Bernard Hopkins - time to fight or time to retire?

[Super_Lightweight]

hmm

I thought they discuss boxing after organising lynching and chicken fights. Then they get the loser of a boxing match and make him squeal like a pig.

lol??? I'm laughing and scratching my head at the same time.

[Guest]

lol??? I'm laughing and scratching my head at the same time.

I was just messing around, sorry.

[MrCoop]

Wow, you've posted a grand total of four times and already you're mouthing off like that?

Yet more "Hopkins fights like **** because he's old, so there" anti-logic.

Derision of Calzaghe, someone I never even mentioned, someone who's not even in the same DIVISION as Hopkins. (Clue: Winky Wright IS).

Mr. Coop? Isn't a coop something that's full of bird ****? Prick.

WHO GIVES A ****? YEAH I DID ONLY HAVE 4 POSTS, BUT AT LEAST THEY ARE NOT POSTS BASED ON HATRED. IF YOU CAN'T SEE HOPKINS IS A GREAT FIGHTER YOU MUST BE ****IN BLIND. SOMETIMES COOPS ARE FULL OF ****. SOMETIMES MY TOENAILS ARE AFTER I PULL THEM OUT OF ANORAKS ASS. ****IN ******. IF HOPKINS IS NOT A GREAT FIGHTER YOU NEED TO STOP HITTIN THAT GLASS **** CAUSE YOUR MINDS PLAYIN TRICKS ON YOU.

[MetalVomit]

I actually WANT someone to justify WHY Bernard's so "great". Because he wobbles around like a silly old ****er on a zimmer frame? I don't give two ****s about what he was like THEN, I want to know why he's so great NOW.

It's irrelevant to me what he was like years ago (you're talking the "getting schooled by Roy" era, right?) because he wasn't top of the p4p list then.

Hopkins is so "Great" because he hasnt lost in over 11 years and the last time he did lose was against arguably the greatest fighter of this generation. I'm not a big Hopkins fan, but I recognize that he is certainly "Great", and will make it into the hall of fame before Howard Eastman. If you want to be mad about Hopkins' performance against your nuff tumper, be mad at that nuff tumper. EASTMAN proved that HE isnt great because he did nothing but follow Hopkins around like a dog on a leash instead of cutting off the ring or at least sticking a jab out there. Whether you like it or not, Hopkins is a legend. 20 defenses of his title makes him "Great", every defense cant be a top tier performance, nor can it always be against the absolute best opposition. You know how boxing works. I cant believe someone could call a boxer average that has beaten every man in front of him for 11+ years, has the undisputed middleweight title, and can still compete at top level of the sport at the age of 40. C'mon Anorak, this doesnt even make any sense. He fought cautiously against Eastman, and yes when he slipped that one time he actually jogged a little. Seriously though you dont have to be a nuff tumper every fight to be a champion and legend. It has nothing to do with Hopkins being american. It's about what he's accomplished, and if he were to die tomorrow, no one could take away his AMAZING accomplishments and achievements. (let's see the next time someone defends their title 20 times in the next century, ****, let's see Ricky Hatton defend his title 20 times)

[MetalVomit]

I KNEW as soon as I saw Godzhand as the last poster on this thread it would contain the word "Anorak" and something to do with it being a Limey angle. Good to see you didn't let me down, G.

Thats the only sense I can make out of this. Sour g****s for him cautiously beating Eastman. He is considered #1 P4P because of his accomplishments and the fact that no one has been able to beat him in over a decade of him defending his title and turning back all opposition.

[MetalVomit]

Hopkins is so "Great" because he hasnt lost in over 11 years and the last time he did lose was against arguably the greatest fighter of this generation. I'm not a big Hopkins fan, but I recognize that he is certainly "Great", and will make it into the hall of fame before Howard Eastman. If you want to be mad about Hopkins' performance against your nuff tumper, be mad at that nuff tumper. EASTMAN proved that HE isnt great because he did nothing but follow Hopkins around like a dog on a leash instead of cutting off the ring or at least sticking a jab out there. Whether you like it or not, Hopkins is a legend. 20 defenses of his title makes him "Great", every defense cant be a top tier performance, nor can it always be against the absolute best opposition. You know how boxing works. I cant believe someone could call a boxer average that has beaten every man in front of him for 11+ years, has the undisputed middleweight title, and can still compete at top level of the sport at the age of 40. C'mon Anorak, this doesnt even make any sense. He fought cautiously against Eastman, and yes when he slipped that one time he actually jogged a little. Seriously though you dont have to be a nuff tumper every fight to be a champion and legend. It has nothing to do with Hopkins being american. It's about what he's accomplished, and if he were to die tomorrow, no one could take away his AMAZING accomplishments and achievements. (let's see the next time someone defends their title 20 times in the next century, ****, let's see Ricky Hatton defend his title 20 times)

If not this, what makes you think that Hopkins isnt great Anorak?

[Guest]

let's see the next time someone defends their title 20 times in the next century, ****, let's see Ricky Hatton defend his title 20 times

You see, this is why you're naughty. I like you and your posts, they always interest me, but you always try and infer I've got Limey bias that isn't even there. When did I ever big up Hatton? He did well on Saturday - to a degree - but I've never been a big fan.

Anyway, topic at hand. I'm just not seeing it, sorry. I do take your points, but I think what's bothering me is the question of whether Hopkins would have been able to rule at any other era in the Middleweight division. I know, I know, that's a lousy argument - the Heavyweight division is up for grabs at the moment, Vitali possibly excepted - but I'm just not feeling that beating up a couple of little guys and the likes of Robert Allen is doing it for me. Even taking away the Nuff Tumper (and you're right, Howard pisses me off in title bouts, lazy Nuff Tumper) I'm still not sold.

I tell you what... if he beats Taylor and then goes on to beat Winky Wright I'll have more to say about him. Cos Hopkins lies awake at night knowing I'm not praising him, you know.

[MetalVomit]

You see, this is why you're naughty. I like you and your posts, they always interest me, but you always try and infer I've got Limey bias that isn't even there. When did I ever big up Hatton? He did well on Saturday - to a degree - but I've never been a big fan.

Anyway, topic at hand. I'm just not seeing it, sorry. I do take your points, but I think what's bothering me is the question of whether Hopkins would have been able to rule at any other era in the Middleweight division. I know, I know, that's a lousy argument - the Heavyweight division is up for grabs at the moment, Vitali possibly excepted - but I'm just not feeling that beating up a couple of little guys and the likes of Robert Allen is doing it for me. Even taking away the Nuff Tumper (and you're right, Howard pisses me off in title bouts, lazy Nuff Tumper) I'm still not sold.

I tell you what... if he beats Taylor and then goes on to beat Winky Wright I'll have more to say about him. Cos Hopkins lies awake at night knowing I'm not praising him, you know.

I said nothing bad about Hatton, i just happened to use him as an example. I could have used another champions name, i just threw his name out there. Also, you certainly did have a "limey" bias on Eastman. Not Hatton though, so it's all good. If your not down with Hopkins it's quite alright, I see what your saying about the choice of opponents. You gotta give him props for beating Tito, but I didnt see his win over DLH that great. We agree to disagree then, that's a good conclusion.

[Guest]

I said nothing bad about Hatton, i just happened to use him as an example. I could have used another champions name, i just threw his name out there. Also, you certainly did have a "limey" bias on Eastman. Not Hatton though, so it's all good. If your not down with Hopkins it's quite alright, I see what your saying about the choice of opponents. You gotta give him props for beating Tito, but I didnt see his win over DLH that great. We agree to disagree then, that's a good conclusion.

Yeah, fair play. Though again the two opponents you mention are little guys.

The "Limey bias" with Eastman. I wouldn't call it bias. All it is that a large percentage of people on this site have only seen the Hopkins fight, which was crap from a Nuff Tump POV. Some may have seen the Hopkins one and the Joppy one, which was better, and saw Howard put some fun into it, but he still lost on points (although that was close, and the audience booed the decision).

All it is is that because I'm a Limey and his fights are on TV over here I'll sometimes say "I've seen a lot of his fights, and..." I'm not even necessarily bigging up these Limeys, I just get frustrated when you get people on here (not you) slagging fighters as if they're an authority on 'em when in the vast majority of cases they haven't even seen the guys. Take Junior Witter. Got slagged off on here for ages after the poor Judah fight (for which he had, IMO, legitimate excuses for an off-night). Yet now he's done better against Lovemour N'Dou people are talking about him as a prospect. But I've watched the guy on Limeyvision for years and could have told you all the time that the Judah thing was a genuine off-night and should have been excused.


As for Howard... lazy git, was joyless and unimaginative against Hopkins. It's really maddening, because I've seen at least eight or nine of his fights at European level (maybe he just isn't world class?) and he goes right through them.