The double standards of aging boxers

**larryx** · 01-31-2009, 05:45 PM

i think its self explanatory..a 44 year old beating a 26 year old is amazing..reverse that and its just beating on a old man...get it

**MANGLER** · 01-31-2009, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Rocky=Ward

the double standards of aging fighters really piss me off. Let me give you an example. Bernard Hopkins. If Bernard Hopkins wins a fight, it is a good victory for bernard. But when a fighter beats bernard hopkins, it is a bad victory for the fighter because he fought him when he was old. What I can't stand is that it is a good victory for hopkins(against Pavlik) but it is a bad victory if you beat hopkins( against joe calzaque). I just don't think it is really fair. Anyone agree?

Taylor's and Calzaghe's wins over Hopkins were **** on cuz they were questionable, not just cuz he was old.

**Komander** · 01-31-2009, 05:47 PM

Reasonable if you ask me.

**thebowtod** · 01-31-2009, 05:50 PM

i think you guys missed my point, you guys consider bernard hopkins to be a great fighter now, if he beats a fighter, you guys put him in the top 5 fighters right now. but if a younger fighter beats him, you give benard the excuse that he is old. i hate it.

**MANGLER** · 01-31-2009, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Rocky=Ward

i think you guys missed my point, you guys consider bernard hopkins to be a great fighter now, if he beats a fighter, you guys put him in the top 5 fighters right now. but if a younger fighter beats him, you give benard the excuse that he is old. i hate it.

Don't speak for everybody. I give cred where it's do either way.

**truthseeker1** · 01-31-2009, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Rocky=Ward

the double standards of aging fighters really piss me off. Let me give you an example. Bernard Hopkins. If Bernard Hopkins wins a fight, it is a good victory for bernard. But when a fighter beats bernard hopkins, it is a bad victory for the fighter because he fought him when he was old. What I can't stand is that it is a good victory for hopkins(against Pavlik) but it is a bad victory if you beat hopkins( against joe calzaque). I just don't think it is really fair. Anyone agree?

When Calzaghe "beat" Hopkins he got a fair bit of credit. After Hopkins beat Pavlik Calzaghe got even more credit as Hopkins victory showed that the Hopkins that Calzaghe "beat" wasn't shot.

So I think you're wrong in saying Calzaghe isn't getting credit. He definitely is. In the British media anyway.

**El Dominicano** · 01-31-2009, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Rocky=Ward

the double standards of aging fighters really piss me off. Let me give you an example. Bernard Hopkins. If Bernard Hopkins wins a fight, it is a good victory for bernard. But when a fighter beats bernard hopkins, it is a bad victory for the fighter because he fought him when he was old. What I can't stand is that it is a good victory for hopkins(against Pavlik) but it is a bad victory if you beat hopkins( against joe calzaque). I just don't think it is really fair. Anyone agree?

That is the cool part about B-Hop. He can add to his legacy without tarnishing it. He is at a win win situation

*Evil Laughz*

**thebowtod** · 01-31-2009, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by El Dominicano

That is the cool part about B-Hop. He can add to his legacy without tarnishing it. He is at a win win situation

*Evil Laughz*

no matter what b hop does, it is always a win for him

**MissDeeCole** · 01-31-2009, 06:00 PM

of course its a double standard, but ya just ignore those people

The double standards of aging boxers