Hopkins or GGG

BOXING PUREST how long u listened to racist Kellerman all U know is what the TV tells you u and all your whimp friends take up hop scoth ,

 

We'll do that the very instant you learn to spell.

 

Apologies, I have family over for the weekend and drank a lot of wine yesterday. Sub in Calzaghe okay?

The best three middles to super middles Hopkins fought all beat him. Jones, Calzaghe, and Taylor. Yeah, Hopkins beat Jones coming off a TKO loss in 2010, but in the end, he's 0-4 vs. the best he fought at these weights.

Jones was unranked by ring magazine at the time of the re-match, and this was a light heavyweight match. Mix in a draw where he was floored vs Mercado, and Hopkins was mostly great vs smaller men moving up, or average top ten competition for his time.

I do think his competition overall was slightly better than Golovkin's, however, Golovkin looked much better vs the same type of average top ten competition in his time.

 

Welcome to boxing. Which fights was Hopkins robbed in?

 

Are you saying Canelo didn't improve a lot since Mayweather, didn't use PED's and didn't get a gift decision vs GGG?

I'm saying a reason Hopkins stopped Tito in the final round was partly due to dirty fighting, sneaking in kidney shots when the ref was on the other side of the ring and such. And I'm not wrong about him being dirty in this fight. Hopkins was a dirty fighter, it's who he was. He was also an actor faking injuries in my opinion.

 

I admitted the mistake, you can read it. Your infatuation for Philly guys and ability to score a fight to me is a source of comic relief and known here, but I think you're a decent poster overall and I mean that.

If you like the racist's ex-convict who fought dirty, faked low blows, and when out head over heels, in denial that he was counted out by a guy nobody will remember, that's your business.

Let me guess you must think Hopkins beat Calzaghe too? If you want a separate thread on this, you won't come out looking good as the data and facts agree with me.

 

Close is about as good as you can claim, and no, Hopkins lost these fights. Score them again. Not even Philly thinks Hopkins won all of these fights, or does he?

 

I think he improved, but the Floyd back then would still beat him. Maybe he used PEDs against GGG but if he did he had likely done so for most of his career, against Floyd as well. No, I don't think the draw was a gift.

And I believe that the Hopkins that beat Tito but would beat Canelo clearly. About as clearly as Floyd did, actually.

Actually, thinking about it I think he'd do better than GGG against his opposition, since I also think that a 35 year old Hopkins would beat Jacobs more clearly than GGG did. So at second thought I think the difference in quality between Hopkins and GGG is somewhat larger than I stated earlier.

Hopkins was a dirty fighter, but he beat Tito because he was vastly superior, not because of cheating. If you believe anything else you're absolutely blinded by bias.

 

75% of the people watching felt GGG won. About 10% say a draw. It was a robbery.

Tito was overrated at 160 pounds. Middleweight was not his best division. He was mostly one dimensional, Hopkins took away his hook and that was that. Hopkins also landed some mean fouls, which took something out of Tito.

A defensive minded counter puncher seldom beats a swarming attacker who hits harder, throws more punches and also had an all-time jab in his arsenal. GGG beat Hopkins. There's the ring logic.

Like I said before Mayweather would never fight GGG at 160, he knew better. GGG did not make his name on older fighters, or guys with a name moving up from welterweight.

 

The majority thought that Ali deserved the win for Norton III, so that can't have been a robbery by that same logic. Remember that the next time the subject resurfaces.

Tito had earned his showdown with Hopkins and was beaten like he was never beaten before or after. He was clearly better than anyone GGG has met besides Jacobs and Canelo. He'd smash Geale and Lemieux with ease. Trying to make it into that Hopkins dominated him only because of fouls is just silly. You won't be taken seriously by anyone with crazy arguments like that.

Like Chavez beat Pea?

But I have no problem with you thinking GGG beats Hopkins. I can see that. My problem is with you being just all over the place in trying to discredit what Hopkins achieved, when you know full well it trumped what GGG has so far achieved.

No, he made his name on Geale, Lemieux, Rubio etc. That's the whole problem with his legacy.

If he had beaten Martinez and Williams instead, his resume would be stronger today. Despite them having moved up.

 

I don’t like to score fights for philly guys and seldom get in arguments about decisions rendered in their fights. The lone exception being I will argue that Everett beat Escalera and is one of the few times I use the word robbery. The word robbery diminishes in impact the mire you use it and it seems you use it more than I do.

But onto the Hopkins fights...no I don’t think he won them all, but like other fights that people call robbery or gift, I do think they are close debatable decisions. Funny that with my philly bias I can’t think of a single time in the past 5 years of claiming they were robbed outside of Everett Escalera.

Hopkins vs Taylor I & II I actually have not watched either since the official fight. I think you can argue that he won or lost both? I believe (don’t have my card?) I scored a draw in 1 and a Hops win in 2. Could have them backwards though I am not sure. Either way while they were close and you can argue Hops won you can also argue (ala Hagler Leonard) that Hopkins just wasn’t busy enough to be outraged (disappointed perhaps) over the decision.

Hopkins Calzaghe I scored for Hopkins on fight night, but reviewed in FOTW threads and scored a draw. There were not a lot of cards turned in (you didn’t? I seldom see you have a scorecard, and you seem to rely on media, commentary, fan consensus and punch stats to determine who won?) but there was 1 Calzaghe card and 3 draw cards

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...he-double-reid-and-hopkins-bonus-lacy.625070/

Feel free to turn in your card there, and I would seriously be much more interested in your own card than whatever facts or data you think you have. Despite some back and forth jokes I respect your opinion more than your research for whatever that is worth.

Not sure I ever scored the Pascal fight, so I will refrain from input from a cloudy memory on that one.

I don’t think it would be realistic for Hopkins to be 3-0 or 0-3 in the above fights, I do think they were all close and not necessarily fun to rewatch and I likely do not plan on it.

As far as your disparaging remarks about Hopkins have at it bro. I love boxing and respect most fighters. While some fan bases rub me wrong I don’t think I have a fighter I love or hate in the last 20 years since I have gotten older. I don’t care what these guys political or racial views are, doesn’t mean squat to me personally. I don’t care if people think a fighter was dirty lol (whatever that means) and love watching Pedroza, Hatton, Fullmer, Ward, Hopkins, Holyfield, saddler, Duran, Tyson etc. lots of guys get called dirty....I am fine with that too. Boxing is a tough sport, protect yourself at all times bro.

I like GGG I like Canelo (except the PED issue) I like Floyd I like Pac....but I can’t stand most of their biased fans. I don’t have favorites though....not since I was a kid/teen young man.

 

I know you like stats but without understanding the control factors of a particular stat render it quite useless.

For example you say 75% feel GGG won? You may be correct. Of that 75% how many were picking/cheering for GGG prior to the fight (yourself included). Of that 75% how many were DLH Canelo haters? I don’t have a stat but using this forum as a guide nearly all of them fall into that category. So you mean biased people saw what they wanted to see.

They also agreed with a biased commentary team. Shocker!

They also agreed with a biased media both prior and following the fight.

Personally I think they were both great fights and enjoy them much mire than I do the discussions here about them.

Stats and data can be skewed and slanted to support whatever you want it to in many cases.

 

Does anyone know why it took GGG so long to fight anyone worth a damn? Were the bigger names just not interested in facing him?

Because he turned pro when guys like Taylor, Pavlik, Wright, Sturm and then Williams and Martinez were still around, but GGG didn't have his first fight for a major tittle until 2013, seven years after turning pro, when these guys already had left the division or were fading out. With an amateur pedigree like his, he should have been ready to step up years earlier and we could actually have seen him fight some of these guys. Anyone know why this didn't happen?