Pascal vs Hopkins will it be a good fight?

problem is hopkins huggers like streetbully, secondzout and nana000 hate to hear people tell the truth and state that hopkins is a dirty fighter...they just want to focus on his boring technical and defensive skills if he gets outboxed bad against pascal, definitely look for him to pull out every dirty trick he can think of....he'll still lose though, and then he'll resort to blaming hbo, the man, crooked judges, and the canadian mounties...

It'll be an ugly competitive fight. It'll only be a decent action fight, if Hopkins dominates because he won't let Pascal just win without doing any and everything to stop it. Excessive holding is a must, landing and exaggerating landed low blows and rabbit punches is a must, and blind hip shots too. It depends on what Hopkins has left tbh. If he has some left in the tank he should win and win comfortably, but if he looks old, then it will be very ugly and end in a SD either way.

It'll be an ugly competitive fight. It'll only be a decent action fight, if Hopkins dominates because he won't let Pascal just win without doing any and everything to stop it. Excessive holding is a must, landing and exaggerating landed low blows and rabbit punches is a must, and blind hip shots too.

I don't have to change any stance. Ive had the same stance through this entire thread. Hopkins is a dirty ass fighter. Does he have technical SKill? Sure Is he a dirty ass fighter? Absolutely. Does he have technical SKill? Sure Is he a dirty ass fighter? Absolutely. Does he have technical SKill? Sure Is he a dirty ass fighter? Absolutely. Does he have technical SKill? Sure Is he a dirty ass fighter? Absolutely. is he garbage? Absolutely

:rofl: :rofl: Im actually laughing at this point... wow wtf. You are about an hour late man.

I don't have to change any stance. Ive had the same stance through this entire thread. Hopkins is a dirty ass fighter. Does he have technical SKill? Sure Is he a dirty ass fighter? Absolutely. Does he have technical SKill? Sure Is he a dirty ass fighter? Absolutely. Does he have technical SKill? Sure Is he a dirty ass fighter? Absolutely. Does he have technical SKill? Sure Is he a dirty ass fighter? Absolutely. That was a nice crescendo of text, can we have a diminuendo now?

:rofl: :rofl: Im actually laughing at this point... wow wtf.

hopkins - fundamentally skilled dirty garbage fighter #1 p4p clubfighter of all time

:lol1: :lol1:

I'm actually having a laugh here, keep your composure man. It's not called nitpicking its called stating the facts, and it is a fact, you could change your stance now, and that is ok, BUT you say that you were speakign about another post and meant somethign else when you said something entirely different on another post which, I have provided for you in my last post. Then you say I am reading it wrong. :lol1:. I don't have to change any stance. Ive had the same stance through this entire thread. Hopkins is a dirty ass fighter. Does he have technical SKill? Sure Is he a dirty ass fighter? Absolutely. Does he have technical SKill? Sure Is he a dirty ass fighter? Absolutely. Does he have technical SKill? Sure Is he a dirty ass fighter? Absolutely. Does he have technical SKill? Sure Is he a dirty ass fighter? Absolutely.

calzaghe, pavlik, taylor, shotroy...honestly who was really gonna get a ko or check nard's chin properly out of that group...calzaghe beat him, but nobody gave him a chance to get a ko

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6bw5m6fZShI/SxcgIDMZ4WI/AAAAAAAACt4/VLQyIizXxV8/s400/ed+lover+come+on+son.jpg

Reminds me of my girl in an argument... focusing on one little ****ing detail of an argument to somehow negate the overall point of my argument. That Hopkins is a dirty ****ing fighter... and saying the word "either" at the end of my sentence doesnt mean a damn thing. I'm actually having a laugh here, keep your composure man. It's not called nitpicking its called stating the facts, and it is a fact, you could change your stance now, and that is ok, BUT you say that you were speakign about another post and meant somethign else when you said something entirely different on another post which, I have provided for you in my last post. Then you say I am reading it wrong. :lol1:. If you noticed, since you are such a great writer that what you write means something other than what it says, then you might have picked up on the fact that I wrote somethgn instead of something, which was an error on my part. However, it isn't as clear as saying either instead of are, and then sticking to it. Then you say I am reading it wrong. :lol1:.

:lol1: This mother****er. THis is what I picked up on - This is why he raley gets hit let alone ktfo How many times do I have to tell you... the either didnt mean anything. So I dont care what you picked up on.. I am telling you right now, right here.. the little ****ing word in my post didnt mean anything, and wasnt some underlying comment that Hopkins doesnt have technical skills. So I dont care what posts you bring up of mine.. I am telling you right HERE, it didnt mean a ****ing thing. I also said.. Does Hopkins have technical skill? Sure. Is he a dirty fighter? Absolutely Way to nitpick the ever living **** out of one ****ing word at the end of a sentence. thats a hopkins nutthugger for ya... just make it easy on yourself and say hopkins is garbage...

Reminds me of my girl in an argument... focusing on one little ****ing detail of an argument to somehow negate the overall point of my argument. That Hopkins is a dirty ****ing fighter... and saying the word "either" at the end of my sentence doesnt mean a damn thing.

:lol1: This mother****er. THis is what I picked up on - This is why he raley gets hit let alone ktfo How many times do I have to tell you... the either didnt mean anything. So I dont care what you picked up on.. I am telling you right now, right here.. the little ****ing word in my post didnt mean anything, and wasnt some underlying comment that Hopkins doesnt have technical skills. So I dont care what posts you bring up of mine.. I am telling you right HERE, it didnt mean a ****ing thing. I also said.. Does Hopkins have technical skill? Sure. Is he a dirty fighter? Absolutely Way to nitpick the ever living **** out of one ****ing word at the end of a sentence.

Man are you really that sad. These are professinal fighters you are talking about not people you could stomp on; real talk you remind me of an annoying dog at a friends house that keeps running up on you putting their paws all over your new pants unexpectedly. trust me these are only opinions.... i spent enough $ on cable subscriptions and ppv to watch these fighters and talk this way... and you my man remind me of a brainwashed hooker who'll go to any lengths to protect her pimp...nothing sadder than that...real talk

The either at the end of the sentence had no meaning whatsoever, I wasn't implying that Hopkins "also or either" had no technical ability. If that's what I meant, then I would say it right here right now.. no point in believing something 5 mins ago and then not believing it now. The "either" at the end of the sentence, didn't make much sense in hindsite because I wasn't really comparing those 3 fighters with anyone else other than something you discretely said in your post... I read your post, and I saw how you "sort of" threw Roy in there, by saying.. athletic freak who gets out of the way of punches, and then you went on to say what about Berto, Gamboa, or Williams... So when I said either, the either was more in relation to this freak of nature that you posted about aka ROY, I am assuming. In other words... He wasn't and Berto, Williams and Gamoa aren't either. The either made prefect sense since this was the post you replied to. Notice that the subject of the post was clearly Hopkins I said he is dirty. He bends the rules due to being older than Mike Tyson, but he is one of the most skilled the sprt has seen. This is why he raley gets hit let alone ktfo since his athleticism from the 90s and 15 round stamina are not what they were. What you are saying is he isn't technically skilled, well then who is Gamboa, Berto. Paul Williams? Then replying to that post, where Hopkins was clealy the subject that a blind man could read it you say those fighters are not fundementally skilled EITHER Nope, they aren't fundamental boxers, either. It's obvious my opinion bothers you lol Hopkins fights dirty as ever. How many times was he on the canvas against Roy? 3? He can hit you to the back of the head, but if it comes back he sheds a tear. Once again it was what I read, since there was no hidden mention of Roy Jones or whatever you assume in that.

Thats right its my opinion all right. Quite a few share it. Guess I better join the million and one Pac-Flomo threads. Naaaa. Kicking Hopkins back in is more entertaining. Especially with nutthuggers like you ready to defend his boring style. Lol Man are you really that sad. These are professinal fighters you are talking about not people you could stomp on; real talk you remind me of an annoying dog at a friends house that keeps running up on you putting their paws all over your new pants unexpectedly.

Hey man if I write something that means the opposite of what I mean I wont deny it, mistakes happen. But when you read so and so don't have such a trait (in this case technical ability) EITHER when the main subject of discussion (in this case Hopkins) has that trait, and then go off when I say that what you said does not make sense, claiming that you never said that (in this case that Hopkins like the aforementioned fighters does not have fundemental skills) when you did, then who is at fault man? Look man I don't really debate mundane ****, but come on to say the way I read it, which was the correct way, led me to that conclusion rather than the way you wrote it makes zero sense. This is especially true when you couple that with the fact you said that you mentioned that you meant not to say EITHER (which you did), but are. The either at the end of the sentence had no meaning whatsoever, I wasn't implying that Hopkins "also or either" had no technical ability. If that's what I meant, then I would say it right here right now.. no point in believing something 5 mins ago and then not believing it now. The "either" at the end of the sentence, didn't make much sense in hindsite because I wasn't really comparing those 3 fighters with anyone else other than something you discretely said in your post... I read your post, and I saw how you "sort of" threw Roy in there, by saying.. athletic freak who gets out of the way of punches, and then you went on to say what about Berto, Gamboa, or Williams... So when I said either, the either was more in relation to this freak of nature that you posted about aka ROY, I am assuming. In other words... He wasn't and Berto, Williams and Gamoa aren't either.