Could Eubank's unique style have given Hopkins big problems?

[HEADBANGER]

Originally Posted by TG1

I don't give a fuck what spin you put on Hearns as an opponent. He came from a lighter weight class, so use the same logic. If you want to credit Hagler for that win, then give Hopkins credit for tito

seriously, what the fuck are you talking about you braindead egghead

so by your braindead logic, because i don't rate roy jones victory over former LIGHTWEIGHT vinny pazienza, that means i can't rate haglers victory over hearns




there are different levels of victory



low level victory - jones v pazienza. pazienza had no business fighting at 168



good victory - hopkins v trinidad - trinidad still had his 0 and a belt, but had been knocked down 7 times as a welterweight and got his head embarrassingly boxed off by the only 2 elite middlewights he fought in hopkins and wright.



elite victory - hagler v hearns - hearns at the peak of his powers, showed before and after the hagler fight that he was suited to middleweight and then also went on to become a world champion at 160, 168, and 175



so in simple terms for you to understand

hopkins deserves more credit for his victory over trindad than jones did for his victory over pazienza

hagler deserves more credit for his victory over hearns than hopkins does for his victory over trinidad




LEVELS - COMPRENDE?

[HEADBANGER]

Originally Posted by TG1

Your train of thought is built on hate and I tore you to bits with easy logic. I can't help it if you won't accept that!

you haven't tore no one to bits you fool

to do that you would have had to directly answer the numerous questions i have asked in this thread and you have ducked everyone of them like a complete and utter coward, whilst i have clearly answered every point you tried to make

my train of thought has been built around well explained answers completely backed up by fact

i have taken your fragile little egghead, smashed it to pieces and made scrambled eggs out of you

[HEADBANGER]

Originally Posted by TG1

Look at Headbanger. This guy berates Hopkins for having wins against smaller men when he has Marvin Hagler on his avatar? Who are Hagler's best wins against? Duran, Hearns and Mugabi who are all what? That's right, smaller!!

where on this thread have i tried to build up wins over duran or mugabi?

Hearns was an elite level victory and i explained my logic for that


- hearns natural size and body frame was suited to putting on weight and going up through the divisions
- hearns was an elite level middleweight before and after he lost to hagler after hagler
- after hagler, hearns went on to win a middleweight title, a title at 168 and a title at 175 showing his undoubted calibre for fighting at heavier weights.

[TG1]

Originally Posted by HEADBANGER

seriously, what the fuck are you talking about you braindead egghead

so by your braindead logic, because i don't rate roy jones victory over former LIGHTWEIGHT vinny pazienza, that means i can't rate haglers victory over hearns




there are different levels of victory



low level victory - jones v pazienza. pazienza had no business fighting at 168



good victory - hopkins v trinidad - trinidad still had his 0 and a belt, but had been knocked down 7 times as a welterweight and got his head embarrassingly boxed off by the only 2 elite middlewights he fought in hopkins and wright.



elite victory - hagler v hearns - hearns at the peak of his powers, showed before and after the hagler fight that he was suited to middleweight and then also went on to become a world champion at 160, 168, and 175



so in simple terms for you to understand

hopkins deserves more credit for his victory over trindad than jones did for his victory over pazienza

hagler deserves more credit for his victory over hearns than hopkins does for his victory over trinidad




LEVELS - COMPRENDE?

LOL

It's you that started berating fighters who have victories over smaller men you fuckin plank? You've contradicted yourself so many times it's actually confusing you now!

Hopkins, as a 3-1 underdog, scored a "good" victory over Tito who was in the Pound for Pound top three, undefeated across three weights and regarded as an All Time Great. How fuckin generous of you

Hearns was a dynamite opponent and Hagler's signature win but, by your rules, he was a smaller man. I'm willing to admit that the Hagler was off the hook and solidified Marvelous as the best middleweight champion in history IMO.

You just can't admit that Hopkins win over Trinidad was of the same importance because you can't fuckin stand him. It ain't hard to figure out! You hate the guy and it clouds your judgement to the point where you are willing to talk bags of shit that don't even make sense.

The End and Schooled again!

[HEADBANGER]

Originally Posted by general zod

I can't see Hopkins beating McClellan

mcclellan was bad news for anybody.

if the likes of mercado and clinton mitchell can school hopkins, if hopkins jumps out of the ring like a pussy against the likes of robert allan and dawson, then anyone writing off mcclellan against hopkins is kidding themselves.

if the likes of dave tiberi can smash the fuck out of toney, if sanderline williams can get a draw v toney, if sosa and johnson can take toney to split decisions, then anyone writing mcclellan off v toney is kidding themselves.

benns victory over mcclellan is one of thee great victories this sport has seen in the last 25 years.

[TG1]

Originally Posted by HEADBANGER

where on this thread have i tried to build up wins over duran or mugabi?

It's just your avatar that's funny given your prior arguments

Originally Posted by HEADBANGER

Hearns was an elite level victory and i explained my logic for that

Clouded by contradiction as it was

Originally Posted by HEADBANGER

Hearns natural size and body frame was suited to putting on weight and going up through the divisions

And Trinidad, who ended up fighting at light heavyweight, wasn't?

Originally Posted by HEADBANGER

Hearns was an elite level middleweight before and after he lost to hagler after hagler

What win did Tommy have at 160 that made him elite level, prior to Hagler? Just curious?

Originally Posted by HEADBANGER

After hagler, hearns went on to win a middleweight title, a title at 168 and a title at 175 showing his undoubted calibre for fighting at heavier weights.

Hearns actually won a light heavyweight title before he won the middleweight title but none of this matter, bro. You know why? Because he is and will always be, according to you, a fuckin welterweight!

Look in the mirror and say; "I'm an asshole 100 times!" and put it on YouTube for all to see!

[TG1]

Originally Posted by Peter Brit

Herol Graham would have beaten both Hopkins, Eubank, Benn, Collins.

The only one out of that bunch that I would pick Graham to beat is Collins. The rest either knock him out or bully him.

[Primadonna Kool]

Bernard Hopkins had 20-21 defences of his Middleweight World Champion..?

Chris Euabnk had 20 constitutive World Title Fights, from Middleweight to Super-middle..?

Who on earth did Bernard Hopkins beat him his championship reign, that matches up to Nigel Benn, Michael Watson...?

Chris Eubank would of beaten Bernard Hopkins. Bernard Hopkins resume is overrated! Chris Eubank hit harder than Bernard Hopkins, his speed..? he was marginally faster than Bernard Hopkins out foot and of hand. And he was by far tougher than Bernard Hopkins, what type of punishment is Bernard Hopkins gonna dish out....? That Chris Eubank would of not been able to take, and fight through.

Nigel Benn, Michael Watson, are better fighters than anybody! ANYBODY!!! Bernard Hopkins has EVER beaten during his middleweight career.

[rayrobinson]

Originally Posted by TG1

The only one out of that bunch that I would pick Graham to beat is Collins. The rest either knock him out or bully him.

We are not agreeing much tonight , I think Graham is so underated and beats Benn , Collins and would give Hopkins nightmares.

Hopkins struggles with fast fighters .

[Ring Master]

Originally Posted by TG1

Take this quote and put in big letters at the top of the main forum page. It's horseshit like this that gives ESB a bad name. No mention of Trinidad or unifying the whole f*ckin division?

I know I know! Trinidad was a natural welter, that's the official ESB comeback, genius! I take it Aaron Pryor is over rated for having signature wins over Arguello? How about Hagler being over rated for beating up Duran and Hearns?

TOTAL HORSE SHIT!

In answer to the OP. Eubank gives most fighters a nightmare on his A Game but he didn't beat a fighter on Hopkins' level in his entire career.

I agree with you to an extent. I think the problem is people remember there were a lot of talent in the middleweight era of the 90's like. Nigel Benn,Gerald McClellan, Julian Jackson, James Toney, Mike Nunn, Reggie Johnson, Steve Collins, Micheal Watson etc... And Hopkins by passed all of them except Roy Jones in a lost. Hopkins resume does lack and his level of comp could have been much better. Hops did benefit from waiting to all those talents went up in weight and then dominated the WW's years later. Even in the MW tourny i always questioned why Hops didn't fight Joppy when he was the WBA champ.

[HEADBANGER]

Originally Posted by TG1

It's you that started berating fighters who have victories over smaller men you fuckin plank? You've contradicted yourself so many times it's actually confusing you now!

there is no contadiction egghead, its not that trinidad was lighter, its the fact that trinidad was
- a lower level fighter than hearns
- less suited to middleweight than hearns
- got his head completely boxed off by winky wright at middleweight confirming that he didn't belong with the best at middleweight, whilst hearns proved himself at 160, 168, 175 showing how suited he was to fighting at higher weights

comprende?

Originally Posted by TG1

Hopkins, as a 3-1 underdog, scored a "good" victory over Tito who was in the Pound for Pound top three, undefeated across three weights and regarded as an All Time Great. How fuckin generous of you

thats shows how shit people thought hopkins was, that a fighter that had already been knocked down 7 times at 140, already been beaten by oscar (robbed), and went into the fight favourite because he had beaten william joppy - whoopie-do, who the fuck as joppy ever beat, name joppys 5 best victories?

we got to see how great trinidad was v winky wright

you must really rate calzaghes win over lacy considering lacy was favourite and 20 out of 22 american boxing writers voted lacy to win

Originally Posted by TG1

You just can't admit that Hopkins win over Trinidad was of the same importance because you can't fuckin stand him. It ain't hard to figure out! You hate the guy and it clouds your judgement to the point where you are willing to talk bags of shit that don't even make sense!

i won't admit that hopkins win over trinidad was of the same importance as haglers win over hearns because it wasn't - simple as that for the following reasons
- hearns natural size and body frame was suited to putting on weight and going up through the divisions
- hearns was an elite level middleweight before and after he lost to hagler after hagler
- after hagler, hearns went on to win a middleweight title, a title at 168 and a title at 175 showing his undoubted calibre for fighting at heavier weights.


start a poll in the general if you think it was of the same importance

Originally Posted by TG1

The End and Schooled again!

again, you have schooled nobody, your just a bowl of scrambled eggs waiting to be eaten

[TG1]

Originally Posted by Primadonna Kool

Bernard Hopkins had 20-21 defences of his Middleweight World Champion..?

Chris Euabnk had 20 constitutive World Title Fights, from Middleweight to Super-middle..?

Who on earth did Bernard Hopkins beat him his championship reign, that matches up to Nigel Benn, Michael Watson...?

Chris Eubank would of beaten Bernard Hopkins. Bernard Hopkins resume is overrated! Chris Eubank hit harder than Bernard Hopkins, his speed..? he was marginally faster than Bernard Hopkins out foot and of hand. And he was by far tougher than Bernard Hopkins, what type of punishment is Bernard Hopkins gonna dish out....? That Chris Eubank would of not been able to take, and fight through.

Nigel Benn, Michael Watson, are better fighters than anybody! ANYBODY!!! Bernard Hopkins has EVER beaten during his middleweight career.

Benn and Watson being better than anyone on Hopkins' 160 resume does not translate to Eubank beating Hopkins head to head.

Hopkins is technically superior and he was a busier fighter in his early days at 160lbs. He was a level above Eubank and that's the reality.

Having said that I respect your opinion!

[HEADBANGER]

Originally Posted by TG1

It's just your avatar that's funny given your prior arguments!

ok so we can agree, that i haven't tried to build up victories over duran and mugabi - good

Originally Posted by TG1

And Trinidad, who ended up fighting at light heavyweight, wasn't?!

so who were trinidads best victories at 160 or above?

put a poll up in the general asking "was trinidad suited to fighting at 175?"

Originally Posted by TG1

What win did Tommy have at 160 that made him elite level, prior to Hagler? Just curious?!

that maybe you first decent point of the entire day

Originally Posted by TG1

Hearns actually won a light heavyweight title before he won the middleweight title but none of this matter, bro. You know why? Because he is and will always be, according to you, a fuckin welterweight!!

no because hearns not only proved himself at 147, 154, he proved himself at 160, 168, and 175 - you see the difference between hearns and trinidad? - comprende?

Originally Posted by TG1

I just looked in the mirror and said "I'm an egghead 100 times!" and put it on YouTube for all to see!

cool story, add the bit about me turning your fragile egghead into scrambled eggs and you might make it big on youtube

[Cobra33]

Briscoe,Monroe are better then anyone Hopkins fought at Middle.

Hamsho was very strong and had a great chin and had some great wins-just couldn't get pass Hagler.

Its just no comparison really.Different time that had ALOT more talented boxers then Hopkins era.I mean look:

Hamsho twice Rober Allen ...3 times
Unbeaten John Mugabi Joe Lipsy

Thomas Hearns Oscar De La Hoya
Alan Minter John David Jackson
Tony Sibson Simon Brown
Juan Roldan Glen Johnson
Vito Antuofermo Felix Triadad
Willie Monroe Carl Daniels
Benny Briscoe

Now who fought the better competion?Not to mention that the majority of Hopkins title defenses are just plain crap.Was there a need for Hopkins vs Allen 3?What did Simon Brown do at middle to deserve a shot at Hopkins?
Im telling you Hagler would have dominated Hopkins-different league.
What does Hopkins do better then Hagler-maybe headbutt?

[atberry]

Of course Eubank's style and ability would cause Hopkins or anybody problems. He was awkward, unorthodox - gloves held together at stomach height, relying on uncanny reflexes, smooth upper body movement and either six-inch shots or out-of-distance punches, flashy flurries or freaky flexibility. He just wasn't normal!

Bernard is clearly taller and more upright, and in the 90s was more of an aggressive attacker than anything else, while Eubank boxed out of a crouch and looked uncomfortable initiating. I would see Hopkins trying to overwhelm Chris, but finding it difficult early doors, probably losing the early rounds, before finding his range, getting his timing down, and working out that long left hooks followed by right hands would be his key to (narrowish points) victory over Eubank.