Reminder: if Mayweather were as great as he says, he'd take REAL risks.

tito was under sized and bhop was way better than him.. the results showed that

pavlik was @ the wrong weight and bhop was way better than him the results showed that

bhop was & is way better than tarver

I can live with the other 4 (jt x 2)... floyd has atleast 4

 

Yep. Walk With Me sloth is right he was an underdog in all these fights. Most of the time i bet against Hopkins thinking age caught up to him but he ALWAYS proved me wrong. Never again will i bet against Hopkins. Tito was seen as a destructor and everyone thought he would KO hopkins. Tarver was the kingpin at LHW at the time and Hopkins was moving up to divisions having lost against Taylor. No one gave him a chance.

 

he may have been the underdog but cmon.. **** the "odds" lets look at the fighter skills for skill...

bhop SHOULD have beat tito
bhop SHUOLD have beat pavlik.. everyone banked on bhop being old
bhop SHOULD have beat tarver...

I can live with jt, joe c, roy being risks... but the first 3.. hell no ... people get caught up in the bull**** when determining whats a real risk & whats not a real risk like a fighters KO' record or big wins the fighter is coming off... all that **** is irrelevant 9 times out of 10 the better more adaptable fighter wins

 

So name the fighters that are a risk then:?

 

I dont know man i think they were risks. I really believed Tito was going to be too much for Hopkins. Tarver maybe not so much but i thought he was gonna win. Pavlik had a punchers chance really. Him i thought Hopkins was going to beat him. Still i considered them risks.

 

You can say Oscar was shot and ****, but the facts are he was the best 154 guy and had the title. you cant name a better fighter at 154 at the time, so thats a risk buddy.

 

I feel marquez at 143 is a threat to anyone.

 

Bernard was the underdog in all those fights! Many people figured Pavlik to retire B-hop and maybe knock him out. I didn't believe but it looked risky to most people. Tito was seen as an invincible monster at the time Bernard ruined him! I love B-hop and Floyd, but resume-wise, no comparison. Floyd's not done though, so I expect him to finish with a record that reflects how good he is!

Tarver was a fight in which Bernard moved from MW to LHW at 40 yrs old! lol

 

Yeah duhswag Marquez is the ****. Mayweather is taking a risk right there, espcially off almost a 2 year lay off. He could've picked Quintana or Collazo for an easy fight but he doesnt do that, he fights the best.

 

you "thought" they were risks because of what happened in the past.. tito & pavlik bludgeoned most of his opponents to death & tarver just came off of killing roy jones.... but in reality these guys were not "BETTER FIGHTERS" then bernard hopkins... at the end of the day bhop "SHOULD" have won all 3 of these fights and he did... and im not trying to call you out on anything because i was guilty of thinking pavlik would win as well... but realistically these 3 guys were not better or even equal to bernard hopkins ...

like i'm trying to say.. realistically bhop should have won those fights in the first place... nothing was risky about them.. only way he woudl have lost is if he made a bone head decision or mistake


just like mosley & margarito... i knew shane was going to win all along... i definitely did not predict by t/ko but i wasnt thrown off by the way margarito disposed of miguel cotto... shane was the better fighter all along and should not have lost to margarito... the only thing that makes it a "risk" is the facade of margarito being a "bad ass... ko machine" which shane mosley put to rest.... so although to some it was "a risk" to me it was a fight he should have won

 

There's no ****ing way to justify anything about comparing Bernard and Floyd regarding fights they've taken and both are two of my favorite fighters!

 

thats my point though.... this whole "underdog" term is tossed around improperly....

shane vs margarito
bhop vs pavlik

shane & bhop were both the under dogs but had no business being so... they were fighting lesser fighters and the results showed that... people just get so sucked up in fighters persona that sometimes it carries over into peoples predictions and people forget about actual fighters skill level...

im not comparing their resume's thats irrelevant.... my point I'm trying to make is there isnt really one fighter out there that is a SUPER BIG risk taker... only guy that exists like that is oscar de la hoya and ill give him that title because he had a tendancy to fight guys who were better than him

floyd, shane, b hop .... its hard to be viewed as a risk taker if you win & win big.... only way you can be viewed as someone who takes risks is if you lose or win a very thin fight..... because if your blowing guys out and making it look easy there obviously wasnt much risk involved...

 

I know what your saying. Skillwise B-Hop was better than all of them i think the reason i thought B-Hop was always going to lose was his age. It just throws me off everytime. But you have to admit go back to 2001 i bet you also thought Tito would beat Hopkins.

As for Shane-Margarito i picked Shane to win. Margo never caught my attention.