Hopkins is / was a strategical genius

A genius may lose when matched up with another genius who was better prepared and external things went his way.

 

so Dawson is a genius? Come on.

 

Bernard Hopkins is probably one of the only boxers in the sport to have sued, and mostly won against all of the major promoters running the sport.
Over the span of his career Hopkins has sued Goosen, Don King, Bob arum, Lou DiBella, and Butch Lewis to name a few.
Hopkins has said that these law suits were neccessary to defend himself in a corrupt industry that treats fighters like whores.
No doubt that manny Pacquiao would be wise to study and imitate Bernard Hopkins in his professional and personal life.

Don King commented on Hopkins.
"Bernard has got a penitentiary mentality," King said earlier this year. "He thinks that everybody is out to get him, so he gets everybody else first, no matter what you do to help him."

Goosen refused to comment on Hopkins, afraid of initiating a deflamation counter from Hopkins.

True to his opening theme in his historic second fight with Pascal, I Did It My Way, Bernard Hopkins has always seen himself as an outsider of the boxing industry.

Hopkins always has a plan, of course:
Written into the fight contract with Tarver is a bet that, if Tarver does not knock out Hopkins within five rounds, Tarver will pay $250,000 and become the most generous outside benefactor of Hopkins' "Make A Wish" foundation which Hopkins started in honor of his late mother.

 

I said a genius may lose to another genius, I did not say a genius may only lose to another genius. You need to pay attention.

 

well he didn't lose to a genius, so how he is a genius? He isn't.

 

Before I continue to proceed in this conversation, I require you to complete and hand in the following homework:-

1. Which fighter in history would you consider to be strategical genius, or which fighters do you believe come close?

Since you said Bernard is good strategically in the following excerpt:-

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showpost.php?p=16132294&postcount=38

2. What makes Bernard Hopkins good strategically?

Once you complete the above homework you can then continue to further learn from me on various topics.

 

what name do I have here? Who do I think comes close? Yes he is good, but not great. He lost to Calzaghe and Taylor and Dawson and to Jones in his prime. Genius no, he is very good and handpicks like a genius. I think his genius is knowing who to pick and when to fight them and prevent being knocked out so he can prolong his career and keep his name out there.

 

Hopkins will be fighting in Washington, D.C. with his judges, referee, boxing commission, etc. We all know what happened with Khan/Peterson...............biased judges, just like Hopkins wants it............

 

atsch Yeah, I think we got it the first 10 times you cut and pasted this same opinion Dr. Dementia. :deal

 

Calzaghe was able to land his left more than Hopkins could land his right, but Calzaghes footwork also gave Hopkins problems.
This fight wasnt won by Calzaghe on workrate, but on ability. Notice Hopkins didnt fade in any of his LHW fights before or after.
Calzaghe had Hopkins looking for time out and looked to be trying to get points deducted. That said it all

 

Well then, Taylor must be ashamed that "almost lost" to a 40 something twice and so must Pascal, and Tarver and Wright and Pavlik and Cloud and Murat must be deeply ashamed that they lost to him

 

Good point, well made :good

 

Hes greater than that fellow from Wales though

 

He did try some of that play acting against Jones in their rematch.

 

:rofl