better resume..hopkins,pacman

[Toney616]

here

Morales II > Eastman

LOL

I cant really argue with that, both wins are basically meaningless

[Toney616]

Dude-losing to Winky and Bernard is no shame-they outclassed him.It didn't seem like the weight mattered...Winky outskilled him as did Bernard (and then ko'd him).Please tell me how the weight had anything to do with this and not skill...

It goes to show that he was not an elite mw. He basically beat up some fringe contenders and that's about it.

[hugh grant]

Pavlik and Tarver werent bad at all.Pavlik was on the rise and was a severe favourite to beat Hopkins-and by KO.In hindsight we can say so and so wasn't that good,but at the time,Pavlik was ko'ing everyone in his way.He beat the man that "beat" the man.

Tarver as we all know was the first to truly beat Roy-by KO.He had beaten solid opposition and was Hopkins first move up to LHW.

As for implying that Margarito and Cotto and Hatton's losses didn't matter-I am not saying that all losses make the difference.Obviously Margarito had decision losses before fighting Shane...that KO and inactivity didn't help him in any way! Nor did it seem to improve Hatton or Cotto.Cotto in my eyes has seemed to take his time more and looks less dynamic than he used to before getting brained from Tony.

Hatton looked good against Paulie after Floyd,that's it.Weird what a KO does to some people,eh???

B-Hop gets more credit because he is the underdog still fighting at 46 against decent opposition that he is supposed to lose to but overcomes the hurdle.

The thing is that BH is probably made the underdog because people dont rate him as highly as you do. If he was as great as people think Pac is, wouldnt they make BH favourite like they do Pac? Pac wouldnt be underdog against Pavlik in this lifetime.

Pavlik and Tarver if were to fight Pac, Pac would be accused of fighting people made for him. Pavlike was a hard puncher and was Tarver but they werent brilliant boxers. I would say they were made for BH but they were good wins for BH no doubt but you cant say they were as good as JMM, Cotto, or DLH wins even. BH seems to have trouble with boxer types, rather than punchers.
No wonder JT beat BH, as did JC.

[Toney616]

The thing is that BH is probably made the underdog because people dont rate him as highly as you do.

This is a very good point, Bhop tends to be underrated which is why the betting odds make him the underdog in fights. Before he fought Tito he hadnt beat anyone, the fact that a former ww with one win at mw was the favorite speaks for itself

[hugh grant]

This is a very good point, Bhop tends to be underrated which is why the betting odds make him the underdog in fights. Before he fought Tito he hadnt beat anyone, the fact that a former ww with one win at mw was the favorite speaks for itself

I never rated tito as well. When people said he was favourite to beat BH i was thinking DLH beat Tito IMO. Tito isnt all that. So when BH did beat Tito i didnt rate that win that much even though i wanted BH to win badly.

That shows BH cant be that good if people expected him to lose all the time. Yes even BH opponents probably underated him (because of his age, and he hasnt got scary speed and power, therefore not to fear)and took BH lighter than they should have and paid the price.

You cant make a case for BH being better than pac.

[STRUGG]

im a BHOP fan.....i think pacman edges him.......................

[Toney616]

I never rated tito as well. When people said he was favourite to beat BH i was thinking DLH beat Tito IMO. Tito isnt all that. So when BH did beat Tito i didnt rate that win that much even though i wanted BH to win badly..

I agree. I thought Oscar should of got the nod in that fight as well
If you are getting out-boxed by Oscar at ww, the chances are you are going to get out-boxed by Hopkins at mw

[bojangles1987]

you mad about bhop whipping tito?

actually this topic is really intriguing for an NSB thread

There's actually some pretty good debate between the morons that always show up.

[mcdoodledoo]

This is actually one of the most interesting things I have read in a while on here, too bad it is ruined by idiots who just post the same jibber on most threads and ruin the interesting, intelligent discussions going on. Good job I know who the good posters are.

For a fan such as myself who isn't the most knowledgeable about the sport and wants to learn more about fighters and history etc, these are the kind of threads this board needs more of.

[bojangles1987]

I think The Executioner not only has the better resume, but is the greater fighter. All things being equal, Hopkins would decapitate Pacquaio.

I strongly disagree with this. Pacquiao has given GREAT boxers hell, and would not get decapitated by Hopkins p4p. He may lose, but he would not be destroyed.