Originally posted by soyotoyapex
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Boxing is all about styles, but aint no style is gonna beat PAC !!
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by Pullcounter View Postbernard hopkins?
1. Benard Hopkins has 5 losses and 2 draws, prestige wise isn't considered to be nearly as good as Manny, and didn't suddenly become great in the latter on his career. Consistently, since his debut, he's been an all around good fighter.
2. Hopkins only had two early career losses. He lost his debut fight in 88, and he lost by UD to RJJ in 93. He didn't lose again until his 2005 match against Jermain Taylor, when he was much older.
Next..
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nike Phats View PostYou don't know **** about boxing.
1. Benard Hopkins has 5 losses and 2 draws, prestige wise isn't considered to be nearly as good as Manny, and didn't suddenly become great in the latter on his career. Consistently, since his debut, he's been an all around good fighter.
2. Hopkins only had two early career losses. He lost his debut fight in 88, and he lost by UD to RJJ in 93. He didn't lose again until his 2005 match against Jermain Taylor, when he was much older.
Next..
Fail!
Bernard Hopkins did more accomplishments from 31-45 than 0-30.
At 31+ his resume includes Glen Johnson, Trinidad, DLH, Wright, Tarver and Pavlik.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chups View Post
Fail!
Bernard Hopkins did more accomplishments from 31-45 than 0-30.
At 31+ his resume includes Glen Johnson, Trinidad, DLH, Wright, Tarver and Pavlik.
BTW, 3 of BHops last 7 fights have been losses. He's clearly declined.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nike Phats View PostYou don't know **** about boxing.
1. Benard Hopkins has 5 losses and 2 draws, prestige wise isn't considered to be nearly as good as Manny, and didn't suddenly become great in the latter on his career. Consistently, since his debut, he's been an all around good fighter.
2. Hopkins only had two early career losses. He lost his debut fight in 88, and he lost by UD to RJJ in 93. He didn't lose again until his 2005 match against Jermain Taylor, when he was much older.
Next..
su****ious....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nike Phats View PostBecause it goes against the fundamental laws of biology, as well as the illustrious history of not only boxing, but professional sports as a whole. People don't suddenly burst onto the scene and become extraordinary athletes at 30 years old. The tends to be when athletes decline, especially in sports dependent upon the physicality of the athletes.
Hence the su****ions of PED use.
Lance Armstrong is not supposed to win 7 Tour De France either....or Michael Jordan is not supposed to win multiple championships after he "retired" from bball either to comeback....or Muhammad Ali is not supposed to win 3 world Titles after coming back...or Kobe Bryant is not supposed to win the championships without Shaq...and on and on.
That's why there's a competition. Doesn't mean that if a person is phenomenal in his genre meant he should be punished just because he is that good.
It is ok to be su****ious of Pacquiao but to further negate what he has done without due process of law and testing, then there's no proofs that he is on PEDs.
He has never been "flagged" by the NSAC and has never violated any law. It is Mayweather's demands and Pacquiao refusing it automatically invalidates what he has done?
BS.
These people I've mentioned are above average athletes and sportsmen not relegated to being "average"...we cannot compare them with their counterparts because they are that good.
Allowing the triumphant spirit to rise is the main thing about competition. Until Pacquiao has been proven to be on drugs and a cheater, I would refrain from it. Me thinks that you already hold a grudge against him.
I could be wrong too but I still don't want to judge you either.
Comment
Comment