Why do people not acknowledge that Hopkins/Pascal 2 was a close fight?

Thats the thing, if KDs arent called. In Hopkins/Jones 2, Jones landed what looked like a legal shot, Hopkins made out it was behind his head. If the ref hadnt of taken what Hopkins said it would have been a KO win for Jones

 

Yup, both were clear KDs. And i know for a fact that had Hopkins gotten the short end of the decision and the difference was the KDs, he would've complained to no end about the missed KDs like we've never seen before. But only because he got the decision did he let that slide.

 

I see it the same way you do, it was close on paper or points but not on performance.

I stopped bothering to keep track of points after I saw that Bernard was killing in the rounds he won. It was a wrap from there.

 

It was clearly a second schooling by Hopkins. He dominated Pascal so badly, I don't know if they were slips or knockdowns but they both occurred due to Hopkins punches.

Plus, Hopkins Killed Pascal on the Ring entrance and song selection. Hell, in that area he put all these newbies, including the Klits to shame.

Wasn't Hopkins the underdog in this fight, again, when anyone real boxing fan should know he should have been the favorite?

 

This message is hidden because The_President is on your ignore list.


ahhhh feels good

 

Close, but it was obvious who was in COMPLETE control of that fight. A 45+ year old man has to take a few rounds off.

I thought Pascal had a better case the first fight, but again Hopkins was enforcing his will as the fight went on. I see the second fight as a continuation of the first.

 

Hopkins was a clear winner in the rematch, I don't recall my scorecard but there's no controversy there, Hopkins beat Pascal. I also thought Hopkins won the first fight but that was a closer fight and I'm not upset by it being a draw since it was a close fight. I thought Pascal would win the first one based on Hopkin's performance in the Jones rematch but after their first fight you knew Hopkins would win the rematch. The guy is amazing for what he's doing at his age.

 

Because too many people consider close fights robberies. Hopkins definitely schooled Pascal, but he lost his share of rounds along the way.

 

Agreed. Hopkins started slow in the first fight and suffered those knockdowns and fell behind earlybut he eventually took control and showed he is simply a higher class of fighter, even at 46. There was no way, barring more knock downs(unlikely) he'd lose the rematch.

 

I honestly didn't know who was going to be the winner when the decision was being made. I saw it as a draw cuz neither looked like the defnite winner.

 

I think I had Pascal winning the first four, and then maybe one round after that. Close on the cards, but clear in the rounds.

 

The rematch was close, but clear in favor of Hopkins. He dominated the rounds he won, and more importantly, dominated enough of them to earn a controversy free decision.

That being said, Pascal did have his moments, and rocked X on a couple of occasions. He performed reasonably well in defeat, and kept trying to turn things around right up until the end. So, it was hardly a case of him being "exposed", per se...Because fighters who were more highly regarded than he was going into these fights fared a lot more poorly than he did against Hopkins.

 

Hopkins got robbed of a couple knock downs and for the most part landed the right hand at will. There was no controversy about Pascal losing that fight in my eyes. He did hurt Bernard a couple times but he never knocked him down like he did in the first fight. B-HOP won a clear UD IMO.

 

basically. everyone knows it was a close fight. the difference is, it wasn't controversial. close but clear. bailey's just being a ***** like usual. and i'm sure pascal would've scorched the coke boy

 

I now it's not very popular around here but I scored the first fight clearly for Pascal and I scored the Maidana-Morales fight clearly for Maidana. The second Pascal Hopkings fight looked clear for Hop for me.