bhop is a snoozer who's anemic punch count and rule breaking is unbearable to watch and is actually a mockery of the lightheavy division, if wasnt affiliated with GBP would have dissapeared to obscurity by now

Calzaghe will beat him quite easily be suprised if Nard wins more than 2-3 rounds, and that Kessler statement made me laugh during the confrontation.... Kessler would desicion him quite easily as well

CC back my man. And dude,I wasn't referring to you in particular when I said things went OTT(I was actully referring to Bilbo and his usual going off topic,talking about random statistics etc.)

I'm just trying to explain the difference between a white man commentating on a black man's colour versus a black man commenting on a white's man colour.

JT Rock immediately interperets Hopkins saying he will not lose to a white man as a statement of black racial superiority over whites. He (JT Rock) only holds this view though because in the past white's actually practised racial superiority over whites and so he assumes that any statement of colour is automatically an exclamation of superiority.

However blacks have never practised racial superiority over whites so Hopkins statement that he will never lose to a white man does not presume racial superiority whatsoever, that's JT Rock ASSUMPTION.

Look at it this way, if a convicted pedophile tells you that he thinks your daughter or little sister is gorgeous you will likely be highly alarmed to say the least.

But if your Nan or doctor tells you, you would just feel proud.

Why the difference? Because of the known pasts and predicted intention's of the people giving the comments.

So, when considering racial relations, if a white man (part of a race that practised EXTENSIVE and BARBARIC racial superiority over black's) says he will not lose to a black man, it will likely be deemed an aggressive and racist statement of racial superiority.

However when a black man (part of a race that was BRUTALLY SUBJECATED and ENSLAVED by white's) says he will not lose to a white man he is not making an aggressive and racist statement of racial superiority but rather making a statement of defiance in saying he will not be beaten by a member of the race that historically subjecated his race.

It's a completely different statement of intention altogether.

It's no different to the relationship between a rapist and a past victim. If after repeatedly raping his victim the rapist was finally ordered to stop and anti raping laws were brought in, the future behaviour of the rapist toward the victim would be subject to a greater criticism than the victims future behaviour toward the rapist.

Furthermore any negative statements made by the rapist toward the victim would be regarded as possible threats of repeat behaviour whereas any negative statements made by the victim toward the rapist would hardly be seen as statements of rape intention but rather a sign of longheld resentment and bitterness.

As a Philadelphia street kid, criminal and prisoner Hopkins would have long felt the superior glare of the white man and his statement that he would not lose to a white man was clearly evidence of that resentment still present within him.

Now you can argue that his comments were not needed and in bad taste but you cannot seriously make a claim that they are racist without making that ASSUMPTION yourself based on white's past treatment of black's.

interesting artfully contrived baffling Bullshit........... 

                                                            STOP


                                                AND I MEAN

                                                           STOP


Trying to push this grandoise smoke and mirrors history ancedotal. I dont care what happened 50-60-70 years ago............... Means 0 to me.. Its called individual accountability end of!!!!!!!!!!!! this is the year 2007 you know nothing about Hop or I or what we are thinking or feeling deep down inside, we can only rightfully be judged on our words and actions. Which Hopkins history of desecrating another countries flag and calling a caucasian male a "WHITE BOY" and outright said he would never get beat by a "WHITE BOY" NEVER ALLOW IT.. Plus he went on to repeat the phrase at least 3x  Hopkins is a classless tasteless human being that is ignorant as the day is long, if Hop didnt believe that he being a black man is superior over Calzaghe being the white man then he would have never said it, let alone 3 fukin times. Calzaghe cornered him, confronted him, called him out and got the best of him in front of the whole boxing media on the eve of one the most celebrated Boxing events of the past 50 years. Joe owned him and out of frustration and embarassment Hopkins at a loss for words blurted out like a punch drunk Fuktard that he wasnt losing to no "WHITE BOY" and said it at least 3x and you know why? rattled and embarassed and called out on the big stage. Hopkins said how he was truly feeling....


THE END

[Tysonbruno]

I hope Hopkins beats Calzaghe

[Kev]

To be honest,I think you guys are going OTT here.

Hahaha!!! I know you think I am overly sensitive, but my paticular point is, whats good for one should be good for the other... To try to bring race into is just plain tasteless and classless and goes to show money cant buy those things..

Like stated above if Joe said said he would never lose to know N****** or a Blackman it would cause a global outrage. I take it tongue and cheek myself but its amazing the double standard thats exists.

B Hop is an old and boring fighter to watch now. A legend for sure but he throws 10 punches per round max! Constantly muay thai clinching and head butting reminds me of Vale Tudo more than boxing. He needs to sell the fight somehow and that was his card:the race thing. I also think it was done out of desperation. He was trying to get under Joe's skin and it CLEARLY didn't work so he got annoyed. ESPECIALLY when Joe mentioned his losses to JT which were both close fights and NEITHER was a robbery.
Oh and Kessler is a better fighter than almost anyone B Hop has faced.A young,hungry,strong and at the time unbeaten warrior and a natural at the weight:when were any of these words used when defining a B Hop opponent(aside from JT whom he lost to)

I agree Bhop is a snoozer who's anemic punch count and rule breaking is unbearable to watch and is actually a mockery of the lightheavy division, if wasnt affiliated with GBP would have dissapeared to obscurity by now

Calzaghe will beat him quite easily be suprised if Nard wins more than 2-3 rounds, and that Kessler statement made me laugh during the confrontation.... Kessler would desicion him quite easily as well

CC back my man. And dude,I wasn't referring to you in particular when I said things went OTT(I was actully referring to Bilbo and his usual going off topic,talking about random statistics etc.)

I'm just trying to explain the difference between a white man commentating on a black man's colour versus a black man commenting on a white's man colour.

JT Rock immediately interperets Hopkins saying he will not lose to a white man as a statement of black racial superiority over whites. He (JT Rock) only holds this view though because in the past white's actually practised racial superiority over whites and so he assumes that any statement of colour is automatically an exclamation of superiority.

However blacks have never practised racial superiority over whites so Hopkins statement that he will never lose to a white man does not presume racial superiority whatsoever, that's JT Rock ASSUMPTION.

Look at it this way, if a convicted pedophile tells you that he thinks your daughter or little sister is gorgeous you will likely be highly alarmed to say the least.

But if your Nan or doctor tells you, you would just feel proud.

Why the difference? Because of the known pasts and predicted intention's of the people giving the comments.

So, when considering racial relations, if a white man (part of a race that practised EXTENSIVE and BARBARIC racial superiority over black's) says he will not lose to a black man, it will likely be deemed an aggressive and racist statement of racial superiority.

However when a black man (part of a race that was BRUTALLY SUBJECATED and ENSLAVED by white's) says he will not lose to a white man he is not making an aggressive and racist statement of racial superiority but rather making a statement of defiance in saying he will not be beaten by a member of the race that historically subjecated his race.

It's a completely different statement of intention altogether.

It's no different to the relationship between a rapist and a past victim. If after repeatedly raping his victim the rapist was finally ordered to stop and anti raping laws were brought in, the future behaviour of the rapist toward the victim would be subject to a greater criticism than the victims future behaviour toward the rapist.

Furthermore any negative statements made by the rapist toward the victim would be regarded as possible threats of repeat behaviour whereas any negative statements made by the victim toward the rapist would hardly be seen as statements of rape intention but rather a sign of longheld resentment and bitterness.

As a Philadelphia street kid, criminal and prisoner Hopkins would have long felt the superior glare of the white man and his statement that he would not lose to a white man was clearly evidence of that resentment still present within him.

Now you can argue that his comments were not needed and in bad taste but you cannot seriously make a claim that they are racist without making that ASSUMPTION yourself based on white's past treatment of black's.

interesting artfully contrived baffling Bullshit...........

STOP


AND I MEAN

STOP


Trying to push this grandoise smoke and mirrors history ancedotal. I dont care what happened 50-60-70 years ago............... Means 0 to me.. Its called individual accountability end of!!!!!!!!!!!! this is the year 2007 you know nothing about Hop or I or what we are thinking or feeling deep down inside, we can only rightfully be judged on our words and actions. Which Hopkins history of desecrating another countries flag and calling a caucasian male a "WHITE BOY" and outright said he would never get beat by a "WHITE BOY" NEVER ALLOW IT.. Plus he went on to repeat the phrase at least 3x Hopkins is a classless tasteless human being that is ignorant as the day is long, if Hop didnt believe that he being a black man is superior over Calzaghe being the white man then he would have never said it, let alone 3 fukin times. Calzaghe cornered him, confronted him, called him out and got the best of him in front of the whole boxing media on the eve of one the most celebrated Boxing events of the past 50 years. Joe owned him and out of frustration and embarassment Hopkins at a loss for words blurted out like a punch drunk Fuktard that he wasnt losing to no "WHITE BOY" and said it at least 3x and you know why? rattled and embarassed and called out on the big stage. Hopkins said how he was truly feeling....


THE END

Joe owned B Hop?

Watch the vid again Hopkins COMPLETELY dominated the war of words. He had Joe stuttering and lost for words. He got him to back down his statement that Taylor beat him and and completely shouted him down.

I thought B Hop was in awesome form. He looked menacing, he looked mean, he still had his predatory instincts and in my (humble 0f course) opinion won that little verbal spat hands down

[LBSCFC]

To be honest,I think you guys are going OTT here.

Hahaha!!! I know you think I am overly sensitive, but my paticular point is, whats good for one should be good for the other... To try to bring race into is just plain tasteless and classless and goes to show money cant buy those things..

Like stated above if Joe said said he would never lose to know N****** or a Blackman it would cause a global outrage. I take it tongue and cheek myself but its amazing the double standard thats exists.

B Hop is an old and boring fighter to watch now. A legend for sure but he throws 10 punches per round max! Constantly muay thai clinching and head butting reminds me of Vale Tudo more than boxing. He needs to sell the fight somehow and that was his card:the race thing. I also think it was done out of desperation. He was trying to get under Joe's skin and it CLEARLY didn't work so he got annoyed. ESPECIALLY when Joe mentioned his losses to JT which were both close fights and NEITHER was a robbery.
Oh and Kessler is a better fighter than almost anyone B Hop has faced.A young,hungry,strong and at the time unbeaten warrior and a natural at the weight:when were any of these words used when defining a B Hop opponent(aside from JT whom he lost to)

I agree Bhop is a snoozer who's anemic punch count and rule breaking is unbearable to watch and is actually a mockery of the lightheavy division, if wasnt affiliated with GBP would have dissapeared to obscurity by now

Calzaghe will beat him quite easily be suprised if Nard wins more than 2-3 rounds, and that Kessler statement made me laugh during the confrontation.... Kessler would desicion him quite easily as well

CC back my man. And dude,I wasn't referring to you in particular when I said things went OTT(I was actully referring to Bilbo and his usual going off topic,talking about random statistics etc.)

I'm just trying to explain the difference between a white man commentating on a black man's colour versus a black man commenting on a white's man colour.

JT Rock immediately interperets Hopkins saying he will not lose to a white man as a statement of black racial superiority over whites. He (JT Rock) only holds this view though because in the past white's actually practised racial superiority over whites and so he assumes that any statement of colour is automatically an exclamation of superiority.

However blacks have never practised racial superiority over whites so Hopkins statement that he will never lose to a white man does not presume racial superiority whatsoever, that's JT Rock ASSUMPTION.

Look at it this way, if a convicted pedophile tells you that he thinks your daughter or little sister is gorgeous you will likely be highly alarmed to say the least.

But if your Nan or doctor tells you, you would just feel proud.

Why the difference? Because of the known pasts and predicted intention's of the people giving the comments.

So, when considering racial relations, if a white man (part of a race that practised EXTENSIVE and BARBARIC racial superiority over black's) says he will not lose to a black man, it will likely be deemed an aggressive and racist statement of racial superiority.

However when a black man (part of a race that was BRUTALLY SUBJECATED and ENSLAVED by white's) says he will not lose to a white man he is not making an aggressive and racist statement of racial superiority but rather making a statement of defiance in saying he will not be beaten by a member of the race that historically subjecated his race.

It's a completely different statement of intention altogether.

It's no different to the relationship between a rapist and a past victim. If after repeatedly raping his victim the rapist was finally ordered to stop and anti raping laws were brought in, the future behaviour of the rapist toward the victim would be subject to a greater criticism than the victims future behaviour toward the rapist.

Furthermore any negative statements made by the rapist toward the victim would be regarded as possible threats of repeat behaviour whereas any negative statements made by the victim toward the rapist would hardly be seen as statements of rape intention but rather a sign of longheld resentment and bitterness.

As a Philadelphia street kid, criminal and prisoner Hopkins would have long felt the superior glare of the white man and his statement that he would not lose to a white man was clearly evidence of that resentment still present within him.

Now you can argue that his comments were not needed and in bad taste but you cannot seriously make a claim that they are racist without making that ASSUMPTION yourself based on white's past treatment of black's.

interesting artfully contrived baffling Bullshit...........

STOP


AND I MEAN

STOP


Trying to push this grandoise smoke and mirrors history ancedotal. I dont care what happened 50-60-70 years ago............... Means 0 to me.. Its called individual accountability end of!!!!!!!!!!!! this is the year 2007 you know nothing about Hop or I or what we are thinking or feeling deep down inside, we can only rightfully be judged on our words and actions. Which Hopkins history of desecrating another countries flag and calling a caucasian male a "WHITE BOY" and outright said he would never get beat by a "WHITE BOY" NEVER ALLOW IT.. Plus he went on to repeat the phrase at least 3x Hopkins is a classless tasteless human being that is ignorant as the day is long, if Hop didnt believe that he being a black man is superior over Calzaghe being the white man then he would have never said it, let alone 3 fukin times. Calzaghe cornered him, confronted him, called him out and got the best of him in front of the whole boxing media on the eve of one the most celebrated Boxing events of the past 50 years. Joe owned him and out of frustration and embarassment Hopkins at a loss for words blurted out like a punch drunk Fuktard that he wasnt losing to no "WHITE BOY" and said it at least 3x and you know why? rattled and embarassed and called out on the big stage. Hopkins said how he was truly feeling....


THE END

Joe owned B Hop?

Watch the vid again Hopkins COMPLETELY dominated the war of words. He had Joe stuttering and lost for words. He got him to back down his statement that Taylor beat him and and completely shouted him down.

I thought B Hop was in awesome form. He looked menacing, he looked mean, he still had his predatory instincts and in my (humble 0f course) opinion won that little verbal spat hands down

hopkins may have dominated the war of words but I got the feeling he was backed into a corner in that exchange. when the fight happens though calzaghe will be the one dominating

[Wacko3205]

To be honest,I think you guys are going OTT here.

Hahaha!!! I know you think I am overly sensitive, but my paticular point is, whats good for one should be good for the other... To try to bring race into is just plain tasteless and classless and goes to show money cant buy those things..

Like stated above if Joe said said he would never lose to know N****** or a Blackman it would cause a global outrage. I take it tongue and cheek myself but its amazing the double standard thats exists.

B Hop is an old and boring fighter to watch now. A legend for sure but he throws 10 punches per round max! Constantly muay thai clinching and head butting reminds me of Vale Tudo more than boxing. He needs to sell the fight somehow and that was his card:the race thing. I also think it was done out of desperation. He was trying to get under Joe's skin and it CLEARLY didn't work so he got annoyed. ESPECIALLY when Joe mentioned his losses to JT which were both close fights and NEITHER was a robbery.
Oh and Kessler is a better fighter than almost anyone B Hop has faced.A young,hungry,strong and at the time unbeaten warrior and a natural at the weight:when were any of these words used when defining a B Hop opponent(aside from JT whom he lost to)

I agree Bhop is a snoozer who's anemic punch count and rule breaking is unbearable to watch and is actually a mockery of the lightheavy division, if wasnt affiliated with GBP would have dissapeared to obscurity by now

Calzaghe will beat him quite easily be suprised if Nard wins more than 2-3 rounds, and that Kessler statement made me laugh during the confrontation.... Kessler would desicion him quite easily as well

CC back my man. And dude,I wasn't referring to you in particular when I said things went OTT(I was actully referring to Bilbo and his usual going off topic,talking about random statistics etc.)

I'm just trying to explain the difference between a white man commentating on a black man's colour versus a black man commenting on a white's man colour.

JT Rock immediately interperets Hopkins saying he will not lose to a white man as a statement of black racial superiority over whites. He (JT Rock) only holds this view though because in the past white's actually practised racial superiority over whites and so he assumes that any statement of colour is automatically an exclamation of superiority.

However blacks have never practised racial superiority over whites so Hopkins statement that he will never lose to a white man does not presume racial superiority whatsoever, that's JT Rock ASSUMPTION.

Look at it this way, if a convicted pedophile tells you that he thinks your daughter or little sister is gorgeous you will likely be highly alarmed to say the least.

But if your Nan or doctor tells you, you would just feel proud.

Why the difference? Because of the known pasts and predicted intention's of the people giving the comments.

So, when considering racial relations, if a white man (part of a race that practised EXTENSIVE and BARBARIC racial superiority over black's) says he will not lose to a black man, it will likely be deemed an aggressive and racist statement of racial superiority.

However when a black man (part of a race that was BRUTALLY SUBJECATED and ENSLAVED by white's) says he will not lose to a white man he is not making an aggressive and racist statement of racial superiority but rather making a statement of defiance in saying he will not be beaten by a member of the race that historically subjecated his race.

It's a completely different statement of intention altogether.

It's no different to the relationship between a rapist and a past victim. If after repeatedly raping his victim the rapist was finally ordered to stop and anti raping laws were brought in, the future behaviour of the rapist toward the victim would be subject to a greater criticism than the victims future behaviour toward the rapist.

Furthermore any negative statements made by the rapist toward the victim would be regarded as possible threats of repeat behaviour whereas any negative statements made by the victim toward the rapist would hardly be seen as statements of rape intention but rather a sign of longheld resentment and bitterness.

As a Philadelphia street kid, criminal and prisoner Hopkins would have long felt the superior glare of the white man and his statement that he would not lose to a white man was clearly evidence of that resentment still present within him.

Now you can argue that his comments were not needed and in bad taste but you cannot seriously make a claim that they are racist without making that ASSUMPTION yourself based on white's past treatment of black's.

interesting artfully contrived baffling Bullshit...........

STOP


AND I MEAN

STOP


Trying to push this grandoise smoke and mirrors history ancedotal. I dont care what happened 50-60-70 years ago............... Means 0 to me.. Its called individual accountability end of!!!!!!!!!!!! this is the year 2007 you know nothing about Hop or I or what we are thinking or feeling deep down inside, we can only rightfully be judged on our words and actions. Which Hopkins history of desecrating another countries flag and calling a caucasian male a "WHITE BOY" and outright said he would never get beat by a "WHITE BOY" NEVER ALLOW IT.. Plus he went on to repeat the phrase at least 3x Hopkins is a classless tasteless human being that is ignorant as the day is long, if Hop didnt believe that he being a black man is superior over Calzaghe being the white man then he would have never said it, let alone 3 fukin times. Calzaghe cornered him, confronted him, called him out and got the best of him in front of the whole boxing media on the eve of one the most celebrated Boxing events of the past 50 years. Joe owned him and out of frustration and embarassment Hopkins at a loss for words blurted out like a punch drunk Fuktard that he wasnt losing to no "WHITE BOY" and said it at least 3x and you know why? rattled and embarassed and called out on the big stage. Hopkins said how he was truly feeling....


THE END

Joe owned B Hop?

Watch the vid again Hopkins COMPLETELY dominated the war of words. He had Joe stuttering and lost for words. He got him to back down his statement that Taylor beat him and and completely shouted him down.

I thought B Hop was in awesome form. He looked menacing, he looked mean, he still had his predatory instincts and in my (humble 0f course) opinion won that little verbal spat hands down

Totally agree with Bilbo.

Hopkins owned Joe during that entire little rant & Joe appeared very VERY much out of his element standing there face to face "word warring" with the Nard...but then again...they all do against Hopkins.

Totally agree with Hopkins' appearance & demeanor...he cuts a scary figure in person, on paper, & on screen.

He's a bad man!

[GAME]

I duno if Hopkins even won the war of the words . He got backed into a corner and he got offennded when Joe said he lost to Taylor twice . Hopkins had no other comeback apart from the race card as usual .

[Wacko3205]

I duno if Hopkins even won the war of the words . He got backed into a corner and he got offennded when Joe said he lost to Taylor twice . Hopkins had no other comeback apart from the race card as usual .

I like Joe & all...but that aint Joe.

Joe don't act like that & it don't suit him for shit.

He didn't know how to answer or what to say when Hopkins ripped into Kessler being soft opposition. He just fumbled around & grasped for a retort. There was none.

[LBSCFC]

I duno if Hopkins even won the war of the words . He got backed into a corner and he got offennded when Joe said he lost to Taylor twice . Hopkins had no other comeback apart from the race card as usual .

I like Joe & all...but that aint Joe.

Joe don't act like that & it don't suit him for S***.

He didn't know how to answer or what to say when Hopkins ripped into Kessler being soft opposition. He just fumbled around & grasped for a retort. There was none.

joe does his talking in the ring. if and when he fights hopkins he wins.