Heres a question for everyone...

I think BHop is more slick and Crafty compare to JT, cuz BHop never been KOed while JT was KOed by Palvik.

This guy fails at life. This thread is basically asking "Would you rather eat a nice tender steak or a decaying rat covered in broken glass?"

B-Hop..........

From what i keep reading on forums is that B-hop is sooooo slick and crafty. Well heres a question. Who is MORE slick and crafty Hopkins or Taylor???? Stupid question. Hopkins by far.

Hopkins, easily. Pavlik doesn't do well against slick fighters. Taylor, doesn't do well against slick fighters either - nor is he slick himself, otherwise he would've destroyed Pavlik the way Hopkins did. Now, considering how slick Hopkins is, why did Taylor fare OK against him? Easy - speed. Hopkins can't set up his defense/pick his shots as easily against fast guys who fight in flurries, like Taylor. Plus Taylor is a decent counter puncher himself, making it even harder for Hopkins to pick his shots, because he risks getting hit with a jab or counter right when he comes in for a punch. Like everyone has been saying ad nauseum since Saturday night, styles make fights.

Hopkins easily, Taylor isn't half the boxer Hopkins is.

duh . . . hopkins

Stupid thread??? How the hell did JT beat him twice then, thats weird Nard didn't do shit in the Taylor fights. He came alive in the Kelly fight. In simple terms, he took his slickness beyond the extreme against Jermain... he overdid it. Against Kelly he came to fight.

Stupid thread??? How the hell did JT beat him twice then, thats weird s slick and crafty at it's best. he is a deffensice minded fighter that makes you thinkin the ring. he out thinks his opponents makes them throw and hits them when they are out of position(counter puncher) making them think twice about getting their punches off. He grapples and fights on the inside. he uses the reff and the ring to his advantage. The only way you can beat him is too out work him or if he gets into his shell and his output goes way down. Which is what it did in the early part of Taylor Hopkns I. He tried starting off faster in II but he still got out worked. Tayloe is a offensive minded fighter with hand speed. He ises his jab as his intial weapn and loads up with his over hand right. He doesn't use the faint nor does he fight well on the insde. He often goes straight back and fights flat footed. He likes to come forward he can fight going backwards but often he gets in trouble when pinned against the ropes. In Hopkins Taylor I Hopkins won most of the final rounds by applying pressure and backing Taylor up. Pavlik only knows one way to fight and that is coming forward. he was constantly backing Taylor up and getting him cornered and against the ropes. Hitting him with jabs and hard right hands. Taylor doesn't move his head instead he rolls his shoulders and uses hi hands to pick punches off. hopkins was all over with his foot work and upper body movement making it hard for Pavlik to land. ALL I CAN SAY IS STYLES MAKE FIGHT SIR

From what i keep reading on forums is that B-hop is sooooo slick and crafty. Well heres a question. Who is MORE slick and crafty Hopkins or Taylor???? Translation: I follow boxing because of one man. Otherwise I know nothing about the sport.

you have 88 post please dont start owning yourself with retarted threads this early in your boxingscene life..matter fact your banned from making threads for a month..lol :rofl: :rofl:

wow were reminded every day how stupid people run this world LOL at jermain being slick... couldnt even slip ONE SINGLE pavlik jab

I love this board. I swear I do. Me too man, me too.

Stupid thread??? How the hell did JT beat him twice then, thats weird LOL. I love this board. I swear I do.

Hopkins of course.

Stupid thread??? How the hell did JT beat him twice then, thats weird Epic fail.

Stupid thread??? How the hell did JT beat him twice then, thats weird Triangle theories fail at life. Kelly got schooled, get over it.

Stupid thread??? How the hell did JT beat him twice then, thats weird

Bernard Hopkins. /thread.