Jean Pascal is the epitome of this feeble era of boxing.

:good

 

Firstly, he's at least very good. Secondly, that's speculation and isn't altogether relevant.

 

Don't talk to me about Keira Knightly, trust me.

 

Monzon was 5'11" going on 6' tall and was a big rangy guy who used his height and reach to great advantage ( see emile griffith fight )

whats got the TS riled is that a lot of the P'tards and F'mos you come across on the net think championship boxing started when thier chosen messiahs turned pro - they dismiss whats gone before as inferior .

Klit huggers think Vit schools Holmes and Ali all night long - one tosser has Chisora dominating a prime Holyfield etc .

such is the level of ignorance real boxing fans have to deal with on the net .

 

This is the last word on whats wrong with championship boxing in this era.

 

Who ranked Pascal in the top 10 P4P? lol

Hopkins is an all-time great in a weak division, it happens.

 

The LHW division is especially weak. I don't think its fair to judge the whole of boxing by one division out of about 50. After all, back in the day there were fewer divisions so the talent wasn't as thinly spread as it is now (one of my main issues with boxing as a sport)

A Hopkins-Dawson fight would interest me now though. Or a Hopkins-Pascal rematch outside of Canada

 

Dude, he looked the same in this fight as he did in the Dawson fight, the only difference in the two is Dawson waited too late to start pressing Pascal relative to when Hopkins started. I mean Dawson seemed to be on the verge of stopping the man. That's not Pascal's problem, but the fact remains that Dawson is clearly the better fighter, and in a rematch he will dominate Pascal. The Dawson fight was much more to do with Dawson's strategy/approach/or lack there of rather than anything positive Pascal did. I mean he did the exact same thing against Dawson, which you are welcome to go watch and verify for yourself.

 

I like and am a fan of Pascal but he's a very good contender. I don't think he's cut out to be a champ for long but hopefully he proves me wrong. I'm also a fan of Dawson but I think he beats Pascal if he fights with a "hunter's mentality". His fight with Pascal was good yet frustrating because he was so reluctant to let his hands go. Dawson has never been an above-average finisher but if he throws more damn punches he'll be a tough fighter for anyone. I think he's still the better fighter between the two but the guy with the better startegy won, not the better fighter imo. I love both but they need to get focused. Hopkins fought his ass off and deserved the win. I'm not mad at Pascal or Dawson I think they're very good I just am mad at the sanctioning bodies for making so many belts. The word, "champion" doesn't mean anything anymore.

 

STFU

The division maybe...but sport?! :rofl

Stop it. Just stop.

 

shut tha **** up man.

all pascal needs is a different trainer and he will be aight.

freddie roach perhaps.

 

you kno man i didnt see any biased besize the crowd.

there was only 1 canadian judge.

 

Haha, man, where the **** you guys when I wrote this exact thread, but about Carl Froch instead. When I lamented the huge decline in the sport over the past couple of decades I saw no support.

 

Pascal is nothing special. If he was any good he would have beaten Hopkins clearly. Chad Dawson was an even bigger hype job. Not a hype job as in a bad fighter but extremely overrated.

 

The difference is that Carl Froch is a credit to boxing and Pascal is a guy with minimal skill, stamina, and overall boxing IQ. He has good athleticism and that's it. Froch is clearly much better.