Pick em' then debate. Golovkin vs Hopkins at their best

I don't have all day to wait around while Dino takes his morning enema and decides whether he's wearing the hairy or the stringy bathrobe today. Gonna go do something useful.

That's right, DildoHelmet, that's your signal to crawl out from under the floorboards and to infest BF24 yet again.

 

So would it affect your assessment if those wins/opponents decline instead of maturing?

 

My game? This is more a case of you continually flipping a coin and it consistently coming up 'tails'. It's not my fault you keep presenting evidence, which is not on point.

What on Earth does any of that mean? What are you ‘WOWed’ by? The fact you’ve written the most utterly incoherent sentence in this thread, so far?

That’s both patent fiction and doublespeak.

I did not and do not agree with you, at all.

In response to me stating that I think Hopkins was better at just about everything Jacobs does and that Golovkin was pushed close by Jacobs, who himself has little of note on his record, you wrote:

This content is protected

For some reason, you’ve implied the version of Hopkins that met Mercado the first time, was at his best, despite that performance showing him clearly not being so. Therefore, your efforts here do not negate my point made about Hopkins being better than Jacobs.

- I also do not believe Hopkins was “embarrassed”. (your word for it)
- I also do not believe it was a “gift draw”. (your words for it)
- I also think Hopkins probably won the bout.
- I also think the bout is not a benchmark, against which a worthwhile comparison can be made with "GGG's close call vs. a much better Jacobs".


With regard to my Hagler/Hopkins comment, from seven years ago, a poster, going by the handle ‘Jersey Joe’ wrote the following, in respect to that fantasy match-up:

This content is protected

I responded to that specific point with the following:

This content is protected

I still agree with this statement. I think Hagler is greater than Hopkins, but much, much greater than Golovkin. And so, I do not find it "inconceivable" that Hagler could have dropped Hopkins and maybe even stopped him.

Nonetheless, let's see just to what extent this much quoted [mainly by yourself] statement of mine

This content is protected

actually agrees with your own statement above

This content is protected

, along with other terms you have used to describe this long ago statement and its overall relevance to this thread.

Can you please tell me what part of this quoted statement of mine is, a) relevant to Hopkins being at his best; b) claiming that Hopkins looked "suspect"; c) contradicting my point about Hopkins, at his best, being better than Jacobs; d) anything to do with Golovkin, whatsoever; e) in any way similar to your perspective on the first Hopkins/Mercado bout?

Don’t worry. I’m going to give you the answers now, because you appear to have difficulties with English comprehension…

…Answer to part a) No part of the quoted statement refers to Hopkins being at his best
…Answer to part b) No part of the quoted statement refers to Hopkins looking "suspect" against Mercado
…Answer to part c) No part of the quoted statement contradicts my point about Hopkins being better than Jacobs
…Answer to part d) No part of the quoted statement refers to anything about Golovkin
…Answer to part e) at some point, Mercado knocked Hopkins down (ding-a-ling-a-ling!!)


There you have it... ...The seven years old tenuous link that you spent time searching for in my content and have continued to refer to, as if it weakened my position. However - other than the fact (not opinion and, thus, not a matter of agreement) that Mercado floored Hopkins in that bout, I couldn’t disagree with you more, could I?

My position stands - now move on.

- Do you really think losing to Jones Jr is a major blot on Hopkins' Middleweight record?
- Moreover, do you think Golovkin beats a prime Jones Jr?
- Do you really think Hopkins finally losing his Middleweight Championship at 40 years old was a Hopkins at his best?
- Do you really think Hopkins losing an SD to Calzaghe, at 175, when he was 43 years old was a Hopkins at his best?

Let’s be clear - I am not trying to convince you of anything - that would be pointless. Your position (agenda) is set and you’ve made obvious the fact that you’ll post anything to support it (even if it doesn’t).

As I said, in my first reply to you, I have no issue with posters, who view Golovkin as some kind of elite. I just disagree with that view.

However, I do take issue with people putting words into my posts that I never wrote, by way of assuming inferences on my behalf; not staying on point; quoting me out of context and the sheer ignorance of them maintaining they were right to do so; accusing me of not acknowledging evidence put forward when I have addressed any salient points made; all capped with a good dose of both condescension and fake indignation, just for good measure - and, all of which you have demonstrated, from the moment you replied to my initial post; a post, which was actually quite favorable to Golovkin, all things considered.

Sad - But, never mind.

 

Fair point.