Hopkins dont belong w/ SRR,Monzon,Hagler,etc.

Leonard....was a welterweight who got lucky vs a past his prime Hagler Have not seen much of Monzon or Lamotta. Hagler would have an easy time with Hopkins. Hagler is better than Hopkins in every single possible category. He is even good at cheating if it comes to that. Vs Roldan he stuck his thumb in Roldan's eye and it changed the complexion of the entire fight. Alot of people think of Hagler only as a brawler with an Iron chin but he was beautifull boxer, with a good jab, good movement, good defence, good handspeed, alot of ring savy. I dont see any way Hopkins could beat Hagler.

robinson,monzon,hagler,hearns,leonard,lamotta,etc, would have never lost to someone like taylor, i'm not saying hopkins is lame but he just happens to be at the right time in history to dominate his division, if he fought in those days he would of lost to all of them, he would of put up a fight but would of lost eventually, he definately did not turn old tonight, he closed the show strong but wasnt enough to win the fight so he has no excuses for losing to taylor, he should have convincingly beat taylor tonight, therefore i see no way he wins a rematch, taylor wins the rematch by comfortable decision.You're a fuckin fool. novice.

IGNORANT Post. At 40 years old, any middleweight in history could have lost 5-7 rounds agaisnt Taylor. Who are you to make that call like it's a fact? He's a dumb fuck, thats what he is :D

robinson,monzon,hagler,hearns,leonard,lamotta,etc, would have never lost to someone like taylor, i'm not saying hopkins is lame but he just happens to be at the right time in history to dominate his division, if he fought in those days he would of lost to all of them, he would of put up a fight but would of lost eventually, he definately did not turn old tonight, he closed the show strong but wasnt enough to win the fight so he has no excuses for losing to taylor, he should have convincingly beat taylor tonight, therefore i see no way he wins a rematch, taylor wins the rematch by comfortable decision. IGNORANT Post. At 40 years old, any middleweight in history could have lost 5-7 rounds agaisnt Taylor. Who are you to make that call like it's a fact?

It's AMAZING how people are SOOO QUICK to say that.... its the same old excuse for his 20 defenses, its sorta ridiculous, like beating 20 different "professional fighters" was easy or something.. :rolleyes: Yea but of those middleweights he fight now many of them did he fight more than once or twice? There is not one actual middleweight he fought that had and creditability since roy jones. i think b-hop loses again to taylor, winky, tarver and jones

But Hopkins reign was during the time of "shitty" middleweights or "overblown" welters and jr. middle. It's AMAZING how people are SOOO QUICK to say that.... its the same old excuse for his 20 defenses, its sorta ridiculous, like beating 20 different "professional fighters" was easy or something.. :rolleyes:

hol up man, even hagler and all those guys didn't do 20 straight defences But Hopkins reign was during the time of "shitty" middleweights or "overblown" welters and jr. middle.

hol up man, even hagler and all those guys didn't do 20 straight defences

hmm Hopkins averaged 18 punches a round for the first half of the fight, didn't commit very much to the punches he did throw in that time, and had to fight dangerously conservatively early on in order to feel confident about his breath late in the fight. Yeah, Hopkins definitely isn't past his prime. I'm sure he would have done the same thing in 2000. :bottle: