Could Eubank's unique style have given Hopkins big problems?

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

spot on about hopkins handpicking lighter fighters (bar tarver). 20 out of hopkins first 21 fights were fought in the super middleweight limit or above yet he was calling out -

a former light welterweight 140 fighter in trinidad
a former super featherweight 130 fighter in oscar
hopkins then called out a former lightweight 135 fighter in shane mosley


he did all this and then ducked a career high payday of $3m in 2002 to fight calzaghe in america :deal

instead hopkins wanted to fight hakkar for peanuts and then carry on feasting on these little guys :rofl


very true about hopkins, he fought in the weakest middlweight era in history and everytime he fought a top challenger at a fair weight, he got his ass kicked - jones, taylor twice, calzaghe.

there is a clear blueprint how to beat hopkins and eubank would fit perfectly into that. i know hopkins has been knocked down plenty of times and feigned injury with his play acting many times, but i don't think eubank would have stopped him, i think we'd be looking at something like a 115-113 scorecard due to hopkins' spoiling and trying to make it a bitty, stop / start fight.

 

Do you want to know what the weather was like in LA for Vargas vs. Mayorga, or in Vegas for De la Hoya vs. Mayweather, Mayweather vs. Mosley or Hatton vs. Pacquiao? How about Hatton vs. Tzsyu?

This is silly **** to try with me mate. Can't remember Manchester for Lacy but Cardiff was ****IN FREEZING.

Try something else!

 

when has Eubank ever beat someone as good as Hopkins??

 

Wait for it! Someone will actually say Benn and Watson!

 

what? why are you not answering my question Gained? answer my question.

 

You do realise that Hopkins didn't always 'throw/butt and hug' right?

 

No but seriously?

 

what didn't you get about what i said about why haglers victory over hearns being far superior to hopkins win over trinidad? :nut

1) hearns is far superior head to head at 160 than trinidad
2) trinidad had already been knocked down 7 times at 140
3) hearns natural size was far more suitable to putting on weight and going up through the divisions than trinidads
4) trinidad went on to show his unsuitablity for fighting at middleweight by getting his head boxed off v winky wright
5) after hagler, hearns went on to win a middleweight title, a title at 168 and a title at 175 showing his undoubted calibre for fighting at heavier weights.

 

look at all the Calzaghe fans posting in this thread.

I remember a Calzaghe fan at another forum going around telling posters what a brutal, murderous, and epic-uberly amazing battle Eubank vs. Calzaghe was, only to be mocked later by those who've watched it at his recommendation.

 

AKA It suits me to hold Hagler's win over Hearns in high regards because I'm a biased ***** who doesn't like Bernard Hopkins. Grow up shagger!

 

hey I notice you throwing around that Alsation IQ on every Hopkins thread. You realize Alsation dogs are some of the smartest dogs? fuking dumbass

 

i've just listed the reasons why it is a superior victory.

in return you offer nothing again :deal

your level of debate in this thread has been appalling atsch

 

Your level of contradiction had been superb:good

Now

**** off

 

Big problems? no. Hopkins was far more skilled and if calzaghe could beat Eubank(albeit a faded and shot Eubank) Hopkins would have been victorious.