u were asked and turned it down already, so u didnt dare, like joe cowrdzghe with dawson, its done already. not sure what Ibrahim asked u.
I thought it was a fight where Hopkins meager work rate lost it for him. If one guy lands 5 punches in a round, and threw 8, and the other guy lands four punches but threw 20, they'll damn near always give it to the guy with the higher work rate. Hopkins simply didn't let his hands go enough in the fight.
Turn what down? His moot point? Not really an argument was it... Is he a family member? You seem overly concerned for him...
That's right, you date the the sub. Anyway, Dawson at his peak was better than Pascal. Pascal simply caught him at the right moment. I'm not sure what the fascination with Pascal was. He was a solid top 10 guy. Outside of Dawson, he came up short in every other meaningful bout.
At the right moment? What when he was 27 & the #1 ranked LHW? He couldn't 'focus' when someone like Pascal is throwing leather at him? Hardly a ringing endorsement of his abilities then is it?! The only point you've provided so far is your interpretation of some BS intangibles regarding Dawson.. 'He wasn't focused'.. A moot point. Speculation! Deal in fact's, not what ifs! Facts are Pascal out muscled & out fought Dawson.. & he was eventually pulled out. Pascal won. So your no meaningful wins remark isn't correct. 'Fully focused peak Dawson...' Ha ha ha how do u know whats going on his head? Call me when u have a direct line to his psyche.. Dawsons was peak, this is clearly evident by his aforementioned status at the time & considering in his previous 2 bouts he got two of his career best wins beating Tarver & Johnson & AFTER beat Bhop & Diaconu, but not when Pascal was leathering him in between? LOL Ye OK.. If you want to favor Dawson fine, but don't try & diminish Pascal in the process, by throwing negativity his way whilst making excuses for Dawson. It's makes u look like a ****... Just trying to be balanced
Pascal really wasn't all that man. The Pascal vs the Dawson from Adamek, Tarver, Johnson, or the Hopkins fight, loses clearly. Dawson had an off night. Pascal's claim to fame was landing a light heavyweight record number or rabbit punches on a 45 year old opponent, and then getting schooled by that 45 year old opponent in the rematch.
I wouldn't necessarily use the term great to describe either fighter but, Pascale is the better fighter in my opinion.
Rabbit punches? Umhh, well he probably learnt it all from the Hopkins playbook anyway... All that may or may not be true, but you left out the bit where he beat the guy who beat that old guy too & u carry on making excuses for Dawson, giving zero credit to Pascal... You must still be mad about it! Poor form my boy, poor form.... 'If it was the Bhop version of Dawson..' What, you mean the Bhop you that u called 'old & slow' & who u acknowledge landed the cleaner punches against him anyway! That Dawson beats Pascal? The Bhop who was 'hesitant' of Dawson's power too much... Style wise & condition wise Pascal bears no relation to that Bhop. You pretty much admit all this... So what was so great about Dawson that night going off your comments here?: [url]https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/hopkins-vs-cloud.454051/page-4#post-14560793[/url] Maybe Pascal had softened Bhop up for him a wee bit anyway, those two fights they had were rugged affairs... He got dropped twice!