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

wow, just wow, you ducked relevant questions, you refused to answer them. i have tried to answer every one of your points and now you try to go down the fanboy route and the troll route when there has been zero trolling in a straight discussion, just me asking you to directly answer my points.



sorry but your post was absoloutely cringe-worthy



"I am well aware that over the last few months my reputation as a poster on this site has increased" - for ****s sake, i hope thats alcohol induced and that you can go back to the poster you were tomorow.

 

Ok yeah I ducked question, anyone looking can see the numbered points clear as day.

It began as a discussion and it just turned into a loyalty-hakar-agenda circle.

Someone mentioning loyalty and agenda so often obviously feels they're important when posting.

I made my views on you hopkins ducking joe claim as clear as possible and you keep asking me again about it.

What was cringeworthy was me constantly answering the same questions over and over just to be greeted by the questions again.

 

He did answer the relevant aspect of them. You can of course slice and dice an issue in too the absurd, in order to try and save pride. But it require that you step away from intellectual honesty.

It is silly when posters on ESB insists eternally that they are getting "ducked" when they have gotten their answers. I realize it is a mental defense strategy - they cant admitt that they lost a debate. But it is still silly.

 

no, it began as a discussion and it resulted in you not directly answering the points i make and then you falsely accusing me of trolling and fanboy behaviour.

you used numbers but you do not directly answer or discuss the exact point i'm asking so i'd be greatfull if you just attempt to do that in this post, with a simple yes or no answer and then i know that you are directly answering my points.



1 - hakar's relevance to this debate is that when hopkins turned down his record $3m pay day to fight calzaghe, hopkins next opponent was hakar (8 months later) for a quarter of the money - do you understand why i am mentioning hakar - yes or no?

2 - do you understand why turning down a record pay day to fight a fighter and then fighting another fighter for a quarter of the money looks like a duck - yes or no?

3 - you asked me for calzaghe's best 5 wins at the time and in return i asked you for joppys 5 best wins at the time - do you accept that wins over eubank, reid, and woodhall are better than anything on joppys win resume at the time - yes or no?

4 - after hopkins turned down a career high pay day in 2002 to fight calzaghe, hopkins never knew that they're paths would cross again 6 years later. say calzaghe had retired in 2005, would you have then classed what happenned in 2005 as a duck - yes or no?

5) do you accept that by 2008, the goalspost had changed. hopkins now had calzaghe fighting the fight at the weight he wantedand that now hopkins was in a win win situation because if he now lost, everyone would attribute that loss to his age, and hopkins being over the hill - yes or no?

6) with regards to you ranking hopkins number 5 p4p for a win over pascal and you not having froch in your top 10
- 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

p4p isn't age related, do you understand why this looks harsh on froch? - yes or no?

 

what an absoloutely laughable attempt to try and excuse your blatant ducking which has gone on for months

which part of my post do you think is bias?



luf didn't answer some of my points directly but is certainly nowhere near the 'ducker' category that you belong in :deal

luf isn't a poster who is that delicate and fragile that he feels the need to create numerous alter-ego accounts such as dinamita, kittikasem, roskolnikov to try back his own views up

luf doesn't continually duck answering legitimate, relevant boxing questions by going off on a tangent to try and deflect from the fact that he ducked the question :rofl

luf doesn't resort to irrelivant cut and paste replys that ruin his own threads and turn them into nonsensical chaos because he is too scared to let the debate flow and develop

if luf is losing a debate, he doesn't run out of the thread and starts a poll about an irrelevant piece of inacurate information from the previous thread in a bid to deflect from the fact that he lost the relivant debate. this method resulted in respected poster silencer labelling you "a pissy little poster" :rofl

luf isn't so lacking in sense of humour that he disgracefully resorts to using pictures of mentally handicapped children in a vile, despicable attempt to provide humour to a boxing forum :-(

luf doesn't continually cry like a little ***** to the mods :crybaby

 

Thank you.

 

It does make me wonder when his posts seem to alternate between complimenting me and insulting me.

 

@head, my answer is no to every question you asked.

 

thanks for directly answering my questions.

 

Not that I'm going to be dragged into this mess, but the point being made is that if Duran were 32 in 2001, fought Hopkins and lost a UD, people would hold it AGAINST Hopkins today.

I wouldn't call it B-Hop hatred, though. I think that's just the nature of nostalgia. 30 years from now someone will win a championship at 60 years old and people will trash that guy because he never fought some of the people B-Hop has yadda yadda.

 

ooh look at mummys brave little soldier, he swallowed a bottle full of courage tablets and has summoned up the bottle to post to headbanger

quick, get back and hide behind your cut and pastes and your alter-ego's you cowardly little cry-baby :crybaby :rofl

 

Everytime there is a thread about Hopkins, the same haters swarm the thread to discredit him. Its "De Clerambaults syndrome"