Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where does Hopkins stand?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by billeau2 View Post

    I could see him at top ten. Towards the bottom of the list. Because he never really beat an ATG Middle weight at prime. Even if he had looked competative against Jones... I would put Ward ahead of him.
    - -Poor ranking credentials.

    I detest both, but point in fact Popkins offered Son of Goofus his biggest payday, yet rebuffed.

    What a foul fest of stink that would've been!

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post
      - -Poor ranking credentials.

      I detest both, but point in fact Popkins offered Son of Goofus his biggest payday, yet rebuffed.

      What a foul fest of stink that would've been!
      No credentials are involved... It is an opinion, and can be agreed, or disagreed with, usually done with a specific rebuttal addressing what is disagreed with. Is that such a hard form to understand?

      We know you opinion of Hopkins and Ward... You parrot it constantly. To what end? What does a post like this accomplish? we disagree, I happen to like Hopkins and Ward, life goes on... Unless you have a critiscism specific to the argument, which to the Trombone's credit, he often does, why just respond with an empty post containing no substantial reasoning behind a like, or dislike?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
        No credentials are involved... It is an opinion, and can be agreed, or disagreed with, usually done with a specific rebuttal addressing what is disagreed with. Is that such a hard form to understand?

        We know you opinion of Hopkins and Ward... You parrot it constantly. To what end? What does a post like this accomplish? we disagree, I happen to like Hopkins and Ward, life goes on... Unless you have a critiscism specific to the argument, which to the Trombone's credit, he often does, why just respond with an empty post containing no substantial reasoning behind a like, or dislike?
        - -Be like fowl and foul rules squawk fest.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post
          - -Be like fowl and foul rules squawk fest.
          That would be one low blow, elbow, head but extraveganza lol. It would wind up like the last scene of Slap Shot, the Paul Newman movie, the ref just holding his hands up, the time keeper and bell hitter not bothering, with both men using each other's scrotums as speed bags.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
            That would be one low blow, elbow, head but extraveganza lol. It would wind up like the last scene of Slap Shot, the Paul Newman movie, the ref just holding his hands up, the time keeper and bell hitter not bothering, with both men using each other's scrotums as speed bags.
            Isn't that what Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler eventually did in their last fight against each other? I've often heard refs were lax so when one fouled, the other fouled back.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
              No credentials are involved... It is an opinion, and can be agreed, or disagreed with, usually done with a specific rebuttal addressing what is disagreed with. Is that such a hard form to understand?

              We know you opinion of Hopkins and Ward... You parrot it constantly. To what end? What does a post like this accomplish? we disagree, I happen to like Hopkins and Ward, life goes on... Unless you have a critiscism specific to the argument, which to the Trombone's credit, he often does, why just respond with an empty post containing no substantial reasoning behind a like, or dislike?
              For someone like him it is hard to understand. Probably hasn't evolved past the cro magnon stage. In answer to your second question, because that's what he does, that's all he does. He believes what he wants and will not be convinced otherwise by anyone's argument, therefore has an agenda. I say focus on those who will have civil, logical discussions and put any others on ignore. Because with Drag Queen here, it's like the computer says at the end of the movie War Games "The only winning move is not to play."

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Anthony342 View Post
                Isn't that what Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler eventually did in their last fight against each other? I've often heard refs were lax so when one fouled, the other fouled back.

                Pretty much. I honestly do not know why people fuss over Hopkins and Ward...Its like Basketball, which is, for anyone who played on any semi competative level, is a contact sport.

                South Paws often lead in strange ways. And leading with the head in a forward position is legit, it just happens to cause a clash of heads at times. HolyField actually hit with the head at times.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Anthony342 View Post
                  For someone like him it is hard to understand. Probably hasn't evolved past the cro magnon stage. In answer to your second question, because that's what he does, that's all he does. He believes what he wants and will not be convinced otherwise by anyone's argument, therefore has an agenda. I say focus on those who will have civil, logical discussions and put any others on ignore. Because with Drag Queen here, it's like the computer says at the end of the movie War Games "The only winning move is not to play."
                  At the end of the day it is important to realize that everything this site is built upon is opinions. Sometimes we get someone like Green, The Late Ray Corso, Or Hassup, all of whom have valued opinions based on experience and having eloquently synthesized this experience into a narrative that benefits those willing to listen. We even get some experts, like the guy I got into it with, (forgot his name) who act like A-holes and try to assert dominance, forgetting other experts disagree lol.

                  Below these opinions we get posters who have different ways of expressing, but the distinction for me always always always is, and always will be: can they occasionally come up with an insightful post? I would say that half the posters here don't even post about boxing!

                  We all have a different tolerance for insult and for perceived rude behavior. Its the same thing with racism by the way...which is interesting. I have a little "trigger" that way having been raised up where i was. I can never know how a Black Person feels about off color insults but I know that some insults make me feel horrible as someone who grew up in a Spanish/Black neighborhood. But as a New Yorker I also shrug that off... People often say things off color to each other, its a new york thing I guess.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    If we are talking strictly as a Middleweight then he has an argument towards the bottom of the top 10 though you’ve got to remember the lengthy reign wasn’t as impressive as Hagler or Monzon for example because he was really just a titleholder over a poor division for the vast majority of his reign. He became champion in the old school sense in 2001 and ended up losing it to an average boxer in Taylor and didn’t really do much between 2002 and then. That’s why it’s tough to rank eras because it’s been very easy to manipulate stats in the last 30 years.

                    He was a fantastic fighter though. One of the top pound for pound of his era (behind only Whitaker, Pacquaio, Jones, Holyfield, Chavez IMO) among the 10 best of the last 30 years. I’d say he’s probably just about one of the top 50 pound for pound of all-time because you’ve got to respect his work as an old man where he was often the underdog and took risky fights.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by chrisJS View Post
                      If we are talking strictly as a Middleweight then he has an argument towards the bottom of the top 10 though you’ve got to remember the lengthy reign wasn’t as impressive as Hagler or Monzon for example because he was really just a titleholder over a poor division for the vast majority of his reign. He became champion in the old school sense in 2001 and ended up losing it to an average boxer in Taylor and didn’t really do much between 2002 and then. That’s why it’s tough to rank eras because it’s been very easy to manipulate stats in the last 30 years.

                      He was a fantastic fighter though. One of the top pound for pound of his era (behind only Whitaker, Pacquaio, Jones, Holyfield, Chavez IMO) among the 10 best of the last 30 years. I’d say he’s probably just about one of the top 50 pound for pound of all-time because you’ve got to respect his work as an old man where he was often the underdog and took risky fights.

                      The bolded part makes it really hard to rank him, along with the point you also made about a weak division. But do you really think he lost those fights to Taylor? I frankly do not think he lost those fights.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP