hopkins v pacman

Hopkins.

It's very close and Pacman does look more impressive in his last for but I think Hopkins beat guys who were closer to being at there best. Both guys had two catchweight fights that were to there advantage.

 

performace? pac by a mile. he didn't even struggled against diaz, oscar and hatton. he was in a trench war with cotto in the beggining but soon figure him out and was a one-sided beatdown.

hopkins won over winky but was a predictably boring fight. calzaghe fight, he fought quite well but was low on punch output that cost him the fight. pavlik was a great performance but seeing pavlik now, he could be somewhat overrated after his wins with taylor, still a very good win.

 

Pacquiao & its not even close, he dominated his last 4.... Hopkins lost to Calzaghe & edged past a blown up Winky at 170 lbs.

You should have did a public poll, would have been interesting to see who voted for who... Im tired of saying this ****in **** every time I come on this forum, all you have to do is tick a simple box, ****in hell :twisted:

 

what does this have to do with the performance, you must mean resume? either way, pac still tops hopkins just because hopkins lost against calzaghe and if you look where both fighters are coming before the fight. pac was not suppose to fight let even beat these bigger guys. hopkins fought guys that are smaller than him, except tarver.

 

hopkins, but pacmans last fight was fkn impressive

 

Hopkins, I felt his performance vs calzaghie was superb.

 

Both are bums. Anglosaxon is P4P king.

 

so you must really mean resume and not performance?

if its resume, hopkins should edge it if he did not lose to joe. as it is it's pac. you can criticize hatton and cotto but they were the topdogs of their division when pac beat them. looking back tarver, winky, calzaghe and pavlik is an amazing resume in itself.

 

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, you come on, man...are you kidding me? Cotto had the prime beaten out of him? The 2 pounds affected his performance? Cotto himself said he was in great shape, and almost every poll on ESB asking if Cotto was damaged had about a 90% "no" rate. Now, in hindsight, people think he was damaged because of how thoroughly Pacquiao threshed him. Hatton ran right into punches...not Pacquiao's fault, and not a reflection of Hatton being past his prime...De La Hoya wanted the fight with Pac, agreed to the weight, and got his ass kicked. Once again, not Pac's fault. Say what you will about Diaz, but apparently he was good enough to win a belt.

The bottom line is, guys are always losing to guys they shouldn't be losing to, and this includes Hopkins. Mosley, Hopkins, Roy Jones, Victor Ortiz...all these guys, and many more have lost to people they had no business losing to. Any of Manny's last five opponents or so could have potentially beaten him, especially Miguel Cotto. But they didn't. Pac stepped up to the plate every single time. He doesn't let his fans down, as many, many other fighters do.

 

If you consider performances, it has to be Pacquiao, who has looked outstanding in his 4 most recent fights, even taking into account possible limitations of his opponents (weight, previous losses etc.). Hopkins looked great against Pavlik, but previously had lost to Calzaghe and only just beaten Wright. Over the 4 fights Pacquiao has been more consistently brilliant.