So If The Race For Fighter Of This Generation Between Hop And Pac

[Chopper417]

Ok so first of all I want to congratulate Bernard Hopkins on his win over Pascal. This guy has truly had a great career and either him or Pac is fighter of the decade, that will be a difference of opinions between people and I'm fine with either choice. However, a lot of you people are acting like THIS win over Pascal all of the sudden made his career or something. This is a nice win and a feather in his cap, but let's not get carried away here people, if you didn't think Hopkins was fighter of the decade before this fight you still shouldn't think he is as a result of this fight. I mean is this even one of Bernard Hopkins's top ten 15 wins? Very doubtful. Pascal is a nice young fighter and an a lineal champion, but let's not get carried away with the significance of this particular win relative to Bernard's career. Had this win not earned him the title of oldest major champion ever, I really don't think it would've changed his legacy overall a great deal.

[jrosales13]

Originally Posted by Uncle Sam

Holyfield is not in this generation, he is fighting bums or getting beat on like a bum. If you consider him part of this generation, then you have to take away for all his losses.

I put active fighter because I don't know what this generation time period. Hence why I mentioned active fighter and he's active fighter. So...

Active fighters.

1. Pac
2. Roy
3. B-Hop
4. Holyfield
5. Floyd.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

Originally Posted by No Ceilings

Hopkins is a greater fighter than Pacquiao.

And most certainly greater than Roy on my list.

It's close between Hopkins and Pac but I agree, I think Hop gets it because he is 46 yrs old....I don't think most people understand what that truly means.

Originally Posted by JOM'S

imho, pac was deserving the award he got ....

I have to agree hopkins is great but common, be true to yourselves and all this hype Hop is getting now by beating pascal?

Pascal is a good fighter and to do it at 46 is the main reason for considering him.

[RubenSonny]

Originally Posted by jrosales13

I put active fighter because I don't know what this generation time period. Hence why I mentioned active fighter and he's active fighter. So...

Active fighters.

1. Pac
2. Roy
3. B-Hop
4. Holyfield
5. Floyd.

I have it

-Jones
-Pacquiao
-Holyfield
4.Floyd
5.Hopkins

[Mr. Philadel]

Originally Posted by El C@cique@PR

Wich means jack *****!!!!!

You *****s will hang on to anything and to anybody just to try and diminish Pac

Pacs Resume pre-135 and up alone, ****s on Hopkins!!!

man look...can't no poster anywhere on any site diminish ANY fighter...thats first of all!!!...secondly, Arum and TR's matchmakers are doing a dam good job dimishing Manny...so if it sounds like somebody is talkin down on Manny's work these days....did it ever cross yall minds that somebody might be calling a spade a spade?!?....PERSONALLY, I dont give a **** what Manny did back then...he's THE MAN NOW...so its, WHAT HAVE HE DONE FOR ME LATELY?!?....he showed us Hoya was outta his mind for THINKING he can work at 147...he showed us Hatton was garbage(WOW)...he showed us Cotto wasn't the same and his right hand wasn't good enough(WOW)....he showed us Clottey was limited(WOW)....he showed us Marg and Shane were no more Marg and Shane(WOW)...and NOW he'll show me that JMM is stuck in mud at anything over 140(WOW)....Manny didn't need to fight the fights he fought AFTER Cotto imo....I doubt dudes are just hyping B.Hop up because of that last historic win....its just that he keeps finding a way to pull rabbits outta his hat...thats all...Manny is still p4p top dog....but B.Hop is the GREATEST of the active IMO....I will NEVER think otherwise...this is like 1 and 1 is 2....I'm not that dude you can tell 1 and 1 is 3 because so many others feel the same and it made common to think so...HELL NO!!!

Manny is a DON and B.Hop is the OG of the game

[prinzemanspopa]

Originally Posted by tocayito1

lol tito never beat a top middleweight maybe joppy but he lost to every good fighter he fought

You just acknowledged that he beat a top middleweight in the very same sentence that you attempted to diminish Trinidad's credentials at the weight in.


William Joppy was the second best Middleweight in the world when he was completely destroyed by Trinidad.He was not only beaten,but completely and utterly dismantled in arguably the finest performance of Trinidad's entire career.Clearly Trinidad had established himself a serious threat in the division.

Originally Posted by tocayito1

what makes tarver not a hof-he was dominated by bhop dawson harding and lost to ordinary fighters like johnson...woods sucks and griffin does too

Tarver had only grown older and slower by the time he fought Dawson.And before his abysmal effort against Pascal,Dawson was rated by many as one of the very best in the sport.Glen Johnson narrowly beat Tarver in a very close and disputed decision after he(Johnson) was in the best form of his entire life.


Claiming that Woods "sucks" is bad enough;claiming that Montell Griffin,the man who outboxed James Toney in two meetings and gave the very best version of Roy Jones his toughest and closest fight,sucks destroys any credibility that you were hoping to achieve through your post.



EDIT: Not to mention Tarver avenged his loss to Johnson via a clear decision,and knocked Harding loopy in their rematch.

Originally Posted by tocayito1

what makes johnson not a hof? losing to bums like sheika harmon branco vanderpool ottke sosa among others

Anybody who is aware of Glen Johnson and his career would be able to tell you tha nobody ever beat him like Bernard Hopkins did.The only man who came close to delivering a loss as decisive as the one he suffered to Hopkins was Chad Dawson - which was a good twelve years after Hopkins had dominated Johnson.

Originally Posted by tocayito1

what makes winky a bad match up?

I don't know how much of a "bad match up" he was,but Winky Wright was rated as one of the very best boxers in the world and was clearly an elite fighter.Not his best weight,but he was in good enough shape,and his performance proved that he could perform at the weight - Hopkins simply neutralized and beat him down the stretch.

[STRUGG]

i have it.........
1a) PAC.......
1b) BHOP...........
2. HOLY..........
3. Roy..........

4z) floyd......................

[hugh grant]

BH wasnt fighter of last decade 1990-2000. So how can he be fighter of this decade?

[tocayito1]

Originally Posted by prinzemanspopa

You just acknowledged that he beat a top middleweight in the very same sentence that you attempted to diminish Trinidad's credentials at the weight in.


William Joppy was the second best Middleweight in the world when he was completely destroyed by Trinidad.He was not only beaten,but completely and utterly dismantled in arguably the finest performance of Trinidad's entire career.Clearly Trinidad had established himself a serious threat in the division.








Tarver had only grown older and slower by the time he fought Dawson.And before his abysmal effort against Pascal,Dawson was rated by many as one of the very best in the sport.Glen Johnson narrowly beat Tarver in a very close and disputed decision after he(Johnson) was in the best form of his entire life.


Claiming that Woods "sucks" is bad enough;claiming that Montell Griffin,the man who outboxed James Toney in two meetings and gave the very best version of Roy Jones his toughest and closest fight,sucks destroys any credibility that you were hoping to achieve through your post.



EDIT: Not to mention Tarver avenged his loss to Johnson via a clear decision,and knocked Harding loopy in their rematch.





Anybody who is aware of Glen Johnson and his career would be able to tell you tha nobody ever beat him like Bernard Hopkins did.The only man who came close to delivering a loss as decisive as the one he suffered to Hopkins was Chad Dawson - which was a good twelve years after Hopkins had dominated Johnson.







I don't know how much of a "bad match up" he was,but Winky Wright was rated as one of the very best boxers in the world and was clearly an elite fighter.Not his best weight,but he was in good enough shape,and his performance proved that he could perform at the weight - Hopkins simply neutralized and beat him down the stretch.

i said "maybe joppy" but joppy still lost to every top fighter he fought and as much as i love tito i think his power elevated unnaturally

people were rating dawson as a top in the sport but they did it too soon because he wasnt doing it for long enough...johnson being in the best form of his life was beating a timid roy jones and beating tarver who i believe is insanely overrated..plus harding whooped his ass and at the time of his stoppage win over harding he was losing again

your right about woods and griffin and i admit my dumbass remark..keep reading the conversation me and that guy were having and forgive my frustration...but i do think that woods was ordinary and griffin was all wrong for toney and even though he was older he got beat by a drained rico hoye

yes bhop whooped johnson and earlier i said that it was a really good win..and even though he has been unfortunate decisions he was into close fights with those guys and not all were robberies

and winky was a bad matchup at that point because that was when he was tryna be more fan friendly and aggressive which was never his game and he would even look awkward in spurts..he didnt carry the weight well at all which is why he came right back down to 160

[EngorgedW/Blood]

Originally Posted by hugh grant

BH wasnt fighter of last decade 1990-2000. So how can he be fighter of this decade?

Well Pacquiao wasn't fighter of the 90s, so how did he win fighter of the decade in the 00s?

How the fuck does your logic sound?