I don't give a **** about fighters age,color...
I mean,he's number 3 P4P,even N 2,according to some sites and magazines.
So he has to fight the bests,and the bests aren't Froch or Pavlik at 170(WTF),or even Adamek.But Dawson(who schooled Adamek) or why not Kessler who is very competitive.
Froch stopped Taylor,but Taylor exposed him.
Bernard should fight Dawson or Taylor(who beat him twice).
Bernard never proved that he was able to beat Taylor.
I like Froch,(and Kelly too),and seeing these green warriors exposed by a skillfull,crafty and very experienced fighter doesn't interest me.It looks like Child abuses.lol.It doesn't really make sense.
I talk honnestly,even if,I admit that,I dislike Hopkins.He's a great fighter,but the "never let a....." philosofy,and his crew comments,"Pacquiao avoids black fighters" are too much for me.
When did he say Pac avoid Black fighters? Why should he get blamed for what other say? Are you serious?
from what i've seen of dawson, he definitely has the size, speed, skills, and intangibles to dominate hopkins. i don't know if he has the power or the mean streak to issue the career-ending beatdown, but i don't think hopkins dirty tactics will work with the young lion...
hopkins pulled the same crap when he was at 160 and the best fighter down there was winky wright.
I don't know what you guys are talking about. Dawson is no Calzaghe, and IMO Hopkins beat Calzaghe. Dawson doesn't try to throw 100 plus punches a round, his chin isn't great, and he should have lost to Glenn Johnson, a man that Bernard Hopkins totally annihilated, and was the first and only person to stop. Other than being quick, and a good boxer i don't see any reason to favor Dawson over Hopkins.
Hopkins fought Tarver when he was running the LHW show, Winky who was favored to win, and Calzaghe who was one of the best 168lbers ever to lace em up, and Pavlik who many experts though would put Hopkins to sleep, and it can be said that Hopkins won all of those fights. That being said, to claim that Hopkins is "ducking" Chad Dawson, when he has fought better fighters with bigger names than Dawson is absurd.
Last edited by street bully; 05-01-2009, 10:45 AM.
I don't know what you guys are talking about. Dawson is no Calzaghe, and IMO Hopkins beat Calzaghe. Dawson doesn't try to throw 100 plus punches a round, his chin isn't great, and he should have lost to Glenn Johnson, a man that Bernard Hopkins totally annihilated, and was the first and only person to stop. Other than being quick, and a good boxer i don't see any reason to favor Dawson over Hopkins.
Hopkins fought Tarver when he was running the LHW show, Winky who was favored to win, and Calzaghe who was one of the best 168lbers ever to lace em up, and Pavlik who many experts though would put Hopkins to sleep, and it can be said that Hopkins won all of those fights. That being said, to claim that Hopkins is "ducking" Chad Dawson, when he has fought better fighters with bigger names than Dawson is absurd.
He has fought great fighters but is always looking for the ones he has an advantage over. Now, because he saw what Taylor did to Froch, he wants him. He wanted Adamek fo the same reasons, not too skilled or fast for him. He knows that Bad Chad can and will present problems for him just like a young Roy.
He has fought great fighters but is always looking for the ones he has an advantage over. Now, because he saw what Taylor did to Froch, he wants him. He wanted Adamek fo the same reasons, not too skilled or fast for him. He knows that Bad Chad can and will present problems for him just like a young Roy.
Other than being quick, and a good boxer i don't see any reason to favor Dawson over Hopkins.
Hopkins fought Tarver when he was running the LHW show, Winky who was favored to win, and Calzaghe who was one of the best 168lbers ever to lace em up, and Pavlik who many experts though would put Hopkins to sleep, and it can be said that Hopkins won all of those fights. That being said, to claim that Hopkins is "ducking" Chad Dawson, when he has fought better fighters with bigger names than Dawson is absurd.
Hopkins always had trouble with quick, good boxers (Jones, Calzaghe, and a green Taylor). Especially ones that are his size. So the notion that Dawson poses a threat is valid.
The Tarver win was good, but still came against a fighter who looked horrible in his previous fight with Jones and was certainly unfocused after going hollywood and shooting a movie. Hopkins imo would have never signed on to fight the focused Tarver who Ko'd Jones. While Jones and Tarver were ducking it out at 175, Hopkins was content to stay on his self imposed diet and keep himself out of harms way at 160.
The Wright win proved nothing, as it came with Wright moving up to 168 and looking very sluggish and tired down the stretch. The Pavlik win was overrated, and we all know the wins vs. Trinidad and Hoya was a grown man playing with boys, but I guess Hopkins fans have to have something to rest their head on.
Street bully,you're a joke.
"IMO Hopkins beat Calzaghe"Since when you beat a guy,throwin a punch per round??
I favor pitty pats to nothing and simulatin low blows.Judges too.
Explain me how HBO Lederman scored 116-111 for a guy who is supposed to be the looser.I admit the fight was closer than this card pretend but give me a break and get over it.
"Johnson beats Chad",Disagree again,Chad landed more punches.
But whatever,the triangle theory doesn't work.Styles make fights.
Hopkins is a great technician,but when he can't see the punches,he can't use his awesome skills and become average.
Comment