Bernard Hopkins vs Mike McCallum

I will give ground on that part. A clone is a bit overboard, yes. But he was hesitant, used the jab, feinted, some movement and basically never over-committed. I have used the comparison of Hopkins, somewhat, fighting a verision of himself, and never once been laughed at about it on here, teeto.

 

I'm not laughing at you mate. I'm fine with how the debate went and sorry if I have came across as hostile. I agree, yeah he was hesitant etc. It can't be denied and I wouldn't try to deny that.

 

I hear that's why he's not much of a mover.

 

:rofl

 

Debates are good. Listen. Taylor's jab was fast and that was one the reasons why he outjabbed Hopkins. But I think that also because of his tactical approach and and not committing himself too much as well. I have gave my reasons why Taylor outjabbed Hopkins and, Wright, never. Speed of the jab was part of the reason why but, I think it was more of a style thing rather than speed.

 

Keep up the good work, teeto.


Duran and Whitaker, the tops.

 

Just a quick note on Hopkins-Taylor 1. I thought it was an interesting fight and pleasant viewing. I'm not a fan who's turned on too much by all out wars. Never have been. I love a Hagler-Leonard or a De La Hoya-Whitaker kind of fight.

 

I'm fine to agree to disagree then mate. I think there was a lot of physicality in why Taylor did well against Hopkins.

Always a pleasure to go back and forth with you Robbi (no homo)

Good posts mate.

 

I'm the same. I love a chess match. I think that's why we're the kind of fans that post on forums though, we're boxing mad!

 

De La Hoya-Whitaker was a great chess match. Again, a very distorted view that fight can give off to certain observers. It was another case of neither fighter really being aggressive. Perhaps, De La Hoya is viewed as being more of the aggressor because he triggered off punches in bunches, ocassionally. But it was pretty much a case of both fighters taking centre of the ring, looking to be accurate, and both having a strong emphasis of defense. De La Hoya's own defense gets way overlooked in this fight.

 

Who said it was the decisive factor? Did you read the rest of the post?

Something tells me that you're good at checkers -though I bet you've never been inside a ring; unless it's the one around your bathtub where you sit and brood about imagined slights.

 

Eastside Boxing's, very own Bernard Hopkins. Old school poster is our, Stonehands.

 

Yeah it definitely is a centre ring chess match. Never thought of it any other way.

 

And.....Stonehands isn't a busy poster - like B-Hop in the ring. Also noticed that he prefers countering other posters rather than leading. One of the best and most sneaky counter-punchers on Eastside is our, Stonehands.

 

I thought De La Hoya-Trinidad is another good fight to watch. I had it 116-112, De La Hoya. I could only give Trinidad rounds, 4, 10, 11 and 12. Clearly anyway.