Hopkin never lost!!

Hopkins has said on many occasions that Roy beat him. He has never had a problem accepting that loss, or the one that happened in his first fight. Many people, not just Hopkins, dispute the two Taylor losses as well as the Calzaghe loss.

 

hes dumber than i thought than and im a hops fans

i think pavlik beats him easily as well

 

As much of a big fan of Hops as I am I too think he lost the 2 taylor and JC fights but they were pretty close and hes a stubborn man lol

 

Hopkins did not lose either Taylor fight...

 

he had every right to feel slightly hard done by he was reigning middleweight champion for ten years and he didnt get the benefit of the doubt he was basically shafted off his crown and then in the calzaghe fights i think he was more annoyed the judges went for calzaghes quantity (which was very sloppy)

 

I think he lost to all four of those fighters. But Taylor and Calzaghe fights could have gone any way

 

All his lost have been tought close fight but yea he had lost, a few of them could had been either way. They guy is dificult to beat, and dam they guy is old as hell.

 

Hopkins clearly lost against Roy,and Calzaghe clearly beat him too, the old Man didn't do **** against JC in the last 4-5 rounds of that fight, you can't win if you don't throw punches:-( the Taylor fight's were debateable could have gone either way, but Pavlik will be just to strong, to powerful and will clearly give the old man a beatdown, why the **** is he still fighting at almost 44, he's got nothing else to prove:-( ..

 

hopkins clearly has lost... his style (clinching and grabbing as of recently) is what makes rounds hard to score... but roy jones, calzaghe, and taylor all deserve credit for their victories...

 

Hopkins is an actuall crackhead and so are you, you cant win one fight without actually boxing. Hopkins lost thre times coz him never boxed just hugged n holded and through 5 straight punches, its behavious never wins any fight in this life or the next, Trying to make your oponant look bad for all fight plus 5 straight counters doesn not whm you a fight even if your a chinese boxer at the olympics olympics br men and not emo kids, you were all wrong.

For bums like you its hard to take, but thats what being a fud s all about; dellusional belief your right when theres no evidence to support yor claims.

Youguys are weak and backward to consumed by hate to be rational.

 

F'raid so.

He lost both.


Both were close.

I scored both to Jermain (as did five of the six judges.)


I certainly would not have argued two draws or two close Bernard victories.


In short, both figh scores fell in the 115-113 range, for either guy.


Certainly not robberies.

 

Exactly what I was going to type...

 

As far as I know, Hopkins lost his professional debut and agreed to have lost fairly against Jones... Then, he defends his case in close decisions to Taylor ( SD Taylor - 116-112 Hops, 115-113 twice Taylor; UD Taylor - 115-113 three judges) and to Calzaghe ( SD Calzaghe: 114-113 Hops, 116-111 Calzaghe, 116-112 Calzaghe) and there is a thread suggesting that Hopkins doesn't believe that he have ever lost? I'm sorry but that's clear manipulation... Hopkins knows he unified the MW title and defended it 20 times in a 10 years and 8 months period and, therefore, ranks himself up there with the Haglers and Monzons ( the living and non-living legends), that's just about it!

 

As a certified Nard fan I can say that outside of the Jones fight and his debut the other listed 'loses' could have gone either way.

The first Taylor fight should have NEVER NEVER gone to Taylor. The judge (Dwayne Ford) that gave Taylor that 12th round was some bullschit.

The second Taylor fight was so uninspiring neither one should have been granted the fight.

The Calazaghe fight sadly I tilt towards Joe on this but not because he "BEAT" Bernard but he did MORE than enough to get the decision. One thing I love about Nard is that he makes fighters look BAD including Joe Calazaghe. Joe's workrate was no where near what it usually was and mind you this was against a 43 year old.

All that says though is that Hop's truly needs to retire. To be able to say you've NEVER NEVER been cut in nearly 50 fights is something I can think only one other boxer can say.

His defense in his old age will forever keep him from getting KTFO. The problem is that his offense is minimal and while he's very accurate in his shots, he doesn't seem to have ENOUGH bullets. To me 'Nard is more of a sniper now.