When/If Bernard beats Roy, will you call it even then?

[IMDAZED]

Roy was an olympic medalist then, and was groomed to do huge things.

He was also considered almost Naseem Hamed-like (probably fraud, won't fight anyone). People forget that. And Hopkins was considered easily his toughest challenge at that time.

[THE REED]

bhop/roy win now has more to it...


they were nobodies/upandcomers back then compared to now

They were the #1 and #2 top contender for the title... Bernard didnt lose for another 12 years after that fight, and ROy didnt lose for another 11 years.

They were clearly young but very good fighters who were both fighting for their first title shot.

How does it have more meaning now? You have a top ranked fighter fighting a fighter who isnt even ranked, on the p4p list top 50 or in his own divisions top 20.

They were way more even in 93.

[nujabes77]

k :fin02:

I just know when Bernard beats Roy (if) These boards are going to be ridiculously ******.

how so?

roy is taking the fight/risk/chance as bhops... so if roy wins there would be nothing to it?


their names and legacy is on the line here

[THE REED]

Roy was an olympic medalist then, and was groomed to do huge things.

And Bernard dint lose a single fight for 12 years after he lost to Roy...

[THE REED]

how so?

roy is taking the fight/risk/chance as bhops... so if roy wins there would be nothing to it?


their names and legacy is on the line here

If Roy wins, he beat the #2 ranked LHW, and #4 ranked p4p fighter.



If Bernard beats Roy.... he beat.......... a guy who isnt even considered top 20 in his own division, and hasnt been in the p4p list in 7 years, and coming off a 1st round TKO loss.


How is this even questionable?

[street bully]

And Bernard dint lose a single fight for 12 years after he lost to Roy...

You could say he hasn't even lost since, since those Taylor decisions were pretty dodgy.

[THE REED]

You could say he hasn't even lost since, since those Taylor decisions were pretty dodgy.

Well thats my point, you can say Roy had a better amateur record, as he did.. but when it came to the PROs, both their careers skyrocketed, and didnt stop... Roy edged him out with Amateur experience, it is noted... but the pros are a different league. Plenty of fighters have had good amateur backgrounds and didnt do anything in the pros.

[nujabes77]

They were the #1 and #2 top contender for the title... Bernard didnt lose for another 12 years after that fight, and ROy didnt lose for another 11 years.

They were clearly young but very good fighters who were both fighting for their first title shot.

How does it have more meaning now? You have a top ranked fighter fighting a fighter who isnt even ranked, on the p4p list top 50 or in his own divisions top 20.

They were way more even in 93.

i dont argue that. im just saying in their time they werent the 'superman'/'executioner' yet


it has more meaning now the fact that they are known and are accomplished/developed...


if its not so fair to roy then he should not be fighting in the first place...

[THE REED]

i dont argue that. im just saying in their time they werent the 'superman'/'executioner' yet


it has more meaning now the fact that they are known and are accomplished/developed...


if its not so fair to roy then he should not be fighting in the first place...

I really have nothing else to say, if you can't seem to grasp on to the concept, thats Roys a bit past "developed".

[street bully]

i dont argue that. im just saying in their time they werent the 'superman'/'executioner' yet


it has more meaning now the fact that they are known and are accomplished/developed...


if its not so fair to roy then he should not be fighting in the first place...

They're known now, but aren't what they once were. In the case of Roy he is so past it that he lost to a guy who a few years ago would not even be considered to be a sparring partner of his.