BHOP is a bad man........

Joe is even badder. He made Popkins his bitch. Popkins?......its Hopkins shorty.......it would've been daddy but ya earth didn't have change for a $20.

Nice graphics, i dont like Hopkins the man but the boxer is awesome. didnt see him showboating in the centre of the ring against Joe though did we? did he have cold or something? You can't showboat against Joe, you'll get swamped. Bernard was showing him the proper respect. Joe has too much speed and too much skill for an opponet to try to play around with him. Whereas Kelly Pavlik isn't as fast, and doesn't have the skillset Joe does, it's easy to make him look like shit if you know what you're doing.

Hopkins was still great 35-43. But thats the time most fighters go down hill. Your holding roy's loses at the end of his career against him. That is wrong, you judge a fighter by their prime. Vargas was past his prime at 26, everyones prime varies. Roy hasn't been Roy in 7-9 I'm not holding Roy's late career losses against him, but you do have to consider them when comparing him to Hopkins, it's only fair. Hopkins has never been beaten decisively, they're all split decisions and 1 unanimous decision by the narrowest of margins. Where as Roy has been knocked cold twice (both by opponets Bernard slayed), and schooled twice (once by Tarver, and once by Joe). Don't think I'm shitting on Roy, I have the utmost respect for him, as does Bernard. But throughout his entire career Hopkins had to play second fiddle to Roy because he wasn't as flashy. Hell even after shocking the world when he slayed Tito, it still took Hopkins years to get another big match in De La Hoya. For the most part, Roy fans I've talked to have always said Roy shits on Bernard, and I just don't see it that way at all. Especially when you look at their records (including losses), big fights, and longevity. 2. A judge giving Hopkins the fight - that was an embarrassment to America because the judge basically said "Over here, we rate our fighters on holding, crying, hiding, butting and playing dead" Aren't you British? Anyone else find it hilarious a Brit of all people would be complaining about a fighter who holds when nearly all of them idolize Ricky "hug and hold" Hatton? :lol1: Holding is what you need to do against Joe. Hopkins is a master of knowing how to take away a fighter's biggest advantages. Look at how Trinidad never landed the left hook on him. Look at how Wright wa never able to mount a serious offense. Look at how Pavlik was never able to land a straight right hand on him. You need to do things with Joe that aren't pretty in order to smother his offensive output, so you don't get swamped by slaps. The narrowest thing about Hopkins Calzaghe was the distance between the fighters for most of the fight because Hopkins played the baby. Despite holding like a pussy, he still couldnt stop Joe landing more shots than any other fighter on him EVER. god knows how many Joe would have landed if Hopkins had come to fight! Anybody who watched that fight from an objective point of view admits that Joe looked like shit and Bernard landed the cleaner, more effective blows. Whereas Joe was just rushing in and slapping, trying to swarm him. Look, I give Joe credit. This thread isn't even about Joe, it's a respect thread for Hopkins. But even Joe himself admits he looked like absolute shit against Hopkins, and named Hopkins as the toughest opponet of his career to fight, because of his style. Be happy Joe got the split decision, you have nothing to worry about unless he goes for a rematch with Bernard. Then I'd be very scared. It's a well known fact that any fighter who fights Hopkins twice is damaged goods, whether they win or not. Jermain Taylor Robert Allen Segundo Mercado

beat up tarver, winky, pavlik, and was very tight with calzaghe. all in his 40's? i mean come on, if that don't say HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!, and earn mad respect i don't what to tell ya. RESPECT BERNARD, your a ****ing legend, living!!!!!!!!! Word up man. Co-sign.

I hold him in the highest regard, he's a legend but he's also a sore loser, refusing to give credit to Taylor or Calzaghe. His interviews are entertaining though. That is because he beat Taylor in at least one of those fights and I think he beat Calzaghe. At least taylor gave him a rematch so Benard can't be to bitter towards him for that. Calzaghe well let's see if Hopkins fights him again or if Calzaghe fights Dawson instead....Lefty

If Joe was gonna fight a rematch wit Jones, if he loss, then he should defintely fight Hopkins again since he won... B-Hop is bad and i bet he will try and fight Dawson next if not Calzaghe! PS RJJ is washed up and needs to get out the sport! before he ends up like hloyfield

I'm sure if you were a highly decorated World Champion, future hall of famer and current ATG, you'd have a hard time swallowing 2 narrow split decision losses and 1 narrow ud loss to Taylor and Joe as well. Bernard hates to lose, and a lot of people thought he won those fights. His argument isn't entirely ridiculous. The only ridiculous things from the Hopkins Calzaghe fight were 1. Cortez too scared to stop Hopkins holding - thus giving him enough rest to get through the fight (yet he wouldnt let Hatton get inside FLoyd - not that it would have mattered, but he wouldnt!). 2. A judge giving Hopkins the fight - that was an embarrassment to America because the judge basically said "Over here, we rate our fighters on holding, crying, hiding, butting and playing dead" The narrowest thing about Hopkins Calzaghe was the distance between the fighters for most of the fight because Hopkins played the baby. Despite holding like a pussy, he still couldnt stop Joe landing more shots than any other fighter on him EVER. god knows how many Joe would have landed if Hopkins had come to fight!

In what I've learned talking to Joe fans today, the W over Roy means more in their eyes than the W over Bernard. There's this fake ass aura that Jones was better than Hopkins but really that's not the case. He was a more gifted athlete for sure, but he wasn't the better fighter. Bernard slayed the man that slayed Jones 3 times in Tarver. Jones was slain by a man Hopkins TKO'd 10 years ago in his prime in Johnson. Calzaghe had much more difficulty eeking out a narrow SD win over Hopkins than he did battering the piss out of Roy last night for 33 minutes. Roy couldn't pull the trigger on a damn near 3 year retirement having, 6 year past prime Trinidad who Hopkins blew apart in his prime 7 years ago. Not to mention the fact that all of Roy's losses come by one sided embarassing knockouts and shutouts, while all of Bernard comes by the narrowest of split decision margins and all are debatable. Take Bernard Hopkins name off Roy Jones record and Roy's greatness shrinks dramatically. Whereas Hopkins never needed Roy's name to cement his legacy, he did it on his own, and without fanfare. 15 years later the debate is over: Hopkins > Roy. I'm not shitting on Roy either, but I've known Hopkins was the better man for years now. And last night pretty much cemented it. Nice graphics, i dont like Hopkins the man but the boxer is awesome. didnt see him showboating in the centre of the ring against Joe though did we? did he have cold or something?

As I said, without Bernard on his record Roy looks even weaker than he already does. Without Roy on Bernard's record and it's exactly the same as it is right now. even hopkins himself gave roy credit as one of the greats of this era.

In what I've learned talking to Joe fans today, the W over Roy means more in their eyes than the W over Bernard. There's this fake ass aura that Jones was better than Hopkins but really that's not the case. He was a more gifted athlete for sure, but he wasn't the better fighter. Bernard slayed the man that slayed Jones 3 times in Tarver. Jones was slain by a man Hopkins TKO'd 10 years ago in his prime in Johnson. Calzaghe had much more difficulty eeking out a narrow SD win over Hopkins than he did battering the piss out of Roy last night for 33 minutes. Roy couldn't pull the trigger on a damn near 3 year retirement having, 6 year past prime Trinidad who Hopkins blew apart in his prime 7 years ago. Not to mention the fact that all of Roy's losses come by one sided embarassing knockouts and shutouts, while all of Bernard comes by the narrowest of split decision margins and all are debatable. Take Bernard Hopkins name off Roy Jones record and Roy's greatness shrinks dramatically. Whereas Hopkins never needed Roy's name to cement his legacy, he did it on his own, and without fanfare. 15 years later the debate is over: Hopkins > Roy. I'm not shitting on Roy either, but I've known Hopkins was the better man for years now. And last night pretty much cemented it. Hopkins was still great 35-43. But thats the time most fighters go down hill. Your holding roy's loses at the end of his career against him. That is wrong, you judge a fighter by their prime. Vargas was past his prime at 26, everyones prime varies. Roy hasn't been Roy in 7-9

Jones beat Popkins so he's better. Put 2 and 2 together retards. pussy... :D

http://www.johnnygoodtimes.com/archives/bernard_hopkins.jpg

roy beat bhop when they were both coming up in boxing.Alot of things changed along the way.they both became better fighters.

Jones beat Popkins so he's better. Put 2 and 2 together retards. As I said, without Bernard on his record Roy looks even weaker than he already does. Without Roy on Bernard's record and it's exactly the same as it is right now.

I hold him in the highest regard, he's a legend but he's also a sore loser, refusing to give credit to Taylor or Calzaghe. His interviews are entertaining though. I'm sure if you were a highly decorated World Champion, future hall of famer and current ATG, you'd have a hard time swallowing 2 narrow split decision losses and 1 narrow ud loss to Taylor and Joe as well. Bernard hates to lose, and a lot of people thought he won those fights. His argument isn't entirely ridiculous.

In what I've learned talking to Joe fans today, the W over Roy means more in their eyes than the W over Bernard. There's this fake ass aura that Jones was better than Hopkins but really that's not the case. He was a more gifted athlete for sure, but he wasn't the better fighter. Bernard slayed the man that slayed Jones 3 times in Tarver. Jones was slain by a man Hopkins TKO'd 10 years ago in his prime in Johnson. Calzaghe had much more difficulty eeking out a narrow SD win over Hopkins than he did battering the piss out of Roy last night for 33 minutes. Roy couldn't pull the trigger on a damn near 3 year retirement having, 6 year past prime Trinidad who Hopkins blew apart in his prime 7 years ago. Not to mention the fact that all of Roy's losses come by one sided embarassing knockouts and shutouts, while all of Bernard comes by the narrowest of split decision margins and all are debatable. Take Bernard Hopkins name off Roy Jones record and Roy's greatness shrinks dramatically. Whereas Hopkins never needed Roy's name to cement his legacy, he did it on his own, and without fanfare. 15 years later the debate is over: Hopkins > Roy. I'm not shitting on Roy either, but I've known Hopkins was the better man for years now. And last night pretty much cemented it.

I'm not a Hopkins fan, but there is no fighter whose ring savvy and skills I respect more.

bhop is great, but I didn't like how he fought so dirty against calzaghe and winky... I think he was the dirtiest in his fight against Calzaghe because of how many punches joe throws.

beat up tarver, winky, pavlik, and was very tight with calzaghe. all in his 40's? i mean come on, if that don't say HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!, and earn mad respect i don't what to tell ya. RESPECT BERNARD, your a ****ing legend, living!!!!!!!!! I hold him in the highest regard, he's a legend but he's also a sore loser, refusing to give credit to Taylor or Calzaghe. His interviews are entertaining though.

'Nard kicks ass. 100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3