More Impressive? Foreman or Hopkins?

[BattlingNelson]

Foreman being competitive against a prime Holyfield is a greater achievement than Hopkins fighting a past prime Calzaghe on his worst day at that office for several years.

[Southpaw Stinger]

Foreman for me. He was willing to stand toe to toe and take the hard shots and give em back. Hopkins didn't fancy a real fight.

[Flawless 2]

Hopkins because arguably he won the fight

[WhoreUs]

Hopkins because arguably he won the fight

1. winning a fight or coming close in a fight does NOT make it IMPRESSIVE. i didn't ask which fight was closer! i asked which performance/showing was more impressive. people never answer a poll correctly...... they just want to say hopkins 'cause they're on the current bandwagon.

2. he didn't win that fight , flaw. you don't win a fight throwing 5 punches a round!

[Flawless 2]

1. winning a fight or coming close in a fight does NOT make it IMPRESSIVE. i didn't ask which fight was closer! i asked which performance/showing was more impressive. people never answer a poll correctly...... they just want to say hopkins 'cause they're on the current bandwagon.

2. he didn't win that fight , flaw. you don't win a fight throwing 5 punches a round!

Well you shouldn't win for slapping and missing punches.


Hopkins performance was better and more Impressive as he could have gotten the decision unlike Foreman

[Oasis_Lad]

Foreman for me. He was willing to stand toe to toe and take the hard shots and give em back. Hopkins didn't fancy a real fight.

Correct. ...........

[daggum]

1. winning a fight or coming close in a fight does NOT make it IMPRESSIVE. i didn't ask which fight was closer! i asked which performance/showing was more impressive. people never answer a poll correctly...... they just want to say hopkins 'cause they're on the current bandwagon.

2. he didn't win that fight , flaw. you don't win a fight throwing 5 punches a round!

YEA! you win a fight by throwing 100 but missing them all now that takes boxing skill.

[WhoreUs]

to me what was impressive about bhop, and joe was that bernard took joe out of what he does, and made him look amateurish at times, and no one to date had really done that. i also don't think joe is that far past it. some yes, but not that much. i thought it was a great fight, not boring to me. it's all a matter of opinion really.

it goes both ways though , mel.

hopkins looked good against tarver right before joe and great against pavlik right after. joe must have done something right.

joe is still good but he's no longer prime. not shot or anything but he's past his best.

as far as the fight , i thought it was dull as hell. bernard landing some clean shots but only when he punches which wasn't much. joe was active and tried to be aggressive but wasn't doing much damage. kinda hard to fight someone when the other person doesn't want to fight i guess......

[daggum]

Foreman for me. He was willing to stand toe to toe and take the hard shots and give em back. Hopkins didn't fancy a real fight.

foreman wasn't willing he had to that was his style. i don't think george foreman had the feet to be fleet-footed.......................

[WhoreUs]

YEA! you win a fight by throwing 100 but missing them all now that takes boxing skill.

throwing 50 and landing 10 is better than throwing 10 and landing 2.