Maybe because Wlad's a heavyweight and generally people like to see heavyweights slug it out more so than boxers in the lower divisions.
**** poor, shitty thread!:verysad You fail...How can you compare a guy that is in his prime to a 43 year old fighter???:huh Jesus...You guys come up with some of the dumbest threads ever.
No, I'm not. I've watched just about every fight he's had on tv. Sure, he was capable of letting loose on weaker opponents, but recall him grabbing, holding, and rabbit punching all throughout his career. I just don't enjoy watching his fights -- never have.
Yeah, like the way Borenard defeated Calzaghe with that technical savvy, oh wait that's right, Bernie lost to Joe.
vs Wright he was 42 years old. Taylor tight at the weight. Allen what one are you are chatting about? Him beating **** out of Joppy was boring.... Vanderpool wasn;'t. Don't remember the rest of them. You are blatently just being a ****.
It wasn't a stupid thread. It just happens to **** off all the Wlad haters to be called out on it. Nice job BTW. :good
I'm in no way a Wlad hater (read my latest article if you need "proof"), but I find Hopkins much more entertaining to watch than Wlad. I enjoy tactical prowess and technical genius, and I even give Wlad some credit on this front, but Hopkins is a lot more versatile and adaptable than Wlad is, IMHO.
You're an obvious Borenard fan. Borenard was always boring for the most part. Sure, the Trinidad fight was fun to watch, but man, fights like the Eastman fight, Wright, Taylor, Allen, Joppy ect.-- boring.
hops is one of the most boring fighters of all time. good, but boring as hell. at least vlad ko's his opponents unlike borenard