Originally posted by Moon
View Post
except the fact that he's better than anyone zag has ever faced. he's not just another fighter, and he's so skilled defensively that he amy be able to take away the things zag relies on (his punch output), and turn them into disadvantages. u tell me any1 like that zag has ever faced. everything zag accomplished, so has hopkins. both reigned as champs for some 10 years, with some 20 consecutive title defenses. hopkins himself is just a difficult fight unlike anything joe has seen.
consider this, hopkins in 53 fights has lost 4 times. take a closer look at his losses. his very first fight, 14 yrs ago he lost to rjj (who reigned as p4p king for a number of years), and he had 2 very disputed decision losses to jermaine taylor, but for the sake if argument, im going to tell it like it is, and say hopkins hasn't lost a fight in 14 years-to then rjj. that makes hopkins damn near unbeatable, and beating him will be an unlikely mission in itself.
couple that with the fact of joe fighting outside his country for the first time, in las vegas of all places! then u add all the pressure from his country, father, everyone close to him, then every1 in general offended by hopkins' comments, plus his legacy and his credibility........................
the point of the article wasn't to say, "joe better watch out for hopkins' straight right." u were reading into it too much. the point was to say joe has a tough, if not insurmountable task in front of him, and many ppl keen on picking him as a favorite may want to rethink. that's all. the point of the article was to highlight hopkins as a person, not just a fighter who does one thing "extremely" well that joe has to watch out for. the point if the article was to show hopkins as a fighter who does everything well, and is just a breed of fighter that zag has never seen before.
point taken.
Comment