Another way to look at the "B-Hop only fought smaller men" theory...

is this what it all comes to - did calzaghe beat chris bird as an amateur - who gives a flying ****.

 

Ofcourse I place no emphasis on it. He fought him when was recognised as a top 5 p4p fighter and the man who had unified and cleaned out the super middleweight division.

 

oopz you answered.

 

sorry your answering none of the questions there luf which surprises me. in many threads you come accross as a fair, open minded poster but in this thread you come accross as defensive with an agenda.

please take the time to answer my questions.

 

That's funny because in many threads you attack my integrity and call me a deep throater and other such insults. This disappoints me because i'm quite a respectful poster and despite the insulting nature of your posts towards me I will continue to act this way and address your points.

Why would I be defensive when i'm not a fan of hopkins. I'm not a black american, i'm not a resident of philly, I am infact a white englishman. I have no agenda as has been cleared up between myself and bailey.

Ok yes the same bracket as joppy mos def; a long time title holder who was relatively unproven.

Yes you said 700k or something like that?

Already said I place zero emphasis on considering the fight happened when joe was much more highly regarded. You cannot doubt that in 08 joe was more highly regarded than he was in 02.

Any more questions?

 

yes, it has to be tough to look back at a career like ali's to judge if he was great. you can't give an honest opinion because you lie to yourself everyday on these boards.

 

1) i accept i made a pretty harsh judgment, since that i had seen a fair poster without agenda.

2) you appear really defensive in your posts through your loyalty to popkins and through your sheer bias of placing hopkins number 5 on your p4p list for victory over pascal.

3) you said ok joppy, what about hakar and robert allan who hopkins chose to fight for a quarter of the money. just for the record, who on joppys winning resume as a champ compared to eubank, reid, or even woodhall. and all of this for fighting joppy for a quarter of the money he would have recieved versus calzaghe

4) you place zero emphasis on hopkins not fighting calzaghe for a record pay day and instead fighting hakar, joppy, and allan for just a quarter of the money. I'm sorry but that is not the logic of a neutral poster without an agenda. I've lost a little respect for you today as a poster with regards to this but i understand why you are taking the stance you are.

 

1) so I don't have an agenda? I'm glad you appreciate this.

2) where was this supposed loyalty to popkins when I disagreed with his viewpoints on oscar, lewis, wlad and some others? I have a lot of respect for his contribution to the board but to say I have a sense of loyalty betrays your own logic when making posts on here. Pascal was in my top ten. Hopkins twice beat him.

3) we've already discussed joppy's resume in the past. I find it comparable to joe's in 02.

4) ok so I have now received back this agenda that you previously said I do not have? As I said fighting a p4p top 5 opponent who has unified a division negates any criticism imo of not fighting him earlier when he was not as established.

A) what agenda do you believe I have?

 

i'm not going into the pettyness of 1 and 2 though you know what i'm getting at.

3) you did not answer the question at all, which wins on joppys pre-2002 resume compare to victorys over eubank, reid, or woodhall, plus you have now completely dropped hakar and robert allan from the discussion. all boxers are fighting for money. hopkins love money, you know that. hopkins chose to fight hakar and allan for a quarter of the money - you are refusing to debate this point despite me mentioning it on numerous occasions.

4) 2002 was a duck - fact. at this time hopkins never knew that they're paths would cross again 6 years later. like i said in earlier post, this time hopkins had a number of things in his favour, and had everything to gain and a nothing to lose situation . you are now being deliberatly cagey and selective in what you chose to answer. this kind of tactic now betrays the quality and neutrality of your previous posting imo.

A) i explained your agenda on this topic -strong loyalty to popkins around this particular debate and the fact that you can rank hopkins number 5 p4p for a win over pascal. where is froch on your p4p resume who beat pascal 1st and in much more convincing manner than the 2 fights hopkins required.

 

Why didn't the natural middlweight fight Pavlik at 160lbs?

You're just a fan boy

 

1.5) if I knew what you was getting at I wouldn't ask

3) we've had prior discussions concerning joppy's resume. You want me to debate that hakar and allen are better that joe? Why would I do that? I said he was in the same bracket as joppy: a long time belt holder relatively unproven.

4) I am not being cagey, I will again outline my viewpoint "to accuse hopkins of ducking a wbo beltholder when he fought him after he'd unified his division and broke the p4p top 5 is illogical"

A) pascal entered my top ten after beating dawson. Hopkins twice beat pascal in a tremendous display of boxing ability that belied his age. Froch is on the outskirts of the top ten. He beat a prospect, hopkins beat a champion. That is my justification.

B) where was my loyalty when I disagreed with pop regarding lewis, wlad, oscar and jones? Do you think pop shares my ranking of bob fitzsimmons? Do you think he agrees with me ranking louis above charles?

C) do you not respect a man who has quantified 150 fights between 1980 and 2009? Do you appreciate the effort that must have took? Do I respect popkins? You're damn right I do. But that doesn't mean I feel loyalty.

 

we're gonna have to do this one point at a time, so if you can directly answer the points i'm making i will be greatful. its like your not reading anything i type.


i wrote this after you asked what were calzaghes best wins in 2002?

"what were hakar's, joppy's, robert allan's best 5 wins in 2002?

doesn't really matter does it, hopkins got offered a career high payday in 2002 to fight calzaghe on home soil and ducked him. if the fact was that calzaghe had made a derisory £750k offer to fight hopkins in 2002, then i could understand your viewpoint more as that would have been a high risk / low reward fight for him finacially"



in return you wrote

"Exactly my point, that's the bracket joe was in back then. Just a title holder who wasn't proven"



1 - calzaghe is clearly not in the bracket of hakar, joppy, allan - would you agree with that?

2 - i will border line give you joppy for the sake of argument, though its clear that joppy has no wins on his resume that come close to eubank or reid - do you agree with that - just yes or no?

3 - the bottom line in this particular point is this hopkins turned down $3m in 2002 to fight calzaghe in favour of fighting hakar for $750k - do you understand why that reflects poorly on hopkins at the time?

 

Bernard Hopkins was getting thrown around the ring like a rag doll against Jermain Taylor. Hopkins was never a big middleweight, and he didn't have exceptional power. He completely dominated his opponents with tactical precision and classic boxing. The myth that he ever beat anybody besides De La Hoya - and that was a fixed fight - because of size is weak and lame. You can put that in the "Ward only beat Kessler because of headbutts" file. It's under "Calzaghe is Jesus" in the "God Save The Queen" index of the "America Thinks They're Better Than Anybody" cabinet stored at Limey headquarters.

 

Let's get something straight here - I am well aware that over the last few months my reputation as a poster on this site has increased. During the same span you have still been doing the same troll posts you usually do.

With that in mind I do not have an issue debating but you aint dictating anything to me.

You have conceded joppy and joe are in the same bracket. That's ended.

I can not make it any clearer that there is zero negative impact on hopkins facing joe as an undisputed champion rated in the top 5 p4p as opposed to hopkins facing joe when he was am obscure wbo belt holder.

Cut your fanboyish attitude out. It does you no favours. Your reputation is shot as it is and not many posters even bother with you any more. As a teacher I like to remain positive and continue to educate you but it's a two way process.

The fact that you think there is any bias or loyalty in my posts on this subject betray your own posting logic. I am a fan of the sport and not the individuals. Over time my opinions since joining this forum have changed and matured. Hopefully you will follow suit.

 

3 - hopkins chose to fight hakar for $750k instead of fighting calzaghe for $3m in his 1st fight after the calzaghe negotiations (8 months later).

4 - the point i am saying is that hopkins ducked calzaghe for a career high payday in 2002 - we both know that hopkins loves them career high pay days. 2008 is completely irrelevant at this point. theres no way hopkins could possibly know that they're paths would cross again 6 years later. what if calzaghe had retired in 2004, would you class it as a duck then? like i've written in previous points, in 2008 the fight appealed more to bernard for a number of reasons.

4A - thats a weak justification imo, a justification that shows an agenda.
- froch was the 1st man to beat pascal, and he also did it in more convincing fashion.
- hopkins need 2 attempts to beat pascal in 2 close fights.
- froch has also beaten taylor, dirrell, abraham, and johnson in this period
- froch circles your top 10
- hopkins is your number 5
- "froch beat a prospect, hopkins beat a champion" cuts nothing with me at all.

4B - i did refer to loyalty to popkins with this 'particular' debate surrounding hopkins.

4C - yes i respect the time popkins has took on some of his threads, what i don't respect is his pissy attitude, his ducking of relevant questions, and his cutting and pasting that destroys many of the threads instead of trying to debate in a similar fashion to this.