Tweet
Echols was a very good fighter in the mid to late 90s,robert allen was also a pretty good fighter,it is not Bernards fault that the division at the time lacked superstar talent.
-
-
Bernard Hopkins takes souls and destroys careers.
Legend.Comment
-
B-hop haters are bitter because he beat their favorite fighter, or lost to them in controversial fashion. I also think B-hop nuthuggers are overly sensitive and cry too much.Comment
-
He didn't beat MY favorite fighter.
Jermain is one of my fav fighters now. And so is Calz.
Comment
-
Are you ****** or have amnesia, because I schooled you on this before.
Robert allen - first fight was a NC (mills lane incident), fight had to be rescheduled.
Robert Allen II - Hopkins knocks Allen out in 7 rounds.
Robert Allen III - 5 YEARS LATER Robert Allen worked his way back up to the #1 contender position, making himself hopkins mandatory. Hopkins protested the fight, didn't want it, but would have been stripped of his belt if he refused to fight. Hopkins wins a lopsided victory.
He fought Echols twice and I don't know why you're complaining those were fun fights.
Hopkins did what he had to do with boxings dirty politics. Hopkins was his own promoter and made a lot of enemies in the sport as a result of him not taking **** from the higher ups, promoters, etc. It took hopkins a long time to land big name fights.
So what was hopkins to do, other than cleaning out the division, unifying the belts, fighting his mandatories, and beating the guys put in front of him?
In today's world, everyone complains that there are too many belt holders, and guys duck eachother in their own division. Everyone wants a unified champ. Well, hopkins did that, he had 5-6 belts in fact (only person in history to do so). What more can a man do to earn respect?
Now I ask you the same question, which you've ducked before, name 3-4 active fighters with a better resume than b-hop.Last edited by ИATAS; 09-18-2009, 11:11 AM.Comment
.
Comment