Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comments Thread For: Bernard Hopkins – The Executioner in Winter: Part 1

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    The Taylor losses were close, just like the Calzaghe loss was. Not bad at all for a guy in his 40s.

    Comment


    • #12
      As Schnozzola (Jimmy Durante) said, "they said my uncle Looie was mad..he WAS mad...

      A guy who's "100% paranoid" and yet says that he doesn't want to be TOO paranoid, and then again begins defining it {in a pseodo-crapola-ignorant kind of way} already has a head start in the looney stakes.

      I'm glad that Gerbasi knew exactly what Hopkins was talking about, as it was clear that Hopkins didn't. When Gerbasi said (after the ******* of verbiage) ......... "point taken", I felt SO relieved, I can't describe it. I really thought I was having a nightmare -Alice through the Looking Glass kind- since even though Hopkins is usually incoherent to the point of gibberish, this so-called interview is the worst yet. I wonder that BoxingScene actually printed it.

      On reconsideration, I don't believe that Gerbasi understood it either.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by ShoulderRoll View Post
        The Taylor losses were close, just like the Calzaghe loss was. Not bad at all for a guy in his 40s.
        The Taylor losses may have been close, but they were definite. As for the Calzaghe loss, it wasn't one of Joe's best fights, but he very clearly won, actually made a fool of Hopkins in the 2nd half of the fight, whilst he outclassed him.

        VERY obvious to even a casual fan.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by edgarg View Post
          The Taylor losses may have been close, but they were definite. As for the Calzaghe loss, it wasn't one of Joe's best fights, but he very clearly won, actually made a fool of Hopkins in the 2nd half of the fight, whilst he outclassed him.

          VERY obvious to even a casual fan.
          The vast majority of boxing writers scored both Taylor fights narrowly to Hopkins; and a large number of boxing writers (albeit a minority) scored the Calzaghe fight narrowly to Hopkins. And pretty well every boxing expert in the world agreed that if Hopkins hadn't gassed, he'd have won by a wide margin, which means prime for prime, they almost all think Hopkins was the better fighter. So your patronising comments about casual fans should be applied to yourself.
          Last edited by Dave Rado; 03-19-2010, 11:06 PM.

          Comment


          • #15
            I never make patronising comments "to" myself. I keep them for deserving others.

            And I never go by what free seat journalists "think". I judge for myself, and include candid opinions of boxing experts, such as judges.........

            Hopkins' syncophantic followers don't qualify.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by edgarg View Post
              I never make patronising comments "to" myself. I keep them for deserving others.

              And I never go by what free seat journalists "think". I judge for myself, and include candid opinions of boxing experts, such as judges.........

              Hopkins' syncophantic followers don't qualify.
              If you seriously think that all judges are boxing experts, and that the world's most respected boxing writers are casual fans and sycophants, then you need your head examining.

              As for thinking for yourself, and your comments about casual fans, if you really think that the two Taylor fights were both decisive wins that couldn't legitimately have been scored either way, and if you really think Calzaghe outclassed Hopkins and won by a wide margin, then you simply don't understand how fights are supposed to be scored, which makes you a casual fan if ever there was one.
              Last edited by Dave Rado; 03-24-2010, 07:01 PM.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Dave Rado View Post
                If you seriously think that all judges are boxing experts, and that the world's most respected boxing writers are casual fans and sycophants, then you need your head examining.

                As for thinking for yourself, and your comments about casual fans, if you really think that the two Taylor fights were both decisive wins that couldn't legitimately have been scored either way, and if you really think Calzaghe outclassed Hopkins and won by a wide margin, then you simply don't understand how fights are supposed to be scored, which makes you a causal fan if ever there was one.

                Comment


                • #18
                  there needs to be a little more respect for hopkins and more credence paid to him about the fact that he was the only fighter to go to hearings and speak out about fighters rights.

                  you want to talk about someone who was wanting to clean up the sport, bernard was doing that a long time ago.......

                  my all time favorite fighter......

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Dave Rado View Post
                    If you seriously think that all judges are boxing experts, and that the world's most respected boxing writers are casual fans and sycophants, then you need your head examining.

                    As for thinking for yourself, and your comments about casual fans, if you really think that the two Taylor fights were both decisive wins that couldn't legitimately have been scored either way, and if you really think Calzaghe outclassed Hopkins and won by a wide margin, then you simply don't understand how fights are supposed to be scored, which makes you a causal fan if ever there was one.
                    Your accolade doesn't bother me one little bit. Considering that I know myself very well, and you don't, your "analysis" leaves much to be desired.

                    And WHY do you boast about having a letter printed in RING. I've had about a dozen printed in RING, when it really WAS the "Bible of Boxing", and was run by Mr. Boxing,
                    Nat Fleischer.

                    And I never saw anything to boast about, even though I actually got editorial answers.

                    Grow up.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by BIGPOPPAPUMP View Post
                      by Thomas Gerbasi - Over ten years as middleweight champion. 20 title defenses. A resume over 40 that is better than most compiled by fighters ten years his junior. And that’s not counting the fame and the money that Bernard Hopkins now calls his own.

                      Add in that he achieved all these things while fighting a system designed to keep him quiet and under control, and it makes the accomplishments even more impressive.

                      So you would expect that it’s about time for Hopkins, at 45 years old, to stop, look around, and take a whiff of the proverbial roses. Then again, that wouldn’t be his style.

                      “I do reflect, but I don’t reflect long because when I’m running, if I look back that slows me up and they can get me,” he told BoxingScene.com.

                      “They” can take many forms for ‘The Executioner’. It could be the younger, stronger, faster, but not wiser, opponents lining up to take a shot at the 40-something warrior. It could be an industry that still may be smarting over the statements and stands he has made over the years, or it could be something we don’t even know about. But what we do know is that the idea of “They” coming to get him keeps him sharp and it’s what he thinks about when he does look back at his 22 years in the boxing game. [Click Here To Read More]
                      come on hopkins!! i wanna see you Knockout Roy..

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP