Taylor's trainer hits the nail on the head!

Taylor can't allow himself to be baited like tito. He shouldn't try to counter, spinkjinx said it. Jab, Jab move, be the aggresser This isn't a real left uppercut, it's bait http://x2.putfile.com/3/7509454953.gif Photo stolen from mnash 98

Most of Hopkins fights are boring with a capital B. If Hopkins comes out and goes after Taylor like Hagler went after Hearns, I'll eat my words and be on the bandwagon. If Hopkins fights his usual cautious style, hopefully Taylor can push the fight and make it competitive, otherwise it will be a 12 round yawn. All fights can't be Corrales / Castillo, but Hopkins need at least one blazingly good fight in his career. Please let this be the one! Everyone wants Hopkins to brawl, I love Hopkins style and I found the Eastman fight exciting. I am very attentive when I watch fights and what Hopkins was doing on the inside was dazzling to Eastman. I see how it was boring to a lot of viewers but I just love the technical side of the sport. Hopkins will never be in a brawl unless he has to. I thought the Trinidad fight would have been but look at that. In a sense Hopkins does brawl in his fights but he does it in a discreet manner and breaks his opponents down slowly. The Joppy/Trinidad fight are great examples of that.

Most of Hopkins fights are boring with a capital B. If Hopkins comes out and goes after Taylor like Hagler went after Hearns, I'll eat my words and be on the bandwagon. If Hopkins fights his usual cautious style, hopefully Taylor can push the fight and make it competitive, otherwise it will be a 12 round yawn. All fights can't be Corrales / Castillo, but Hopkins need at least one blazingly good fight in his career. Please let this be the one!

As much as i talk about B-hop if he soundly defeats Taylor , he would have won me over as far as all time great , but if it is another Howard Eastman like fight i would have lost respect for both fighters Hopkins isnt a crowd pleaser and never have been. I dont expect this fight to be any different. Hopkins will be his normal self and fight his normal style.

Hopkins only big fights were with guys MUCH smaller than him. The middleweight division has sucked over the last ten years. He's not even in the top 10 all time middleweights. The division wasn't great when Hagler or Monzon dominated, they also had best fights with guys that went up in weight, even Hagler lost to one of them. Who are for you the ten great middleweights? I doubt your list will be logical.

He Hit It Right On The Head ...only One Problem ..hopkins Is The Better Conditioned Fighter ..he Awlays Is ..taylor Come To Camp Over 180

Haglers best fights were against guys coming up and yet you crap on Hopkins for it. That is all I am saying. The competition is probably on the same level. But perhaps we shouldnt talk smack on either era, because Hopkins and Hagler both MADE there opponents look like crap. Hopkins and Hagler are a close race when comparing records IMO. I wont let nostalgia and the legend of yesterday be influenced in my decision. I just feel that they deserve the same respect for their longevity and their careers are close equals when it comes to competition. Also I would probably say his biggest challenge was against Mugabi and that was his shining moment in his middleweight career. Same way if Hopkins prevails Taylor will be his shining moment as well. However, if Taylor wins I wont make comparisons to Hagler vs Leonard As much as i talk about B-hop if he soundly defeats Taylor , he would have won me over as far as all time great , but if it is another Howard Eastman like fight i would have lost respect for both fighters

Far from Bias , so are you going to tell me that the competition nowadays at middleweight were anything like the days Marvin Hagler Boxed at middleweight ? Thats what it sounds like to me , because in my opinion B-hop doesnt win fights against Hearns or Duran . You could stay at one weight in those days because there was always a tough fight out there to challenge your self. A fourth of his title Defenses came against to people . WIlliam Joppy 2 Robert Allen 3 Haglers best fights were against guys coming up and yet you crap on Hopkins for it. That is all I am saying. The competition is probably on the same level. But perhaps we shouldnt talk smack on either era, because Hopkins and Hagler both MADE there opponents look like crap. Hopkins and Hagler are a close race when comparing records IMO. I wont let nostalgia and the legend of yesterday be influenced in my decision. I just feel that they deserve the same respect for their longevity and their careers are close equals when it comes to competition. Also I would probably say his biggest challenge was against Mugabi and that was his shining moment in his middleweight career. Same way if Hopkins prevails Taylor will be his shining moment as well. However, if Taylor wins I wont make comparisons to Hagler vs Leonard

YOu all are fu***** nuts if you are going to tell me that B-Hop has fought better COMP then HAgler.

You say you are a huge fan of Hagler and are giving Hopkins flac for not moving up when Hagler stayed at 160 his whole career. That is rather bias my friend and hypocritical on your part. Haglers career is similar to Hopkins he stayed at 160 and made everyone look putrid. His top fights were among fighters who had came up to meet him. If Hopkins had chosen to move up he wouldnt have his career built around his miraculous 20 title defenses and that is what Bernards career is all about. Far from Bias , so are you going to tell me that the competition nowadays at middleweight were anything like the days Marvin Hagler Boxed at middleweight ? Thats what it sounds like to me , because in my opinion B-hop doesnt win fights against Hearns or Duran . You could stay at one weight in those days because there was always a tough fight out there to challenge your self. A fourth of his title Defenses came against to people . WIlliam Joppy 2 Robert Allen 3

thats why i think bernard is better than hagler. bernard didnt let a feather punching welterwieght come up and beat him. Hagler was strong and fierce, his opponents were afraid when they got into the ring with him and crumbled. He had that intimidation factor because a lot of fighters knew they couldnt knock him out and it would be hell for 15 rounds. Most of Haglers opponents were defeated outside of the ring. Fighters underestimate Hopkins because he possesses an awkward style and when watching him fight you can point out flaws and he looked vulnerable but once you get inside the ring he changes up everything you have ever seen of him and just confuses you the hell out of you.

Delahoya was no Sugar Ray. You're out to luch with that comment. DLH vs Leonard would be one great match up it would be very tactical but it all depends on the speed DLH brought and the division they fought in. Leonard had a good bit of success in every division he fought in (168 is questionable). Oscar would be able to hang with Leonard most definately but I do believe Leonard would dominate. DLH had a good hook and a pretty good jab. Leonard possessed power/speed and threw every punch beautifully. It would be interesting but I still give the nod to Leonard, because I do know Rays weakenesses but I dont believe Oscar could exploit them. Also Oscar has always had trouble with a jab and Leonard had a good jab and was extremely light on his feet. If he fought on the outside and pot shotted DLH he would shut him out. Oscar wouldnt be able to come in.

Delahoya was no Sugar Ray. You're out to luch with that comment. sugar ray is not a god , how do u know oscar couldnt hang with sugar. oscar had all the tools to beat sugar ray.imo

thats why i think bernard is better than hagler. bernard didnt let a feather punching welterwieght come up and beat him. Delahoya was no Sugar Ray. You're out to luch with that comment.

You say you are a huge fan of Hagler and are giving Hopkins flac for not moving up when Hagler stayed at 160 his whole career. That is rather bias my friend and hypocritical on your part. Haglers career is similar to Hopkins he stayed at 160 and made everyone look putrid. His top fights were among fighters who had came up to meet him. If Hopkins had chosen to move up he wouldnt have his career built around his miraculous 20 title defenses and that is what Bernards career is all about. thats why i think bernard is better than hagler. bernard didnt let a feather punching welterwieght come up and beat him.

You say you are a huge fan of Hagler and are giving Hopkins flac for not moving up when Hagler stayed at 160 his whole career. That is rather bias my friend and hypocritical on your part. Haglers career is similar to Hopkins he stayed at 160 and made everyone look putrid. His top fights were among fighters who had came up to meet him. If Hopkins had chosen to move up he wouldnt have his career built around his miraculous 20 title defenses and that is what Bernards career is all about. Great post. Too many people dog Hopkins for not moving up without realizing some of the all time middleweight greats did the same. No one should take away from what he's acheived at 160. He wanted to break the record and did, and his conditioning and dedication to be able to maintain his weight and dominace over the last 10 years has been astounding.

Huge fan of Haglers , I do admire Hopkins for his longevity and his drive and work ethic . THe fact still remians he dominated the Middleweight division when there was no competition. SO why not move up in weight in challenge your self in stead of fighting boring fights with boring fighters? ALl the greats have done it why not Hopkins ? You say you are a huge fan of Hagler and are giving Hopkins flac for not moving up when Hagler stayed at 160 his whole career. That is rather bias my friend and hypocritical on your part. Haglers career is similar to Hopkins he stayed at 160 and made everyone look putrid. His top fights were among fighters who had came up to meet him. If Hopkins had chosen to move up he wouldnt have his career built around his miraculous 20 title defenses and that is what Bernards career is all about.

Huge fan of Haglers , I do admire Hopkins for his longevity and his drive and work ethic . THe fact still remians he dominated the Middleweight division when there was no competition. SO why not move up in weight in challenge your self in stead of fighting boring fights with boring fighters? ALl the greats have done it why not Hopkins ? cuz hes a natural ectomorphic 160 pounder who fights the best at that weight

Joppy was a solid fighter and a legit middleweight champion and had serious skills, unfortunately he was like the Vargas of the MW division and was damaged goods by Trinidad. None the less he was a serious threat in the division even when Hopkins met him. Eastman was avoided for years by Hopkins, I still believe if Hopkins would have fought Eastman when he was supposed to (2 years before when he did) Eastman would probably have been more active and given Hopkins a lot more trouble. Eastman was another top MW fighter. I will give you DLH and barely let Johnson slide, you cant discredit a man for his accomplishments just because of the era he fought in. He has reigned for over a decade and that should be respected alone. I would hate to bring this in but if thats the case on your view point than Mike Tyson and a few other fighters are complete trash. Hopkins deserves credit because of his longevity. Just curious how do you feel about Hagler? Huge fan of Haglers , I do admire Hopkins for his longevity and his drive and work ethic . THe fact still remians he dominated the Middleweight division when there was no competition. SO why not move up in weight in challenge your self in stead of fighting boring fights with boring fighters? ALl the greats have done it why not Hopkins ?

OK i will play your game Glen Johnson - Beat Antonio Tarver and who else and non motivated Roy Jones ? Since he lost the belt no one even talks about him anymore. That is all he will be known for Beating Roy Jones Oscar De La Hoya - Blown Up Lightweight ,B-Hop Started his Career at light Heavy got his ass whooped and has been a Middleweight ever since . beating someone who started there career at 135 shouldnt be that hard of a task for someone who started at 175 . Robet Allen - Another Middleweight Scrub of the last 10 years , who Hopkins Fought 3 times out of his 20 Defenses. WIlliam Joppy - Scrub WHo was beat soundly by Taylor , Tito , and Hopkins , just because he was a middleweight Champ at one time does not mean that he is good competition if the division is weak Howard Eastman - in one of the most Boring fights of 2005 , he sits and lands maybe 6 punches a round in a boring Boo Filled fight in the staples center . I like B- Hop , for his drive and determination , but as far as fighting good Comp ???? I will have to say Negative on that one , IF roy jones would have stayed at Middleweight do you think he could have made 20 defenses in that weak division ???? How many other fighters could have stayed in there division and rule it , Instead of challenging themselves and and going up in weight ? Joppy was a solid fighter and a legit middleweight champion and had serious skills, unfortunately he was like the Vargas of the MW division and was damaged goods by Trinidad. None the less he was a serious threat in the division even when Hopkins met him. Eastman was avoided for years by Hopkins, I still believe if Hopkins would have fought Eastman when he was supposed to (2 years before when he did) Eastman would probably have been more active and given Hopkins a lot more trouble. Eastman was another top MW fighter. I will give you DLH and barely let Johnson slide, you cant discredit a man for his accomplishments just because of the era he fought in. He has reigned for over a decade and that should be respected alone. I would hate to bring this in but if thats the case on your view point than Mike Tyson and a few other fighters are complete trash. Hopkins deserves credit because of his longevity. Just curious how do you feel about Hagler?