THE ROY is the only person to REALLY BEAT HOPKINS THREAD!!!!!!

Roy beat him more decisively than than JC or JT, and no matter what anyone thinks, I beleive he beat a better version than either man as well,

 

its fun to play pretend

 

It's good that they let you use the computer in special school. Well done.

 

Ibelieve you're wron on both counts.

Calzaghe beat him by 9-3 on my card.
Roy beat him 8-4.


Whilst Bernard was physically better against Roy, I believe a good case can be made that the Bernard of 2007 was overall a better boxer.




All that said, prime Roy was better than either of Bernard or Joe and would have beaten both.

 

9-3 is an utterly ridiculous scorecard for Hopkins-Calzaghe, credibility=zero.

I doubt Enzo Calzaghe, Tom Jones, the Welsh Assembly or his own children had it that wide. Laughable.

:-(

 

Hopkins himself said Jones is the only one who really beat him.

 

I had it 8-4 Calzaghe so a 2 point gap with hopkins knockdown. Having is as 9-3 isnt totally out of question as is to say Hopkins got a draw.

 

Calzaghe definately didn't beat Hopkins. Taylor did.

 

Didn't Hopkins also lose his pro debut? I never saw it.

Roy did deserve the decision win.

Taylor, Taylor, and Calazahge did not deserve their "victories".

 

I had Jones winning 117-111, Calzaghe 114-113, and he split the 2 fights with Taylor, with the one he lost being the closer of the two. I think an argument can be made that he beat Taylor both times and that he beat Calzaghe, but I tend to think that both just edged him due to activty in those 2 fights.

Also, I've never seen the pro debut loss, but that guy may have beaten Hopkins deservedly as well.

 

Your card doesn't count, JC was not that dominant plus RJJ didn't get put on his ass by a 43 yr old either, Bhops can still defend himself but he is way past it he was a much better fighter in the 90s, he didn't just decision opponents he used to bust them up, like he did Joppy. Thats the Bhops I remember.

 

If you count headbuts and clinching, yes you can make an argument for Bernard. I agree that Bernard just didn't do enough to merit victory in the three losses discussed. He ran and occasionally countered, but most of the time, he looked like the fighter avoiding the fight!!

 

The version of Hopkins that fought Jones wouldnt have beaten the calzaghe that beat hopkins if that makes any sense.

 

No, but chuck giampa had it 9-3 116-111. Maybe its not as laughable as you thought