Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: getup Aug 20 2009, 09:19 PM

Did anyone just catch the Calvin Murphy radio show in Houston.......apparently Bernard and Roy were both on they went at each other.

Posted by: getup Aug 20 2009, 09:28 PM

-

Posted by: King Eugene Aug 20 2009, 09:31 PM

INTERESTING!!!

Posted by: ezdoseit Aug 20 2009, 09:36 PM

roy by ud b hop dnt want it with roy. he been duckin roy for years now if roy is so over the hill winner takes all sounds great right b hop or should i say holdin azz hopkins

Posted by: Fitz Aug 20 2009, 09:47 PM

Why did you edit all your posts?

Posted by: getup Aug 20 2009, 10:15 PM

Sorry guys, couldn't view my posts...something weird.

Posted by: Nay_Sayer Aug 20 2009, 10:21 PM

Link to a clip of the show?

Posted by: Fitz Aug 20 2009, 11:36 PM

Strange. I could view it perfectly fine.

Posted by: EirbinX Aug 21 2009, 02:00 AM

B hop By UD 118 - 110

Posted by: EirbinX Aug 21 2009, 02:56 AM

i found a link


http://www.975theticket.com/TicketOnline/Podcasts/CalvinMurphyPodcasts2/tabid/807/ItemId/1078/Default.aspx

Posted by: King Eugene Aug 21 2009, 03:28 AM

He also speaks on Paul Williams as well.

Posted by: Spyder Aug 21 2009, 05:27 AM

That was one of the BEST radio segments I've ever heard!

Posted by: the ollie reed fan club Aug 21 2009, 06:22 AM

I'm no fan of Roid but I love the way Hopkins wants no part of that 60/40 deal. Bernard's being skirting that one for a couple of years. I think Roid is still pretty much done (regardless of the Lacy fight) but for some reason I still like him against Hopkins in a boring fight.

Roy's legs are gone but does Hopkins have the output to exploit that? I'm not so sure.

Posted by: The Original MrFactor Aug 21 2009, 06:54 AM

Roy's reverse psychology is soooo obvious. This was great stuff...

Posted by: The Original MrFactor Aug 21 2009, 07:00 AM

60 to the winner, 40 to the loser!! funny stuff...

Posted by: Method Aug 21 2009, 09:20 AM

Hopkins is NEVER gonna give Roy anything more than 40%. All those years of shitty offers from Roy ($3M dollar offer of a $15M pot AFTER Hopkins beat Trinidad? Are you SERIOUS?), and the bottom line is Hopkins DOES NOT NEED Roy Jones. Roy can keep fighting for peanuts in corn fields, amusement parks and shitty homemade PPV cards. Roy's gonna take the 40% or he ain't getting the fight.

Posted by: ezdoseit Aug 21 2009, 09:53 AM

ok if thats the case 60-40 to the winner should be fine for holdin azz hopkins. anyway he will never take the fight as we all see. remember in the first fight b hop aint win a round. i bet u he still remembers that azz whoppin lol

Posted by: StyleZ Aug 21 2009, 10:16 AM

60-40 to the winner is fair.

Posted by: hitman Aug 21 2009, 10:43 AM

hopkins don't want it with roy. despite all the talk, he never has.

Posted by: streetlion1 Aug 21 2009, 11:21 AM

LMFAO at people who say B-Hop dont want it with Roy or who even think old Roy has a chance at winning!! B-Hop would destroy Roy now!! He's been calling for a fight with Roy the past few years!

If people think the ass whoopin Roy took against Slappy was bad....B-Hop K.O.s Roy in the late rounds after toying with him and exposing just how done he really is. Dont let the Lacy fight fool you!!!

Bernard should whoop on someone with relevance not old Roy who is just clinging to the bottem rung and looking for another big payday.....dont give Roy a chance until he beats a REAL someone!

Posted by: getup Aug 21 2009, 11:23 AM

Hopkins didn't mention that the $3M was what he was "clearing" because of his deal with King, whom I believe stood to make 50% off the top of Hopkins side of the pot.

Posted by: Method Aug 21 2009, 11:30 AM

Nope. Never gonna happen. Nor should it. Nor has it ever, for that matter.

Posted by: Method Aug 21 2009, 11:32 AM

SO you're claiming Roy offered Hopkins a 50/50 split? No. Sorry. Everyone knows he wanted lions share of purse, and lion's share of rubber match, should he lose rematch. This is just common knowledge.

Posted by: getup Aug 21 2009, 11:45 AM

No it was a 60/40 split.....there was 14-15 mill in the pot, so Roy's side stood to make 8-9 while Hop's side stood to make around 6+, but King was taking a big bite....hence Hop's $3M clearance.

Posted by: The Original MrFactor Aug 21 2009, 11:46 AM

My biggest concern was all the hate Hopkins has for McNabb... He lost a little respect with me on that. Last time I checked, Philly aint won no Superbowls with ANY QB they had. The QB aint the problem in Philly. McNabb is a solid guy who can get them there, but he's always gonna need help like any other QB.

Then this crap about not looking at Hopkins. McNabb doesnt have to look at Hopkins in his face. I dont take that as fear or that he's less of a man. I think its because he's disgusted with him or just doesnt like Hopkins, probably because of all the vitriol. I like that Hopkins is a typical Philly sports fan. Philly is probably the most difficult town to play in. The fans there can be a little unrealistic in their demands at times.

Posted by: getup Aug 21 2009, 11:50 AM

Actually I remember reading that they were getting even closer (i.e. 55-45 type split), but irregardless Hopkins despised the contract he was tied to with King

Posted by: Method Aug 21 2009, 11:54 AM

...and of the rubber match demands.

Note Roy wasn't talkin no 60 to winner/40 to the loser shit back then. Only now that he's desperate...and STILL too proud.

Posted by: JLUVBABY Aug 21 2009, 12:11 PM

truth is splitting the pot 60-40 or whatever for the winner and loser is the way it should be... more insentive for the fighters to come in and give their all...

Posted by: getup Aug 21 2009, 02:15 PM

Not sure if we're on same page.......I'm talking post Trinidad when the $15M pot was gathered and there was no proposed rematch clause....or at least anything that either fighter complained about.

Around that time I remember Bernard had an interview on OTR in Canada and he went on about how he didn't want to split the money from the proposed Roy fight with Don King, and didn't want to waste any superfights while under Kings banner (Hakkar & Joppy followed). But even if King was out I think Hopkins was smart enough to stay away from Roy and wait for eventual easier/bigger money (Oscar).

Is Roy extremely proud? Absolutely, so given both egos the 60 winner proposition is great and they could really run with that in the promotion....but Hopkins doesn't want to roll (whether he fears losing to Roy, his ego, whatever).

It's just he sounded very uncomfortable last night (granted he didn't expect Roy to actually call in). On the hand he charged that Roy isn't relevant but then warmed up to getting it on with Roy (if it's 60/40 in his favor)? He went on about taking legacy fights and claimed that Adamek would do more for him.....but if Roy's agrees to the split, then Bernard would be interested? (hence Roy would then be relevant and do more for his legacy? Why the turnaround?)

Frankly, I don't think Roy would lose sleep if they don't fight and probably vice versa....but boy what electricity between the two. As Hopkins said "what are the ratings for this hour?!"

Posted by: Spyder Aug 21 2009, 04:01 PM

"When you said winner take all you ran him off the phone! He gone!!"

LMAO!!

Posted by: rusty_trombone Aug 21 2009, 04:08 PM

I seriously doubt this fight will ever happen, and don't really care if it does at this point. What does a fight between geriatrics prove? We all know that shit would be far from entertaining, just watch the first fight.

I have always thought, that in their primes, Roy would have always been too much for Hopkins. Bad style matchup for B-Hop, and we all know who has the more natural ability. Hopkins, with all his technical prowess, would have always been overmatched. It doesn't matter though, this fight will never happen.

Posted by: Method Aug 21 2009, 05:01 PM

They may both have big egos, but only ONE of them is justified at this point in their respective careers. If the size of one's ego predicated the purse split guys should rightfully be entitled to, then NO fights would get made. I could see Roy being REMOTELY entitled to a chance to fight for 60% if he had DONE ANYTHING in the past 5 years, but the REALITY it that he hasn't.

Their first fight in '93 was a competitive affair. Any attempt to paint it as a one-handed ass-whuppin or anything close to an ass whupping either hasn't seen the fight or is just delusional. Roy's speed wasn't that big a factor then, and he has only gotten WORSE over the years, while Hopkins is still doing his thing.

Im just amazed that Hopkins can annihilate Glenn Johnson, beat the SHIT out of Tarver, Pavlik, and arguably BEAT Calzaghe, yet Roy gets beat from Pillar to post by all three guys, NOT EVEN REMOTELY COMPETITIVE, and people thinks he takes it to Bernard. Don't anybody try and feed me the "styles make fights" cliche. I know all about it, but Roy ain't even COMPETITIVE. I mean, styles make fights if you're talking a common opponent here and there, but to look at THREE recent (and although Hopkins fought Glenn long ago, Glenn is the SAME guy) opponents and the outcomes are NIGHT and DAY! Night and day. Oh, wait, but Big Roy is back in Little Roy's corner. Well, Little ROy wasn't singing that tune in the 3rd Tarver fight, when Roy BLAMED the loss on Big Roy. This is a joke.

Hopkins ain't gonna give Roy a platform to be in the public light. That's just the reality of it.

Posted by: The Conscience Aug 21 2009, 05:14 PM

I'm with you with Coffee and Tarver but I think that the cut had a lot to due with the outcome of the Calfaggy fight. Up until the cut he was doing better than Hop was in the fight with Joe.

Posted by: JD Aug 21 2009, 05:29 PM

Bernard is on HBO without Roy.

Roy is square ring PPV's netting 800 buys without Bernard.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 21 2009, 06:01 PM

No matter how you slice it real talk is 60 to the winner 40 to the loser. Roy has been to the mountain top Bernard hasn't and how dare Bernard compare himself to either Hagler or Robinson. During Hagler's reign Bernard wouldn't have been more than a contender and Robinson didnt' just come up from 160 he came up from 147. If you really wanna get fly Ray Leonard and Tommy Hearns won titles from 147-175. Roy won titles from 160 to Heavy. B-Hop is good but his 20 defenses are suspect as hell. His biggest wins were against guys who were soundly beaten at lower weights.

Posted by: The CEO Aug 21 2009, 06:20 PM

lol...I predict this thread will go at least 3 more pages...

Posted by: HaydelHammer Aug 21 2009, 06:23 PM

"NO..I keep tellin ya you lost him I don't know what you waitin on"

Posted by: ezdoseit Aug 21 2009, 06:32 PM

look i know roy aint the same fighter but come on who was the last fight b hop stoped i cant remember can u

Posted by: Method Aug 21 2009, 06:45 PM

"Real Talk" was NEVER 60 to the winner, 40 to the loser when Roy was relevant. Only now is he throwing it out there solely because he refuses to have to completely bow down. Fuck it. Roy is the president of his company and calls his own shots, yet calling his own shots has him fighting in cornfields and such. Ain't nothing worth bragging about there. Roy is garbage, so much so that no network will pick him up.

This is ALL about all those years Roy tried to make Ex suck hind tit. You heard Hopkins in the radio - "I don't care about the size of the pot, but you're taking the smaller percentage of it". It's not about the overall money. It's about the principle. Roy is IRRELEVANT at this point.



I know BHop kicked the living dogshit out of two gys that BRUTALLY stopped Roy, and went at LEAST neck in neck with another guy who just embarrassed the shit outta Roy.

Posted by: rusty_trombone Aug 21 2009, 06:59 PM

Problem is, all the fights were Roy got worked, I think he was far past his prime, I really don't think you can use those fights a measuring stick as how they would have performed against each other during their respective heydays. Now, I don't even bother to compare the 2, Hopkins has aged way better than Roy. I don't think Roy has been good since the Ruiz fight, and certainly no where near his prime.

The Jones-Hopkins fight that did happen, Hopkins lost. Sure, he didn't get his ass whooped, but I don't think the fight ever really needed to happen again. If they would have fought in 97 or 98, I still think Hopkins loses, in the same boring ass safety first way he lost the first time.

Posted by: Fitz Aug 21 2009, 06:59 PM

What a horrible post. Hopkins is an all time great and will go down as one of the all time middle greats and he would have been nothing more than just a contender in Hagler's era? I can't believe what little respect you are showing Hopkins.

Posted by: rusty_trombone Aug 21 2009, 07:01 PM

I agree with you, but Hopkins should have probably been a smarter business man about it. Roy definitely is irrelevant now, and Hopkins is damn close to being irrelevant. And not because he isn't winning, but because I'm just tired of seeing the man fight.

Posted by: rusty_trombone Aug 21 2009, 07:17 PM

I would pick Hagler, Hearns and Sugar Ray against Hopkins. Closest fight with Hearns. Not saying that Hopkins has no chance, and would be competitive, but I would expect to see him lose those fights.

Posted by: the ollie reed fan club Aug 21 2009, 07:17 PM

Yeah Roy may be fighting in cornfields but Nard can't take a dump without first running it past De la Fishnets.

Posted by: Mean Mister Mustard Aug 21 2009, 07:24 PM

Jones needs Hopkins and wants him bad. The reason is because Hopkins, who is riding big off his win over Pavlik, is relevant and Jones is not. He would rather face Hopkins because there's a reward and not too much risk. He knows Hopkins is not going to come out guns blazing like Johnson or Calzaghe and he has a better shot at beating Hopkins than he has against Dawson. A loss against the young gun would force him to restart his comeback all over again, if at all. A win over Hopkins though, would put him right back in the mix for sure. How do I know? Well just look at what happened after the 3rd Tarver fight. His performance was embarassing and all it took for him to get a title shot again was to beat one mediocre fighter, an undefeated fighter and a smaller Trinidad. Hell, even now after beating an inactive Sheika and a ruined Lacy he's being given consideration to fight Hopkins. Jones has that famous name and he knows all he needs is a couple of wins, doesn't matter against who and he will have that title shot within reach.

Posted by: torvix2000 Aug 21 2009, 07:29 PM

Roy will beat Hopkins again. And Hops knows that. Simple. So No mas.

Posted by: Method Aug 21 2009, 07:32 PM

For example?

I'd take Hopkins over all three - Hearns & SRL definitely, and Hopkins is just a more complete fighter than Hagler. Again, that's just the reality of it. Tommy Hearns has NOTHING on Hopkins, nor does SRL, esp those two at Middie. Hagler is a tougher fight, but again, Hopkins more complete, versatile.

That has nothing to do with nothing, though. This is about Roy being irrelevant.

Posted by: rusty_trombone Aug 21 2009, 07:35 PM

That is true, and I think a fight between the two of them would be pointless and a snoozer

Posted by: the ollie reed fan club Aug 21 2009, 07:50 PM

Irrelevant or not Roy and b-hops have some history together. I'd be very interested to see a poll on who hardcore fans think does the bigger numbers on PPV.

Hopkins v. Jones Jr
Hopkins v. Dawson
Hopkins v. Adamek

To my mind despite Roy being waaay past his prime Jones/Hopkins easily does more paper than the other 2.

Despite his appalling fall from grace in the last 5 years Roy would still be at least 50% of the attraction in the rematch. I'd like to see a winner/loser 60/40 split if only because it would be a bit different and might add some spice to the deal. Lets face it neither guy is exactly going to come out poor from that fight.

Posted by: StyleZ Aug 21 2009, 07:50 PM

I was in tears laughing at that shit! LOL

Posted by: StyleZ Aug 21 2009, 07:55 PM

Personally, I don't think many people give two fucks about either fighter. Both of them need to retire. The fight to make at light Heavy is Pascal-Dawson.

Posted by: the ollie reed fan club Aug 21 2009, 08:00 PM

This I think would be closer to the truth. Both guys should step aside.

Posted by: MarzB Aug 21 2009, 08:03 PM

You're kidding me right?? Does Hopkins lose to ANY middleweight in your eyes? Tommy and Marvin would outbox Hopkins period. Hopkins would try that one punch, hit and hold and butt bullschit against those guys and they'd merely step aside. I love Hopkins but Hopkins isn't seeing those guys. I'll tell you another name that Hopkins would have had HELL against and thats Mike McCallum (prime). But back to Hagler and Hearns, for Hopkins to win that fight he's got to let his hands go.

Hopkins will ONLY do that when he knows he has the speed advantage otherwise he'll revert to turning it into an ugly fight.

Back to the present. HOPKINS IS FULL OF SHIT HERE. From the highlights I read (haven't downloaded it yet). Yeah Meth you can criticize Roy all you want for fighting in Boise and all that but if Roy is so washed up why not have Hopkins easily take the 60 percent?? How ironic we're back to this "60 - 40" figure again,lol.

I find it totally hilarious how this number is being tossed around. Hopkins wouldn't take it when clearly Roy was the draw and now he's reversed it? The bottom line is this fight would indeed be a marketable fight but when Hopkins made this comment here (and I'm basing this off of what was posted on FightNews)

QUOTE

RJ: How about 60 to the winner and 40 to the loser
BH: Now you want to make a contest out of it. I don't need Roy Jones. It could wind up in the judges hands and you never know what will happen.

There is NO WAY to disguise this, HOPKINS HAS DOUBTS! Also, this statement here.

QUOTE

BH: Do you think I would make more money fighting Roy Jones than I would a young stud like Adamek or Dawson?

There's someone in here let alone Bernard Hopkins himself that believes this?? I love Bernard but this statement totally exceeds some of the bullschit he's said in the past (predicting on ESPN Friday Night Fights that "GAtti would beat Floyd", "Oscar won" with regard to the Mayweather fight decision). I'll pose the above to anyone, does anyone here ROY/ROID haters believe ADAMEK and/or DAWSON would be more marketable and lucrative than HOPKINS vs. JONES II???

QUOTE

RJ: Bernard doesn't want to fight me. Why would he want to fight me? He's having fun now at this point in his career. He doesn't want to take that gamble.

I TOTALLY AGREE!!!!! Why else would he mention "going to the judges"?? Talk about speaking in doubt. I've never heard anything LIKE that coming from 'Nards mouth.

Advantage Roy here. I'm gonna download it and listen to now..


PS: not sure what happened to the fonts here..

Posted by: Method Aug 21 2009, 08:04 PM

Hopkins should fight the winner of Dawson/JOhnson, or Ademek; Roy should continue he amusement park circuit he's on.

Posted by: JD Aug 21 2009, 08:07 PM

A win over Adamek makes Hopkins every bit as much money and is a more meaningful fight.

Posted by: MarzB Aug 21 2009, 08:08 PM

Hopkins is a greedy SOB and if Roy is washed up to me the logic is that it'll be another easy $3mill - 5 million he could take. Why not??

Posted by: MarzB Aug 21 2009, 08:15 PM

So let me proffer this. You're saying that HBO will actually pony up the money to produce a "COUNTDOWN" show for Tomas Adamek who save for Poles and boxing fans NO ONE knows over Roy Jones? Because after all, according to you all it's a more profitable fight right??

We all know the reason they do these shows is to sell the fight so one would definitely need to be produced..

You guys really believe Kerry Davis and Ross Greenberg will do that?

Lets say you do. You believe that fight would draw more casual fans or even boxing fans for that matter than a Jones vs Hopkins fight?

Lets keep in mind Hopkins vs. Pavlik did TERRIBLY from the PPV front and that was after Pavlik came off of two wins over Jermain Taylor.

Also because I know how things get here, I'm NOT anything resembling a Roy 'nutrider' or even a fan of sorts. But even I can see Roy would be the lucrative option. Good downloads are almost finished..

Heck these two guys press conferences would even be better.

Posted by: Method Aug 21 2009, 08:15 PM

Oh, it's Tommy and Sugar Ray, he MUST be kidding. Give me a fuckin break. My man, Tommy and SRL weren't middleweights. Get the fuck out of here w that bullshit. Prime Hopkins eats prime Hearns ALIVE at 160, same w SRL (you really think SRL is gonna steal the last 30 seconds of every round w shoe shine flurries like he did vs Hagler? Fuck off). Neither of them would "outbox" Hopkins (as you claim), because they couldn't. Of the three mentioned there, OBVIOUSLY Hagler is the toughest, but again, I BELIEVE (I do NOT KNOW) that Hopkins beats Hagler because he is a more complete fighter.

Dont throw this "does anybody beat him in your eyes?" shit. 2 of the 3 mentioned weren't even real middleweights, and Heanrs had the legs of a newborn fucking horse. There are guys that could get W's over Hopkins. Prime versus prime, Hopkins eats up Hearns & Leonard, and Hagler and he are a good match.

As for your interpretation of the "transcripts", all I can say is roll the tape. Hops didnt get run off the phone. He was in a fucking barbershop waiting on a barber. Most of the interview are these two knuckleheads talking all over one another, with nothing discernible. Once Roy refuses to take a flat 40%, Hops says "thank you" and then you can hear him talking to some people in the back ground, likely the fkn barber, and he rolls. Who the fuck is Roy that thinks he deserves anyone's time. ROY IS IRRELEVANT. ROY called into the show. ROY needs the fight. Hopkins ain't callin Roy and putting out bullshit press releases to try and beg for a fight. Roy needs the fight. Take the fucking 40%. That Roy is now putting out a press release is DESPERATION.

Posted by: JD Aug 21 2009, 08:19 PM

HBO doesn't do countdown shows now...it's either 24 X 7 or commercials. HBO and the promoters are NOT doing a 24 X 7 for either of these fights - plain and simple. As for some of your other assumptions...not sure where you got them from. I said Hopkins would make the same money and it is a more meaningful fight...that's it.

Duva and Schaeffar estimated the Adamek - Hopkins fight to be worth around $4.5 mill - $5 mill, $1 mill to Adamek would get it done. Let's say Hopkins and Roy agree to 50 / 50, that would mean HBO would have to pony up $7 - $8 mill for it to be the same money. It's not worth more than that...hell, is it even worth that much today?

Further a win over Roy at Light Heavy right now does nothing for Hopkins legacy, a win over Adamek at Cruiser nets him another championship at another weight against a bigger fighter in his prime, while Hopkins will be turning 45.

I may be in the minority, but I am FAR more interested in an Adamek - Hopkins fight.

Posted by: MarzB Aug 21 2009, 08:24 PM

I didn't say ANYTHING about Sugar Ray Leonard so I don't know why he was in your response. I noticed you conveniently avoided Hagler though in your evaluation.

That said, I'm not gonna get into the "WHAT IF SPORTS" as it relates to those greats. Hearns beat three LEGITIMATE recongized no debate first ballot NOT overhype Hall of famers UNLIKE Hopkins. NOt all at middleweight but definitely more than Hopkins.

Fuck the talking between these two. Make the damn fight.

60-40 winner sounds totally fair to me.

Posted by: Method Aug 21 2009, 08:33 PM

Ummm. No I didn't.

and you're gonna talk about Hearns wins at lower weights? Ex has beaten some 1st ballot HOF'ers too.

Like you said, this is just completely fucking retarded for us to be back and forth on this like it was circa 2000.

It's not. They're not. One guy is still relevant. One guy is trying to use the other guy to cling to relevancy.

I listened to the entire radio show today. For the most part it was a CLUSTER fuck of talking over each other, and Roy talks so goddamn fast you cant understand half of what he says.

I know when the announcers asked both guys if they would stay on, they both agreed (hell, what else has Roy got to do), but Hopkins did mention that he was at a barber shop waiting for the guy, and would stay on as long as he could.

As the 60/40 talk heated up and Hopkins asked roy point blank to take 40, you could hear people in the back ground talkin to hopkins (sounded like the barber, as you could hear Hops say some shit like "oh' they're ready?" - WHO KNOWS), then he came back they continued, Roy said he wouldn't take 40%, and Hopkins said "See? Good bye"...BY THE TIME they said winner take all and Hops had long hung up.

Look, Im not painting a biased picture. ITS ALL ON TAPE in the last segment. You can listen to it yourself. It's really not for dispute.

Posted by: JLUVBABY Aug 21 2009, 08:38 PM

method you really believe that?.. i dont see hopkins beating any of the 3... leonard would have given him a similiar beating that roy gave him only it would have been a poor mans version... roy at his best to me is better than ray leonard... hearns might very well have gotten hopkins out of there he was hitting that hard and hagler would be no contest... hagler would maul hopkins out of the ring... now thats not to take anything away from hopkins is for sure a all time great middle.. no doubt.. but to put him in the same sentence with a hagler or a monzon or a robinson or even a hearns or leonard is getting pretty far out there... great career but those guys beat a much more solid list of contenders than did hopkins... he deserves his props but hagler is probably the greatest middle ever.. it has to be out of him or monzon... they both destroy hopkins..

Posted by: JLUVBABY Aug 21 2009, 08:40 PM

something i've noticed when ever hopkins is in direct conversation with roy jones is how he eventually starts to stumble his words.. dont know if anyone else has ever noticed that but you can check it out it goes back to the early 2000's when the talk of a rematch first got pretty hot..

Posted by: Method Aug 21 2009, 08:44 PM

To have two welterweights above him is pretty far out there in my opinion, and I dont give a FUCK what anyone says, NOBODY is mauling a Prime Hopkins out of the ring. HAGLER, one of my all time favorites (and the guy who endeared me to middleweight) INCLUDED.

NO way SRL shoe-shines a middleweight Hopkins either. Hopkins a better pure boxer than Hagler, w better footwork AND defense. More complete. He aint gonna chase SRL around the ring aimlessly, and SRL sure as shit aint gonna shoe shine the last 30 seconds of 15 rounds to a victory. Look, there is a reason that Hagler was done in his early 30s and HOps is still kickin ass and taking names. And dont feed me the "oh, Marvin walked away", because he was fucking inactive BEFORE the SRL fight, and many had said he was slippin.

I love Marvin. I appreciate Hearns and Leonard as pioneers. But to live by this philosophy that "they're old school greats so its ludicrous that any current guys could compete with them" is absolute GARBAGE. Hopkins would have fucking RAPED Tommy Hearns.

Posted by: Col Reb Aug 21 2009, 08:45 PM

I'd like Roy to build back some interest before expecting BHOP to dance again. The best move for him is to acquire something that BHOP wants, the cruiserweight belt. If Roy can get a legitimate belt, then it gives BHOP more reason to fight. Another good move would be for Roy to fight Anderson Silva, simply for the PPV numbers. That UFC crowd would buy the fight, making Roy look like a more marketable fighter than he is. That would help at the negotiating table.

Posted by: JD Aug 21 2009, 08:48 PM

I just don't think there is enough time to do all of that. Hopkins is going to be 45 in January and Roy is going to be 41.

Posted by: StyleZ Aug 21 2009, 08:50 PM

I don't know about Hopkins raping Tommy Hearns. Hearns wasn't no Tito FUCKING Trinidad. Hopkins may have won but Tommy's long arms and explosive punching power would give Hopkins problems. Tommy wins IMO.

Posted by: ezdoseit Aug 21 2009, 08:56 PM

with that being said who was the last person he stopped roy will go down in history as the better fighter. for some reason b hop thinks he can demand money with roy last time i checked he lost all 12 rounds and styles make fights holdin azz hopkins cant beat roy no matter how shot he is

Posted by: JLUVBABY Aug 21 2009, 08:56 PM

hagler would beat hopkins like a stepchild... hopkins has never stepped in the ring with a fighter other than roy that was on the same level with those guys... if you wanna bring up hopkins short comings he wasnt having the easiest of times with hoya when they fought.. that fight was fairly close at the time of the stoppage... hopkins is good... great for our time... but he aint beating the top teir of the all timers..

Posted by: StyleZ Aug 21 2009, 09:00 PM

I don't think Hopkins beats Hagler or Hearns but NOBODY is beating Hopkins like a stepchild.

Posted by: JLUVBABY Aug 21 2009, 09:03 PM

stepchild d-marv... like an unwanted stepchild... had roy had two arms in their fight he would have done it... a two armed jones would have gave him a severe beating... and i was a fan of hopkins watching him come up in the ranks on b.e.t network... i was high on him when they made that fight and was shocked what a one armed fighter did him...

Posted by: MarzB Aug 21 2009, 09:20 PM

Meth, you're right about the quality of the interview. It's hard to listen to. I'm going back to watching football.

Anyways, what first ballot (legitmate) has Hopkins beaten?? Dela Hoya?? Trinidad?? Neither one of those guys (they'll get in I don't deny that) are hands down hall of famers unlike Leonard (Lets be real Tommy beat Ray the second time), Benitez & Duran. Now that I think of it it's actually four that Tommy beat in Pipino Curevas and Cuevas is definitely on par of DLH & Trinidad.

Your'e talking about Tommy beat them when he was welter and jr welter. Come on man, one of the biggest knocks on Hopkins was his biggest wins were over guys who were welterweights. What I like is I personally think his biggest win is Tarver but we all know what most people think of Tarver here,lol which I think is totally hypocritcal but thats beside the point.

I agree with Stylez I believe who said no one is mauling Hopkins that I agree with. Mind you, I've been following Hopkins since his fights were on BET but one thing I notice with him is when things get tough, he'll bring out that HIT and hold crap and thats not going to work against those guys. Hopkins ALWAYS had problems with guys with speed. Hagler and Hearns weren't speed demons but Hearns length and power along with Marvin Hagler's incredible timing would have been mind numbing for Hopkins. Hopkins is a great "boxer" (style wise) when he boxes. But too often he's reverts away from that.

The Winky Wright fight (which he barely won despite turning it into an unwatchable hug fest) showed me a lot.

I'll try to bear this interview now. (sighing)

Posted by: MarzB Aug 21 2009, 09:23 PM

Ah someone else that used to watch the fights on BET. Those ballroom fights were great. The technical quality and production was awful but it sure was funny to see good ol Butch Lewis with his tux with no shirt and bow tie,lol..

Posted by: JLUVBABY Aug 21 2009, 09:35 PM

yeah that was some good days... they showcased mostly butch's fighters... but i used to look forward to those fight cards...

Posted by: STEVENSKI Aug 21 2009, 09:59 PM

60/40 I kick you azz!!?



Exactly.

Woah I need a lie down actually as I am more used to deriding Roy than remaining neutral with him.



Maybe he is disgusted by Hopkins ugly arsed teets the ole snaggletooth?

Posted by: Method Aug 21 2009, 10:10 PM

Marz - you know a PRIME Hokins was NEVER "hit & hold". NEVER. He wasn't holding or fouling Trinidad. Wasn't holding or fouling Johnson. Wasn't hitting or holding Lipsey, Vanderpool, Eastman, Echols.

If Hops biggest wins were against smaller guys, then SO WERE Hagler's. Period.

I happen to think Hopkins wins over Echols, Johnson, Tarver and Pavlik were bigger than the wins over DLH, Trinidad. I thought his performance vs DLH, out boxing the fast, slick boxer was impressive, though. He abused Trinidad. I thought he BEAT Calzaghe, Taylor. But what the fuck ever.

I really dont think Tommy Hearns has any business being mentioned in the same middleweight picture as Hopkins, Hagler. I agree with you that he beat Leonard the second time, but I mean, was it at all that relevant at that point? It would be like Hopkins beating Roy now.

Posted by: STEVENSKI Aug 21 2009, 10:12 PM

I agree. Hopkins is vastly more skilled than Roy & it has has shown especially in the last 5 years.

Posted by: StyleZ Aug 21 2009, 10:13 PM

I think it's kinda silly for Hopkins not to take the 60-40 winner deal. But if he's REALLY talking about fighting Adamek or Dawson then fuck it.

That bitch ass offer that they made Adamek the first time is not really "pursuing" IMO.

Posted by: STEVENSKI Aug 21 2009, 10:17 PM

I would take Hagler over Hopkins as I think he is a better fighter personally. Prime Hopkins destroys Hearns & breaks Leonard down & out. People seem to forget how aggressive the prime Hopkins was he was not called the executioner for his guile but because he took cunts out.

Posted by: Method Aug 21 2009, 10:22 PM

He would have fucking ruined Hearns, beaten Leonard too. People can argue between he and Hagler all they want. Not really a debate I care to draw a line in the sand on, although I think people just throw out "Hagler was better" or "Hagler woulda chased him outta the ring" with ZERO substance behind it. Bottom line is Hopkins was physically bigger than Hagler, was just as iron chinned. Better defense. Better footwork. just a flat out more complete fighter. IN MY OPINION. Taking NOTHING away from Hags, who, again, is one of my ATF's. These guys were both beasts in their prime at 160.

Posted by: STEVENSKI Aug 21 2009, 10:23 PM

I love Tommy & he is one of my all time favourites but he was chinny as fuck & against a prime Hopkins he gets a ass kicking.

Posted by: StyleZ Aug 21 2009, 10:25 PM

Posted by: JLUVBABY Aug 21 2009, 10:43 PM

wow... ruined the hitman.. you really like hopkins... i feel that.. hopkins is/was good but I just dont see him winning... but you are due your opinion...lol... i will say i would rate hopkins over them p4p in the middleweights only because they didint achieve what hopkins did at that weight, but not p4p overall.. but they both proved that they too could move up to higher weights and win championships... it is my opinion that hopkins doesnt make it the full fight with hearns.. hopkins only chance would be to get to that chin of hearns... and i guess i see it like this here.. if jermain taylor can beat hopkins and winky wright can have a very close fight with him and for that matter that first fight with robert allen was close to life and death then hopkins loses to both ray and hearns... question is which hopkins do you make your points with?... cuzz personally i think hopkins was a much more dangerous fighter back around 99 and 2000 and before... after that you will notice on his record that his style started to change to prolong his career... he became a smarter fighter and a much less dangeroous fighter to gain a ko as his style changed but he was as dangerous in other areas of his game such as guile and ring generalship... dont get me wrong i like hopkins and i had the opp to watch him come up from a young fighter and watch his career... i had the opp to watch most of leonards and hearns career as well live on television.. and its my opinion that hopkins dont beat those guys but hey i respect your opinion...lol... dont forget mercado had him down twice in the first fight that resulted in a draw...

on another note as im thinking about mystical matchups what do you guys think about a fight matching bernard hopkins vs. tony ayala?.... now thats a fight.. prime ayala not the one that came off the prison stint...

Posted by: JLUVBABY Aug 21 2009, 10:51 PM

let me ask you this method... how much worse is hopkins fight vs roy jones jr if roy had both arms working that night?... i ask because that is a pretty good barometer for how hopkins does in some of these fights we are talking about... especially the leonard fight... hopkins again would be dealing with speed superior to his and a guy that wasnt gonna tire and a guy that was proven in big fights could slug as well as he could box...

another question... lets assume roy jones decides to stay at middleweight and unify and defend all the titles as hopkins did... does hopkins ever reign as champion at middleweight?.... again i ask because you must know hopkins could have never beaten jones... im not sure he can beat him right now... he doesnt sound like he wants to find out... but back to the question... assuming that scenario takes place where does hopkins land as a atg in your mind?... just wondering...

Posted by: Col Reb Aug 21 2009, 11:08 PM

Let's meet on chat about this. I noticed there are several people following this thread right now.

Posted by: Method Aug 21 2009, 11:15 PM

Well, JLuv, how much of a REAL fan of the sport are you? Rather, how much of an astute observer of the sport are you? You say the first fight w Robert Allen was "life and death". That leads me to believe you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. The fight w Robert Allen was a NC that lasted a few rounds. Hopkins was LEADING ON THE CARDS at the time of the stoppage. So what the fuck fightare you referencing that was "life and death"? Seriously?

And my man, if you REALLY believe that Roy was one-handed in the Hopkins fight, I have some beach front property in Antarctica I'd like to sell you. Watch the fight. ABSOLUTELY ZERO sign or mention of any hand injury. As a matter of fact. Roy claims to have beaten Hopkins w his left, but DURING THE FIGHT the commentators speculate Roy HURT HIS LEFT because HE STOPPED THROWING it. HOW CAN YOU WIN A FIGHT W A HAND YOU AINT THROWING? ITS ON TAPE. THIS IS NOT FOR DISPUTE. It's easy for Roy to come out years later claiming hand injury. He was the olympian with the big corp behind him....gotta offer up some excuse for why he looked so ordinary.

Stevenski out there aggreeing w me on Hearns, yet, all you can do is address me w some weak ass, "you really must like him". Tommy Hearns cant fuck w Hopkins at Middie. No fucking way. Tommy was chinny as fuck and had NO legs. Im not hating on him. I appreciate his place in history and love his highlights. It is what it is.

Posted by: JLUVBABY Aug 21 2009, 11:20 PM

lol.. come on method no need to get hostile just a friendly debate for me but to answer your question allen was giving as good as he was getting in that fight... its common knoledge roy hurt his arm before the fight look it up... no need to get upset we are all giving opinions.. its an opinion that hearns beats hopkins or vice versa theyare two diffrent eras.. we'll never know actually.. i think hearns gets to him you think he beats hearns.. big deal my man put your panties back on if you wanna act like that... as far as who backs what you say what is that supposed to mean to me?... im sure rather they post it or not there is someone that agrees with what i have to say... its called an opinion... they never fought so it will never be fact...

back to roys arm he was a fighter and he used it as much as he could... and as for hearns he had the skill and physique to outbox hopkins similiar to what i think williams might do only he had a harder punch...

Posted by: Method Aug 21 2009, 11:27 PM

Allen was getting as good as he was giving? The fight went how many rounds? Allen was up on how many cards?

And now Roy went from hurtng his hand to hurting his arm?

C'mon bro.

If it was common knowledge Roy was hurt BEFORE the fight, find me some articles from before the fight stating such. Fuck me looking it up. YOU look it up. Im calling bullshit on that.

Posted by: Warlord Aug 21 2009, 11:36 PM

Not to get off topic, but Hopkins beat Winky's ass. Though each round was close, most of them went to Hopkins due to Hopkin's ring generalship and effective aggression. From an overall scoring stand-point, the fight wasn't even close.

Hopkins worked Winky, and Winky's face showed it. Wink took rounds off in the end (like he always does) and then whined like a bitch and ran to his locker-room (like he always does.)

Now, let's get back to the topic at hand. Winky doesn't belong in any sort of debate which pertains to all-time greats like Jones Jr., Hopkins, Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, etc...


P.S. I love Roy as a fighter, always have. But Method is right as far as Roy fighting in corn fields. Roy's desperate now. He shit on fighters forever, skipped out on promotions, did whatever he wanted because he was Roy Jones. Now he's old KO'd Roy whose past it and pushing 40, and suddenly wants to do the things it takes to get fights. Well, now that the tables have turned, some of those old fighters who got shit on are feeling like taking a dump themselves.

I feel bad for Roy, but he ain't getting a lion's share of anything with a name fighter. And he's gonna have to beg just to get the shit end of the stick. It sucks but that's the way it goes sometimes.

I wish him the best like I wish all the old guys the best. But I also understand why Roy's at where he's at, and unfortunately for Roy, so does everyone else. Including Hopkins.

Posted by: JLUVBABY Aug 21 2009, 11:38 PM

allight method check this out... im not lookin up jack shit... if you dont believe it dont believe it i wont lose sleep over what you believe or dont believe.... and yes allen was giving as good as he was getting... what does it matter the score card?... allen was fighting on equal terms with hopkins.. matter of fact some think hopkins faked his injury to get out of that fight cuzz he was having an off night... and whats up with you NEEDING to use the curse words?.. i know you not getting mad over this convo... if so im through with it i dont give these types on convo's my attention...

Posted by: Spyder Aug 21 2009, 11:57 PM

lol...come on man. You can hear Hops hang up the phone at 6:18...the man asked the question at 6:03!

Whether you think they should fight or not is one thing, but there's no point in trying to paint a different picture of what happened on that radio show.

Posted by: JaRaNDa Aug 22 2009, 04:32 AM

Is it just me or does this radio segmant seem seem like BS? The dude don't evan sound like Roy!!

Posted by: STEVENSKI Aug 22 2009, 04:36 AM

What astounds me is the fact that people are using a older wiser Hopkins winning fights & losing close fights as some form of reason as to why certain fighters could hang with him in his prime. That is a old cagey fox in Hopkins running riot in the henhouse. The pre Trinidad Hopkins was the best version of him IMO & he could hang with any middleweight in history. He may not win them all but I can see him handling the 160 Leonard & Hearns.

I am not some jock riding Hopkins fan & there are many actions he took that I do not particulary like (such as his behavious after the Taylor fights) but he is one of the best 160 lb fighters in history & to step up in weight & take the 175lb title at teh age he was is nothing short of remarkable.

Posted by: King Eugene Aug 22 2009, 05:04 AM

Hopkins fights Adamek, Roy fights Green, they unify!

Hell winner might be able to get David Haye to drop back down and drop one of them.

Posted by: EirbinX Aug 22 2009, 05:40 AM

i Feel pretty good about finding that link LMFAO

Posted by: Method Aug 22 2009, 07:27 AM

Of COURSE you're not looking it up. It's called a BASELESS CLAIM. Translation? IT NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED AND YOU HAVE NOTHING TO BACK IT UO WITH - i.e. BASELESS.

As for the Allen fight. it went 4 fucking rounds, and Hookins was up on the cards. Yet, you somehow have equated this to "life & death".

Give me a break.

Posted by: JLUVBABY Aug 22 2009, 08:31 AM

i probably would have tried to find something on a 93' fight till you resorted to the cursing... this stuff is not crucial to me...
on to the allen fight 4 rounds or how ever many rounds it was hopkins up on the cards or what ever that doesnt mean hopkins was having an easy time of things... hopkins was catching hell... if you have the fight in your library go back and take a look at it...


1998-08-28 159 Robert Allen 160 22-2-0

Las Vegas Hilton, Las Vegas, Nevada, United States NC NC 4 12

~ time: 2:57 | referee: Mills Lane | judge: Glen Hamada 30-27 | judge: Bill Graham 29-28 | judge: Mike Glienna 28-29 ~
~ IBF middleweight title ~
Fight ruled a NC after Hopkins was injured when accidentally pushed out of the ring by referee Lane, who was trying to break up one of the many clinches.

thats straight off boxrec from that fight.. you'll notice one judge has allen up and another judge has hopkins up by one... i would have to go back and watch the fight to really remember rather or not i agree with the first card that hopkins up by all 3 but the deal here is that allen roughed hopkins up early in that fight and hopkins wasnt happy with it...

Posted by: Method Aug 22 2009, 09:46 AM

Honestly, that hs to be one of the lamest cop out excuses for pussing out of proving a point I have EVER seen. Do you work at the DMV or something?

As For Hopkins Allen, I mean, you are completely clutching t straws here. Hopkins was up on 2 of three score cards after 3 rounds. You labeled this first fight a (and I QUOTE) "LIFE AND DEATH" affair. How the fuck did you make this determination after three rounds, ESPECIALLY considdering not only the outcome of their rematch and three match, but also that Allen had to be repeatedly told by the referee to stop acting. Now, UNLIKE you, if you don't believe me, I can probably dig up the articles.

Posted by: JLUVBABY Aug 22 2009, 09:54 AM

naw its not a puss out its me not really caring at this point to prove a point to YOU.. you come across as a keyboard gangster with your ignorant cursing on something thats not that serious, im sure you are not that kind of person but for you f.y.i there is a better way at getting your point across rather than resorting to ignorant cursing.. makes you lok small minded... i almost fell for it but i try to be a better person... its actually kind of funny cuzz if we where having conversation in person you would be respectful as i would about the topic... but anyways... how do you figure im clutching at straws on the allen fight?... do you have the fight on vhs or dvd?.. if so go back and watch it... hopkins got hell from allen in that first fight and him getting knocked out the ring by the ref was probably the best thing to happen to him that night.. he wasnt on form that night for sure...

Posted by: Nay_Sayer Aug 22 2009, 09:57 AM

lol...

Posted by: Method Aug 22 2009, 11:16 AM

Of COURSE that's what it is. Thats what it HAS to be since you're backed into a corner with nothing to substantiate any of your baseless bullshit with.



I have the Allen fight, have seen the Allen fight. Your claims make NO fucking sense. You made a claim that the first fight with Allen was "LIFE & DEATH", as if to insinuate that it was a grueling 12 round affair that saw Hopkins barely escape w the "W". I am just completely dumbfounded how you can assert that, a 3 round fight (scheduled for 12) that saw Hopkins Leading on 2 of 3 of the cards, could have been, as you say, "LIFE & DEATH"? Seriously. Im perplexed at how you arrived at that conclusion.

Posted by: Mean Mister Mustard Aug 22 2009, 12:34 PM

The first Allen fight only went 4 rounds. Allen was giving Hopkins trouble, catching him with sneaky counterh right hooks but one has to remember that Hopkins at that time was a machine and he would have most likely beaten Allen up in the later rounds. Remember he also was looking bad against Echols the first time and then in the middle and late rounds gave Echols a beating. Regardless, the 1st Allen fight was close for as long as it went.

Now, using that fight as proof that Hopkins would get beaten by SRL, Hearns and Hagler is a little far fetched since it only went 4 rounds and Hopkins then whooped him the 2nd time artound. Out of those 3 guys the one I am most certain Hopkins beats is Hearns. Sure Hearns had a heck of a jab, footwork and of course that big right hand but also remember a 160 pound Hearns was more chinny than ever, tired late in the fight and coupled with his fighting instinct he brawled more than he should have. Now Imagine the Hopkins who fought Mercado the 2nd time there against Hearns. It would be a close rd 1, 2 and 3 with Hearns snappping that jab and zoniung in with the right. But Hopkins was also underrated in the speed department, he was quick, he would lunge in with the right hands, work the body, which was Hearns's weakness, and probably take him out late in the fight. Remember Barkley knocking Heanrs out cold and then hustiling a decision in the rematch?

Posted by: Method Aug 22 2009, 01:18 PM

Which wasn't that far. Fight went three full rounds, and was halted in the 4th. However sneaky Allen was or wasn't, fact remains Ex was up on the scorecards. Period. 3 rounds is DEFINITELY no proxy for how a Hopkins fight is playing out, but to hear JLUv initially tab it makes it sound like it was a 12 round grueling affair. He called it "Life & Death". That I find absolutely HILARIOUS.

Life and death. SMH.

Posted by: JLUVBABY Aug 22 2009, 06:05 PM

backed into a corner.. come on man.. you are the one taking this to another level feeling a need to curse etc... i'm just here to talk boxing with other people that like boxing like i do..lol... roy was hurt before the fight no need to look it up from my view cuzz i was a hardcore boxing fan then and remember the situation and was up more so then on the inside scoop of what was going on then i am now probably, and i want to say it was even mentioned by the commentators before the fight.. id have to go back and watch to verify that.. i dont need to prove that to you cuzz i know the deal, like i said you want to know the real deal so bad go look it up, im not proving a point to a guy that cant have a civil conversation with me... anyways what does it matter the better man won and judging by their conversation this topic is based off of he (jones) would win now, it dont sound like your boyfriend wants any more of roy jones jr.. no more need for that discussion... roy was the better fighter then and is more than likely better now, even in the declined state he's in.. we will never know because hopkins doesnt want to take a 60 winner 40 loser percent on a fight he says he knows he can win... thats a no brainer take the money on a shot jones and erase that defeat... jones is hot right now it only helps your boyfriend hopkins legacy to take the fight.. jones has people tricked into thinking he might be back to old form, that fight would sell like hot cakes... but that shows how much faith your boyfriend has in that fight...

well if you take what i wrote and get a greuling 12 round war out of it then i know this convo is over because thats not what i said.. go back and read "simple jack"... i said allens pressure was giving hopkins all kinds of hell and it was... if hopkins dick is so far up your ass that you dont see that well thats on you.. i give props where they are deserved and allen was fighting a good rough fight up until that point... pressure gave hopkins problems back in the days... joe lipsey even had limited success till he got caught and pieced up... you've done went made a mountain out of a mull hill off this convo.. i stated my OPINION just like what you are stating is an OPINION.. i know you dont think every word you type is gospel to the sport?.. i know i dont...

Posted by: JLUVBABY Aug 22 2009, 06:06 PM

dude, i posted the results for you off boxrec.. that fight would have been a draw had it gone to the cards.. your boyfriend wasnt up on the cards... look it up my man.. actually you dont have too ive posted it already in a post earlier.. its on the topic already for you to see...

Posted by: JLUVBABY Aug 22 2009, 06:18 PM

i agree with you mustard if hopkins beat one of the 3 it would have been hearns.. im not sure he beats hearns but he would be the best bet for him to win of those 3 fighters....

Posted by: Method Aug 22 2009, 06:35 PM

Yeah, there IS a need to look it up, because that is complete bullshit. There was absolutely ZERO mention of it during the telecast, but I guess you have a bat line in to Jones that the rest of the boxing community isn't in on.

As for your assertion of what Jones would do now, one only need look at his performances whenever he chooses to step up his competition...he gets his ass handed to him. Period. End of discussion.

He's irrelevant at this point, and doesn't deserve any kind of payday, let alone the right to stipulate a 40/40/20 situation. He has done ZERO to earn a shot, let alone any negotiating leverage.

For years he demanded Hopkins take the shit end of a stick, and wouldn't budge from that, yet now Hopkins is expected to accept some split that Roy is trying to stipulate now? Roy is NOT in the driver's seat here. He's IRRELEVANT.




Do you know how to read a fucking scorecard? Hopkins would have won a MD. He was up on two of three cards. The first two cards, Hamada and Graham, had Hopkins up, while the third had Allen up by a point. You go on and on about ignorance, but it is truly lost on you. Seriously, how dumb are you bro? Talkin about your boxing acumen and how you're a hardcore fan and you cant even read a fucking scorecard. You should be BARRED from Boxrec, you schmuck.

Anyway, what I took extreme exception to was that your assertion that the fight was a LIFE & DEATH competition, yet, these guys only fought 3 complete rounds, and Hopkins was ahead on the cards. This is not for dispute.

Posted by: streetlion1 Aug 22 2009, 07:29 PM

Look....B-Hop is still fighting at a young lions level....OLD Roy is nothing but a shell of his former self. Are you seriously telling me you think Roy would have a SERIOUS chance at beating Bernard.....or is this just talk from a Roy fan?


Now let me hop in...I think B-Hop would beat Hearns and Leonard (Half of that comes from me not liking pansy ass Leonard and that robbery that was Leonard-Hagler) The mans defense is next to unbreakable...with a chin to go with it and his slick offensive style is a hard fight for any fighter. B-Hop is one of the greatest to ever set foot in a ring NO DOUBT!!

Posted by: JLUVBABY Aug 22 2009, 08:09 PM

i would think roy is very relevant in the way tyson was relevant years past his prime.. roy is still one of only a few names hopkins has that makes him the most amount of money...and if they fought the argument can be made that people would be there to see roy more so than hopkins.. roy jones name still brings out the casual fan...

know what you are right hopkins was ahead in that fight on the cards but the point is still there to be made that allen was giving him hell in those 3 rounds.. in your mind was hopkins kicking allens ass in that fight?...

and yes i go on an on about your ignorance because you seem to not know how to make a point without using curse words....lol... its funny to me... its funny because its people like you on these boards that would have a complete diffrent way of speaking if we where discussing this in person... i seriously doubt id be schmucks and etc if we where sitting at a table discussing this...lol...

Posted by: Method Aug 22 2009, 08:24 PM

Honestly, bro, you have no idea what Id be willing to say or how I'd be willing to say it in person, but who cares.

Im kind over this argument. Its tired. It's been tired since 2001. I guess I only find it interesting now because Roy seems to somehow think he has leverage, and, whats more, despite that when Roy had game he would have NEVER NEVER EVER considered a winner takes 60 arrangement, let ALONE him taking the low end of a rubbermatch (this is FACT), yet all of Roy's fans think Hopkins has to bow down. It's just not happening. Bernard has paid his dues, and, win or lose, has earned the right to the bigger piecer of the pie. It's called prize fighting, but it just doesn't work out like that.

Regardless, JLUV, Let's just deep six this. Maybe we can all get in chat during Malignaggii and spit some shit in there for a while. Easier to converse more fluidly, but I cant promise Ill be in there because my computer is in a completely different room than my TV.

Look, Im a fan of both guys. Theyse guys are always gonna be grumpy old men. They've both had good, albeit different careers. It is what it is. But one thing it isnt, is worth taking this thread out more pages. I stand by the points I made, but the "argument", "debate", "conversation" is just tired. For all we know Bernard and Roy are chilling together reading this shit and laughing that we've all been bamboozled and are sitting here going page after page w this crap.

Posted by: JLUVBABY Aug 22 2009, 08:31 PM

sounds cool meth its 86'd... i'll be in chat tonight for the fight.. was supposed to be at the fight but i have to leave for ohio for the job in the morning... if any of you guys live in or near centerville or delaware ohio let me know.. i'll be there all next week...

Posted by: pacco_diablo Aug 22 2009, 09:38 PM

Nice post and link.

I cant believe that they are still talking the same 60/40 split that they have been for years. It's pretty funny. I have to agree with those who think that Hop doesnt want to fight Roy. I dont think that he's scared but his pride wont allow him to lose to Roy again or even take the risk. He dislikes Jones that much. It seems at times that Hop goes out of his way to say that he'd never fight Roy again. In truth, neither one needs the other.

I dont even think I'm intersted in seeing this fight any more. 3 years ago I was but not now.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 23 2009, 11:07 AM

Real talk is if Bernard was as confident as you are he would do a throw back "WINNER TAKE ALL" fight with Roy! If Bernard would really destroy Roy as many think why not at least do a 60 to the winner 40 to the loser fight? Bernard has beaten Pavlik and Tarver, loss to Taylor twice and Calzaghe and damn near to Winky that is as unimpressive as Roy has been so why not both guys get over themselves, man up and do what Roy is suggesting. 60 to the winner, 40 to the loser. Anything else at this point is BITCHASSNESS! Last time I looked winning the Heavy-wt Championship of the World was the greatest prize a boxer can win. Especially a boxer coming up from 154-160 with that said and Roy having a legitimate win over B-Hop, that's really a 50-50 or 60 winner, 40 loser fight. Nothing more and nothing less.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 23 2009, 11:44 AM

I totally respect what B-Hop has done but now let's be real about this "WHO HAS BERNARD BEATEN? Hagler would've smoked his ass! Are you suggesting B-Hop would've beaten Marvelous Marv cause to be champion during his reign he would've had to? Shows how much you know about boxing if you are. Bernard will go down as an All Timer but his reign was suspect as hell. Take away Trinidad and Oscar and what do you have?
Trinidad who was smoked by Oscar?
Oscar who was beaten by Mosley, Whittaker and Sturm, etc
Please tell me who Bernard has beaten that was a true world beater or Hall of famer besides MAYBE a green Glen Johnson ?
Wouldn't Hopkins vs. Johnson be a good fight right now?
Oh yea Overrated ass Tarver@175
If Oscar and Taylor gave Bernard a hard time why would anyone think Hall Of Famer Ray Leonard wouldn't have? B-Hop may have beaten Hearns but I could also envision him getting KO'd trying to roughhouse Tommy. Can't take away from the 20 defenses but that aint no world beater list of opponents either. That's just like if Williams beats Pavlik right now does that make him an all time great? Hell No! B-Hop was good but not against a bunch of all time greats. Now go take a look at the other guys I mentioned list of opponents and come back and see me. It takes a true test against a great opponent to become an all time great and Bernard has failed all of his except for Trinidad and whack ass Tarver.

Posted by: getup Aug 23 2009, 01:15 PM

On side note, surpised no one here laughed at Bernard's hyperbole of Adamek...implying that's he's Rocky Marciano. I know he's trying to hype him up but c'mon.

Does anyone else not see that Tomasz is a slow plodder.....Kathy Duva would be a moron to put him in with Hopkins or anyone else with clever hand speed & movement.

Posted by: Mean Mister Mustard Aug 23 2009, 01:26 PM

Ah, the old who has he beaten argument. Well let's see, who has Hagler beaten? He gassed against Antufermo in their first fight, barely beat a smaller Duran (because beating smaller men no matter how talented they are is still shit right?) Ko'd a chinny Hearns who would later go on to get stretched again, barely beat a smaller Mugabi, and got outboxed by an inactive SRL. Yeah he sucks, overrated.

I like how you convieniently forgot to mention that Hopkins beat Pavlik.

See, the truth is that whenever a person starts using the old "Who has he beaten?" question followed by critique of the fighter's record, that person is showing their ignorance about boxing. Almost every boxer in the top ranks has losses so it's prett easy to say "Ok he beat fighter A but that fighter lost to so and so" completely missing and avoiding the accomlishments of the fightyer's comp. I like how you say that Tarver was overrated yet that same Tarver KO'd and later made the same Roy Jones you so dearly want Hopkins to face, crap his pants.

Posted by: streetlion1 Aug 23 2009, 02:12 PM

Sorry but I gotta jump in here....to judge B-Hop off of a different era is unfair! The bottem line is when it comes down to it he still had the belt for 10 years....count em 10 YEARS and had 20 title defenses before they robbed him against Taylor. How was his time at the top suspect?! Sure DLH fought him when everyone was telling him not to cause the conclusion was inevetible....Trinidad was at the very top and everyone thought he was unbeatable....Johnson be it green or not was a young beast at the time....and the ass whoopins he gave to Tarver and Pavlik when everyone counted him out were classic....who out of Hearns, Hagler, and gay boy Leonard could have stayed on top for that long and STILL takin guys half their age to school....not a one. Truth is this is all speculation on what wouldve happened if B-Hop stepped in there with a Hearns..etc. When it comes down to it I would put Bernards style and skill against any of those guys...without question.

The thing is this.....everyone seems to consider Roy Jones an all time great....but measure his resume against B-Hops and it doesnt cut the mustard. If Roy and B-Hop were both in their primes and in the "golden era" of boxing along with Hearns, Leonard, and Hagler I would bet on B-Hop to beat those guys before I would bet on Roy. Not only because obviously im a B-Hop fan but because Bernard has proven himself against better fighters. Put aside his first loss as a pro and IMO besides the fight against Jones in 93' all of B-Hops "losses" are suspect....robbed twice against Taylor....robbed against Calzaghe. We have seen Roy dazed lookin up at the lights....and slapped around and given an ass whoopin by Slappy....not to mention the fact that his resume (besides maybe Virgil Hill and James Toney) leaves something to be desired.

Posted by: Method Aug 23 2009, 02:56 PM

Take away Hearns and Duran and who do you have?

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 23 2009, 05:23 PM

Mustafa Hamsho 32-1-2 Hamsho was the truth and if it wasn't for Marvin he would've been champ
John "the Beast" Mugabi 25-0, 25 ko's the beast smashed everybody at 154 then challenged Marv
Juan Roldan 52-2-2 very tough, durable Argentine champ
Tony Sibson 47-3-1 European middle-wt champ
Fully Obel 30-0, 27 ko's tall, rangy ko artist
Bennie Brisco 60-16-5 tough, cagey veteran fought everybody
Alan Mintor 38-6 former world champ

All good solid fighters. Don't get me wrong B-Hop has fought some good fighters also but Hagler's era was monstrous and most of his fights were 15 rounders.

Posted by: Mean Mister Mustard Aug 23 2009, 06:17 PM

I'd like to know why you feel Tarver is an overrated win for Hopkins but you want B-Hop to face the guy who got stretched and forced to run for 12 rounds by Tarver?

Posted by: Fitz Aug 23 2009, 06:32 PM

LMAO. I'm not joking when I say this is one of the more ridiculous statements. I cannot believe you think Hopkins is just as unimpressive as Jones recently.

I have seen a few things is this thread, but can't be bothered responding to all directly, but here are some thoughts:

• Someone said Hopkins would get beaten like a step child. While Hopkins can be beat, he doesn't get beaten in that manner
• I can understand and not disputing that Hagler may beat Hopkins, but to dismiss Hopkins as having no chance with him is unfair and even more so against Leonard and Hearns.
• It's funny that a few people mention that Hopkins hits and holds and it won't work with these other guys. They are basically commenting on a Hopkins late in his career. He didn't always fight like that.
• Once again, guys fighting 15+ years ago are always given the advantage by default against guys in the modern era no matter the circumstance.
• Someone mentioned earlier about Hopkins struggling with Golden Boy. Which is pretty shit, he toyed with him and made it close. Oscar was up and running and Hopkins was still cruising in 2nd gear. When he turned it up, the rest is history. Hopkins made it close and then made the fight break open for him. He controlled every scenario in this fight.

Posted by: STEVENSKI Aug 23 2009, 06:33 PM

Winning a meaningless trinket you surely mean. Sorry but I rate a guys like Walkers accomplishments much much higher than Roy.




Yup the same guy who knocked Roy to Bolivian & then dominated him in the rematch. That guy.




Jesus the Oscar fight was as fixed as they come & if comparing the Taylor fights with Leonard then perhaps compare it with his Terry Norris fight.


Never thought I would be defending Hopkins like this I must say.

Posted by: Fitz Aug 23 2009, 06:50 PM

Are you comparing a guy not in his prime, but still good though in his early 40's to a PRIME Leonard, or on the same playing field with Leonard at the tail end of his career?

Posted by: The Original MrFactor Aug 23 2009, 07:35 PM

Lets be clear with this... Leonard and Hagler fought each other outside their primes. They were both much better fighters in 1981 or 82. Hopkins best was probably around 1999ish or so. So lets be sure to compare the Leonard and Hagler from 81 to the Hopkins of 99. Leonard wasnt at 160 in 81, so the comparisons should probably stop there. Hopkins vs Hagler would be competitive as hell though. I constantly go back and forth on who would win because Hagler was a terror in the ring, but Bernard is the calm that quiets the storm. It would be a helluva fight.

If Leonard of 81 decided to come up and fight Bernard of 99 at 160, then Bernard would kill him. Leonard had difficulty with taller guys, ala Hearns. Hopkins has advantages in height and reach, not to dissimilar to Hearns. Leonard was able to eventually chop hearns down due to 2 things. One, Tommy was killing himselft to make 147 and two, he was chinny. Hopkins is neither. Hopkins would batter Leonard like he battered DLH and Trinidad.

Hearns, same things, he was not at MW in his prime. I think its safe to say that Tommy was much more competitive than Ray at higher weight. He probably should have been fighting at higher weight, but he wa chinny. Big guys probably would find it easier to get to him, so they threw him in with little guys. I think Hopkins would be too defensive for Tommy to hit cleanly. All the talk of Tommy KOing Bernard is just silly. In fact I think Hopkins chances of KOing Tommy are much higher because Tommy was kinda chinny. There's a good chance Bernard would have been able to counter him with something and make him woozy. We all know Tommy doesnt recover well from woozy street. In 1999, Hopkins had the offense and energy to finish guys.

Posted by: Fitz Aug 23 2009, 08:02 PM

Good post Factor.

Posted by: Nay_Sayer Aug 23 2009, 08:09 PM

lol...

Posted by: Lil-lightsout Aug 23 2009, 09:44 PM

Actually in fairness to Roy,a drained Roy BEAT Tarver first, then got KO'd to Bolivian by a lucky punch in the rematch, and then Tarver beat him in there rubbermatch. One left hand ruined Roy. He has never been the same since. Just look at the fight with Glenn Johnson after Tarver iced him, he was completely gunshy and had no confidence.

What Hopkins is doing at this age is amazing. But looking back at his middleweight reign, the list of fighters he beat along the way is far from impressive. It is impressive to win that long and have no hiccups along the way, but his comp was truly not that great overall. And I have seen just about every single one of his fight too. Many blown up fighters he fought that were not real middleweights. People always want to rip on Roy for his title defenses and all, but let me throw out a couple of names for you that Hops beat in his middleweight reign.
Steve Frank-WHO???
Bo James-Fringe contender,not really that good either.
Andrew Council-fringe contender, not a true middle.
Simon Brown-Blown up welterweight past his prime.
Keith Holmes-Blown up welterweight.
Tito Trinidad-Blown up welterweight, but a great fighter at the time.
Carl Daniels-Blown up Jr. Middleweight, who seen better days.Undeserving really, which showed during the fight.
Morrade Haakar-WOW!!! What a complete joke! Should not even count as a defense.
William Joppy- Damaged goods.
Oscar- Blown up former Jr. Lightweight. It was for the money,can not fault him on that.

Decent, good or noteworthy defenses or title shots IMO.

Roy Jones-Lost tough decision to an amazing talent.
Sergundo Mercado-Was dropped twice in draw but avenged in rematch victory.
Joe Lipsey- Amazing performance destroying the tough undefeated good Lipsey.
JD Jackson- Good very skilled fighter.
Glenn Johnson-Good undefeated fighter.
Robert Allen- Fought him 3 times. Allen was decent and tough.
Antwon Echols- Very tough and hard puncher at the time.
Syd Vanderpool- Decent fighter.
Howard Eastman-Pretty good fighter.
Jermaine Taylor- Lost two Decisions to him, Taylor was good hungry fighter.

His win against Tarver was impressive at 175, but we all know Tarver was obviously not the same from all his weight loss. Still Hops did what he had to do. The Wright fight was ugly to watch. The Calzaghe fight was close, which I narrowly gave to Joe. Did not like Hops faking late in the fight antics.The Pavlik fight was incredible to watch, but it was the perfect opponent for Bernard to look good.

I am amazed what he can still do at his age, and he has improved over all these years. I personally think Hops could hang with anyone in any era. It was his desire and toughness that would him to be able to do it. Seeing him take Echols bombs and heart too, I KNEW he was going to destroy Tito. Besides being dropped twice by Mercado, I never even really remember seeing him hurt again. It is Hopkins mentality and preparation that makes him great and separates him from other fighters. I just wish there would have been some better tougher true middles for him to fight all the way.

Posted by: Fitz Aug 23 2009, 09:58 PM

The Trinidad win was a good win, not against a blown up welter, but against a highly rated favourite. Weight had zero to do with what Hopkins did to Trinidad. Hell, Trinidad couldn't even fucking land or touch Hopkins for anybody to come to that conclusion. You can come up with DLH was a blown up welter when moving up to middle because you saw it in his punches, he couldn't hurt or even phase Sturm. There is no evidence of this with Trinidad. He couldn't land or come close to Hopkins, so to suggest Hopkins beat him because Trinidad was a blown up welter weight is horse shit. It doesn't surprise me though, it seems like ANY fighter that loses a fight when they move up gets the "he was a blown up (insert division)" which is a cop out in a lot of cases. He smashed Joppy which was at middleweight and he was a perfectly acceptable middleweight then. It's only when he gets embarrassed he becomes the blown up welter.
He just wasn't good enough. Trinidad lost to Hopkins because Hopkins is superior and Trinidad is just a whole lot worse than Hopkins. Weight and size played no factor what so ever. To even come up with that excuse, you must be out muscled and not be able to hurt a fighter when you land. Trinidad didn't land and got out boxed and out thought and it's simple as that. It was a good win, so not sure why people try to downplay that with the weak "Trinidad was a blown up welter excuse".
Against Jones at 170, sure that is a legit excuse. He landed on Jones no worries but even glass jaw took his shots so you can see on that. At 160 that's not the case.

Posted by: Nay_Sayer Aug 23 2009, 10:15 PM

Hopkins Echols II is a closet classic, IMHO...

Posted by: Mean Mister Mustard Aug 23 2009, 11:18 PM

Hopkins had his mediocre comp but so did Jones Jr, so to say that one fighter CLEARLY had superior comp would be wrong.

Nay, Hopkins-Echols II is indeed an underappreciated fight. Watch the first Echols fight and then the 2nd and it is interesting to see the adjustments that Hopkins made for the rematch. He was much more elusive.

Posted by: Nay_Sayer Aug 23 2009, 11:41 PM

Yeah...

I think the major difference here is that Jones jr had the HBO contract whereas Hopkins didn't. Plus, I don't think any of the big names in boxing, around the 160lb division, back in the 90's were too eager to get in the ring with Bernard. WAY too much risk for FAR too little reward...

Posted by: STEVENSKI Aug 24 2009, 12:09 AM

See that is the thing with Hopkins & guys like Hagler & Holmes. They all came up from the bottom & everything they got they worked hard for especially respect.

A lot of guys these days think that they deserve a HBO contract & PPV for nothing & what makes it worse is that it is often given to them by network execs. Take Williams for example. Here is a guy that is a good fighter who has guys "ducking" him but he now won't take fights that are "beneath" him. He is guilty of the double standard that he claims is used against him.

Why does Williams not invade press conferences & publicly challenge those he wishes to fight. Stand outside their gym with a megaphone & call them out. Why does he not do that instead of saying no one wants to fight the poor diddums. Force it, humiliate them into taking you on or just STFU.

Posted by: The Original MrFactor Aug 24 2009, 12:40 AM

For years Roy Jones had his wins over Hopkins and Toney to fall back on when negotiating with Bernard. Now it appears that Hopkins may have an edge becuase he recently beat the guys who brutally KO'd Jones. I think thats got to count for something in terms of legacy.

Posted by: The Original MrFactor Aug 24 2009, 12:42 AM

He kind of did that with Margarito and it got him the fight. You are right, he needs to name names in order to get the fights. It seems that there arent enough guys out there who name names...

Posted by: STEVENSKI Aug 24 2009, 01:42 AM

If he wants to be the man many believe him to be he should name & SHAME! "Hey "X fighter" why won't you fight me?" " I will take 60/40 & put a whoopin upside your head so bad your great grandkids will have nightmares about me!". It may not be the classiest thing to do but damm boxing is a gutter sport.

Posted by: WolfishPromistah Aug 24 2009, 10:00 AM

I disagree on two things, with everything else as a fine analysis in my opinion.

A. Tito DID in fact hit Hopkins in that fight (maybe not much at all, but ... he did -- didn't matter). On the occasions T did land, I was most impressed that people could take note on the fact Bernard possesses a terrific beard. Against the hard punching Trinidad, who'd just recently half took poor Joppy's head off (a respected champion middle himself at the time), it served as another example.

B. That you say Jones jr. has a glass chin, but that's just difference in opinion -- neither here nor there -- 'cause it's apparent we both equate that differently. I've seen him tagged before well a few times, but only "after" he got slam SMACKED by Tarver (a fine punching southpaw counter puncher himself) and Johnson (whom a less-stamina-possessing + more immobile Jones jr fought directly after being slammed out by Tarver...and "I think" Glenn took Roy with a temple blast) did he face sleepy time blues.

Overall, though, what ya say seems on point to me. Thanks.

Posted by: singletrack Aug 24 2009, 11:16 AM

This fight makes zero sense for Bernard. I would imagine he has 1-2 fights left in him at this point, so why waste one on Roy? Don't get me wrong, even though Roy is a ghost of his former self, I would still want to see the fight. But looking at it from BHOPs perspective, he will still need to train his ass off, and he is still getting older everyday. What does beating RJJ prove now? NOTHING - people will say Roy was washed up, got his ass kicked by calslappy, and has been fighting nobodies. Beating Adamek or Dawson means FAR more.

All that being said, I do think Roy appears to be more conscious of the fact that he does not, and never did, have the fundamentals and must rely on his hand speed and punching power to have any chance of winning a fight against an elite opponent. That is a new revelation for him - at least publicly. Lacey was the perfect opponent to display that game plan against. Assuming he would follow through on that when faced with a real challenge, it could make the fight exciting.

Roy should take the 40% and make it happen. If he loses, than he can retire and it does not diminish his legacy IMO - even if he gets KOed. BHOP is on record saying 60/40 will get it done, so RJJ can make it happen anytime he wants now. No one is going to think anything of Roy for taking less money than a top p4p guy right now, in fact, they will likely think MORE of him. Just do it Roy.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 24 2009, 12:03 PM

Never said Tarver was an overrated win, it was a great win for B-Hop but Tarver is an overrated fighter. If he fought half as good as his big mouth runs he would be the man but he falls way short. Tarver's success is more due to Roy's ego and very dumb decision making than anything else. Jermaine beat B-Hop twice but loss to Pavlik twice then B-Hop beat Pavlik. Styles make fights. Roy loss to Tarver but Roy beat B-Hop. If a B-Hop win is so easy why not 60 winner 40 loser? What else does Bernard have going on right now? It's either Roy, Dawson or retire. Calling out the much smaller Williams is not a good look for B-Hop and a loss would'nt be either.

Posted by: Method Aug 24 2009, 12:08 PM

Why was Roy never pushing for that one over the past 10 years? Seriously, if it's such a GREAT formula, why have we NEVER seen it before. Roy has done NOTHING to earn it. Hopkins has earned the right to 60%, win, lose or otherwise. It's really quite simple.

Posted by: Lil-lightsout Aug 24 2009, 12:13 PM

Yes, it was a good win. Bernard should have never been the underdog in that fight,it was mainly because of Tito's reputation at welterweight. Too many people slept on Bernard, and underestimated so many facets to his game. Which he put on display that night. The bottom line is that Tito's whole career was fought at 147, besides the 3 fights he had at jr. middleweight prior to his fight with Hopkins. While Hopkins was a TRUE middleweight his whole career. Sure Tito held the weight okay, but his optimal weight was at welterweight, not middleweight, not to mention he was fighting the best fighter in that division too.

Yes, Tito did smash Joppy. Joppy was a decent fighter and so I can agree that Tito deserved his shot against Hopkins. But was Tito's hand wraps bricks that night against Joppy? And even though he beat Joppy to get his shot, still does not make Trinidads best weight at 160. Many fighters move up and are successful at heavier weights, but does not make it there optimal fighting weight.

I do agree with you that regardless of the weight Hopkins was definately an all around superior fighter than Tito, and I am not trying to totally down play that win. I just maintain Tito's best weight was at 147,not 160.

Pac went up to 140and 147 and beat Hatton and Oscar impressively, but what if he gets KO'd by Cotto? Would you really hold it against him? I would rightfully say Pacs best weight is not at 147. Sure he can beat 99% oft the welterweights out there, but what about Mosley or Mayweather? He would probably lose to both of them. Though Pac is great, welterweight is not his optimal weight IMO.

You are also forgetting to mention that Tito was used to fighting smaller fighters his whole career, and Hopkins was a big strong middleweight, maybe that affected him too by taking punches from a bigger stronger fighter?

The Tito that fought Jones was pathetic. He was off for a long time, way past his prime, and obviously too heavy. That was just for a payday.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 24 2009, 12:14 PM

Posted by: Method Aug 24 2009, 12:21 PM

LOL. Yeah. Right. Which explains why he was doing so well on the cards at the time of the stoppage.....................................................................NOT
.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 24 2009, 12:26 PM

Good post LL until you got to the B-Hop hangin with a prime Marvelous Marv. B-Hop's dirty tactics would've play right into Marv's hands. He loved tall guys who tried to out brawl him ask Hearns and Obel. Bernard's ass would've gotten chewed up. I would've love to see Bernard and Toney @160 or Bernard and a prime Michael Nunn. Marvelous Marv would've been an extremely bad nightmare for B-Hop. He has never faced a fighter so brutal but Marv feasted on all kinds. He was a true destroyer. Bernard is a clever but dirty fighter.

Posted by: Method Aug 24 2009, 12:28 PM

Ask Monroe and Watts. Why the fuck do you keep bringing up the welterweight Hearns and then continually deride DLH and Trinidad. Leave Hearns out of it.

Hopkins would have EASILY held his own w Hagler.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 24 2009, 12:38 PM

We all have opinions and that's mine. The 15 round monster Hagler smashes B-Hop who always lost to fighters with equal talent. Marv kept coming hard for 15 rounds if you think B-Hop could survive resting against Marvelous Marv that's your opinion.

Posted by: Method Aug 24 2009, 12:45 PM

Hopkins ALWAYS lost to fighters w Equal Talent? WTF do you call Hagler losing to Watts, Monroe? Surely you're not arguing they were as talented as Hagler? Are you? Or are you. WTF do you call Hagler losing to Leonard?

Enough w the 15 round talk, because a prime Hopkins was every bit the physical beast that Hagler was, with height, reach, footwork and defense to boot. Hopkins was easily primed to go 15, and everyone knew it back then, as it was a constant point of mention in his prime. You notice how he wasnt even breathing heavy in between the 11th and 12 versus Trinidad? Your citing certain tendencies versus certain fighters. In all honesty,, bro, you're posts are full of glaring contradictions and sweeping generalizations. Baseless claims.

Posted by: MarzB Aug 24 2009, 12:56 PM

I just got back into this thread. Meth Boogaloo Watts was just as good as most of the middles Hopkins faced during his championship reign. His record may not reflect that but he was. The difference is save for Leonard (thats a debatable lost if there ever was one.) Hagler BEAT everyone he's faced in the ring.

Hopkins has an opportunity to avenge the one fight he SAYS he lost and he's talking about having other things to do and you're supporting it?? Come on if that isn't bias I don't know what is.

I haven't had an opportunity to comb back the thread but someone tried to justify Hop fight Adamek saying, "it's a more meaningful" fight? Really to WHO?? I didn't know know when the CRUISERWEIGHT championship of the world was such as an achievement. Hopkins is ONLY doing that to try and MATCH Roy's feats, (moving up in class) if you will.

Hopkins doesn't need me but should Roy win against Danny Green, I'll actually be rooting Roy on should Hopkins continue this antics. He's turning into the ultimate hypocrite.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 24 2009, 12:58 PM

I call Hagler losing early in his career the same thing I call Bernard losing his first fight "experience". Are we talking fighters on the way up or as champions? Im speaking of these guys as champions or in championship fights. Bernard loss to Roy then Taylor twice later. 2 fighters with equal or more talent. Not guys coming up in weight but true middle-wts with equal or more talent. I thought we weren't talking about welters then you throw in Tito,lol. Bernard is tough but he could be outboxed and would not be able to grab, hold and push Marv around like he likes to do. Notice how unaffective Bernard is when he can't push, hold and bully a fighter? That's why Marvelous Marv would've destroyed him.

Posted by: MarzB Aug 24 2009, 01:06 PM

Let me say one thing since I know the guy. Keith Holmes was NOT a blown up welterweight. I hate that expression because no one calls Hopkins, Jones, Whitaker, blown up middles and blown up lightweights. This bs label is always applied when the fight may not have done well at that higher division.

That said, Keith Holmes had some pretty good wins at middleweight namely Hacine Cherifi and Quincy Taylor who were both good fighters. Now the way he (Keith) fought Hopkins considering his length was inexcusable.

He disagrees (and who would actually admit this) but I said, "he fought scared". He wouldn't commit to his shots and he pretty much tried to minimize what Nard did by not engaging too much. Not to mention he was very leery on fouls Hopkins would do. Which leads me to something Meth said that I'll respond to.

Meth, I believe Hopkins was at his best circa '97 - 2001. Thats when he was at his physical prime and his mentals (boxing knowledge) were sharp. That said, THATS THE HOPKINS I'm referring to that would lose to Hagler and Hearns. One thing I DON'T like about Hopkins at all is that when he's at a disadvantage rather than box his way out (which he can easily do) he'll revert to fouls, hitting on the thigh type of schit. He still has that "institutionalized" mentality of "whatever it takes" and it's worked for him granted. But it doesn't make pleasing fights at times and against the right people that crap wouldn't work.

Posted by: Method Aug 24 2009, 01:07 PM

That has NOTHING to do with nothing. Sugar Q said Hopkins ALWAYS lost to people of equal talent, while Hagler didnt. Period. Nothing else needs to be brought up. Dont take the conversation in any other direction.

...and Q, if you're going to equate Hagler's losses to Watts, Monro, to Hopkins 4 round debut, then you obviously have a subjective agenda. It just NOT a fair (or accurate) benchmark/comparison.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 24 2009, 01:10 PM

Keith Holmes problem was he couldn't bust a grape @154. He was a softy who had no business in there with B-Hop.

Posted by: Method Aug 24 2009, 01:10 PM

Im supporting the Stance that Hopkins deserves 60% of the purse to Jones' 40%. Im supporting the fact that Jones has ZERO leverage here and that if he really wants the fight he should take the short end of the purse. I support that Hopkins has earned the right to 60%, win lose or draw.

He aint talking about other things to dom but he alsio ain't trying to hear Roy throw around exotic purse splits when, as long as Roy was winning, he was NEVER TRYING TO HEAR ANYTHING BUT him getting 60%...and even 80% in a rubber match should he lose. Address THAT.



My man, you said "Hagler would run Hopkins out of the ring"...And that's pretty much when I stopped taking you seriously as an objective participant in this thread.


...and Im sorry, neither Tommy Hearns nor SRL beat a prime Hopkins. Too complete a middleweight to lose to those welterweights.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 24 2009, 01:12 PM

Meth Im comparing the 2 as champions. The Marv who fought Watts and Monroe wasn't the monster he became after he got ripped off in the first Vito fight. Marvelous Marv was born after he got ripped off in the first title fight with Vito.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 24 2009, 01:17 PM

I'll take a prime B-Hop over Hearns because Hearns liked to gamble too much but if he boxed it would be interesting but I'll take Leonard outboxing B-Hop. Sugar was a beast when he was focused. Can't see Bernard outwitting him.

Posted by: Method Aug 24 2009, 01:33 PM

The word "BEAST" should never ever be used in the same sentence with Ray Leonard. Never. ESPECIALLY at 160. That's just the reality of it.

Posted by: MarzB Aug 24 2009, 01:49 PM

I think you got me confused with someone else because I didn't say anyone would run Hopkins out the run. You're fighting WAY too many battles on Hop's behalf here. This is what I said. Page 6/3rd post.


Now as great and unparalleled to anyone you may think Hopkins is, plenty of us don't believe that. All my post have shown that and you've argued the other way. It's a matter of a opinion but don't distort what I said. To clarify. Hopkins when faced with FASTER fighters or guys that have better boxing ability than him often reverts to turning the fight into an UGLY battle. Trying to break wills of sorts. It's my belief against those guys those tactics wouldn't have worked at all.

Also this thing about Tommy at middle. Let me explain something. Those guys fought in an era where there were no jr divisions. That said Tommy was a tweener like Paul Williams of sorts. Could go up could go down. He fought mainly at welter because thats where the money was. Palomino, Benitez, Cuevas, Duran was considering moving up and of course the golden boy then Ray Leonard. I saw with my own eyes (albeit I was a kid) Tommy sparring with Eddie Mustafa Muhammad and Dennis Andries (before he joined the gym later in his career). Additionally Tommy regularly sparred with up and coming middles and lt heavies like Gerald McCllenan and not only held his own but tommy was the TEST to go through.

My point is, don't try to dismiss the notion of tommy as a middleweight. He didn't campaign there long and definitely did not come up on the better end of the Barkley fight (although he was winning up to the point he was KTFO). He looked AWFUL against James Kinchen but the dude could definitely compete against REAL middles. Ask Juan Roldan. Heck even Marvin himself attest to the power Tommy had.

But Tommy also had excellent boxing ability when he wanted to use it. This is very evident in the Benitez fight and that guy was a defensive wizard before Sweet Pea..

Posted by: MarzB Aug 24 2009, 01:54 PM

Yeah Sugar, I'm gonna have to agree with this. Especially considering how he fired Aaron Pryor for kicking his ass,lol. While I give Ray more credit than I once gave him, I think he's way too glorified. In his prime, he was muscled by Duran who was coming up in weight. I totally believe he was afraid of Duran at the time and granted, that wasn't his strength but there was no beast there.

The Benitez fight was great on both sides. So was the Hearns fight but lets not forget had he not had that last spurt of energy Hearns was headed to a decision. Ajub kalule (sp?) was a decent guy but nothing to write home about. I'm not cherry picking either, I'm just trying to think against world class competition who did Ray totally blow out and it was none. Where as the term BEAST I'd give someone like Hagler or Hearns who obliterated world class guys where you were blown away. (see: Minter, Duran, Cuevas, Antuofermo II, etc)

Posted by: Method Aug 24 2009, 02:00 PM

Not the case. Never argued that, but I sure as hell aint gonna sit back and listen to a bunch of baseless bullshit.

Posted by: rusty_trombone Aug 24 2009, 05:17 PM

I think Ray frustrates Hopkins, just outquicks him. I don't think it's a blowout, but I think Hopkins would have a serious problem handling the speed, same reason why I always thought the Roy was a bad matchup for him. I really think Hagler beats him, I see Hopkins trying to be cute and Hagler still going. Hearns, now that's the guy Hopkins would have the best shot against.

Nevertheless, I don't see Hopkins getting abused in these fights, just losing from being outmatched.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 24 2009, 05:39 PM

Wow the great Marvelous Marvin Hagler whipping on B-Hop's ass is baseless. The same B-Hop who depends on rough tactics to win. You need to sit back and watch some Hagler tapes my dude.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 24 2009, 05:42 PM

I agree Rus but if B-Hop tries to go to war with Hagler he gets KTFO! and he better not tire either.

Posted by: Method Aug 24 2009, 05:57 PM

Yeah, when you throw it out there with no basis for the claim, its BASELESS.



Yeah, because we've seen Hops so close to being KTFO before. Sugar Q, you're so fucking dumb it's beyond me. Do you actually sit back and read what you write when you're done stringing words together?

Posted by: rusty_trombone Aug 24 2009, 06:05 PM

yeah, I can't see Hopkins trading with Hagler. You have to like Hagler's chances in a war, Hopkins has a beard though, it hasn't been tested all that much. I have a hard time thinking Hopkins would go toe-to-toe with Hagler, I just don't think he would be able to keep Hagler off of him.

Hagler does fight a style that's perfect for Hopkins to fight against though, I just think he would be too much for him. I think Hopkins would try to counter, probably counter pretty well, but Hagler just eats it up. I don't think Hopkins will hit him more perfectly, or harder than Hearns did.

Posted by: STEVENSKI Aug 24 2009, 06:35 PM

He was a world champion in the middleweight unification tournament of course he had business there. What are you on Sugar?



LOL.

Posted by: StyleZ Aug 24 2009, 08:14 PM

The only word that sould be associated with Sugar Ray Leonard is GAY! I really hate the guy... BUT he would have given Hopkins all kinds of problems.

Posted by: Fitz Aug 24 2009, 08:35 PM

I don't know how you can hate Leonard but like Floyd. Floyd is a poor mans with absolutely zero class version of Leonard.

Posted by: StyleZ Aug 24 2009, 08:49 PM

Floyd never sucked anyone down to fight them for their title.

Leonard was an ATG... But I witnessed some shit first hand and he's a first class JERK!

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 24 2009, 09:34 PM

A dumb ass would call someone a name because of his opinion. I'm not gonna dignify you or your ignorant comments. Be a man and learn how to respect other's opinions. All I see is people trying to discuss boxing rationally and you using all this unneccesary profanity. This will be the last time you will be calling me out of my name. I respect you and expect the same from you.

Posted by: StyleZ Aug 24 2009, 09:42 PM

Anytime you defend Roy or Floyd you can expect to be called a whole bunch of names. Just ignore them and keep rolling.

I was called a fucking moron because I rate Roy over Hopkins in terms of P4P. I also think Calzaghe "CLEARLY" beat Hopkins so I guess that makes me a blind bitch... Just laugh at it and press on.

Posted by: MarzB Aug 24 2009, 09:46 PM

Exactly Leonard was a class act and you (Fitz) obviously aren't familiar with Ray and believe what you're shown on television or you choose to ignore it.

This is a guy who not only was a coke head(in denial until it was going to be exposed), beat Juanita, an adulterer and often used his "golden boy" face to dictate terms and I don't mean the Hagler concessions either. But hey there's your class act. In '88 Michael Nunn approached Ray about a fight (this was in one of the boxing trades at the time) and he (mentioned) mentioned how Hagler was blackballed of sorts and does he want that to happen to him. Shut stop mentioning his name.

Whether or not you choose to believe thats what occurred the fact that the story is out there amongst others of him being an absolute DICK and hard to work with is evident.

Posted by: STEVENSKI Aug 24 2009, 09:49 PM

Sugar,

One thing that you have to understand with Method is that when you start discussing Hopkins especially in a negative fashion with outlandish claims about him it will get Method man all fired up. He is a unashamed unapologetic Hopkins fan through & through. He struggles to see any fighter that has fought at 160 beating his man in his prime. Based on Hopkins record & dominance of the division coupled with the fact that he has only lost one fight clearly & a green Hopkins going down 8-4 to a experienced RJJ is nothing to be ashamed of. I can see Method's point I may not agree with it but I can see why he makes his point.

As for cursing trust me if I was not at work then the profanity flows like a river from my mouth & keyboard.

Posted by: Spyder Aug 24 2009, 09:57 PM

This is a point that I have never understood...Roy was 21-0 when they fought in '93, Hopkins was 22-1.

Hopkins was green, and Roy Jones was experienced?

Posted by: STEVENSKI Aug 24 2009, 10:20 PM

Green because Roy had already had 130+ amateur fights & amateur or not that is a lot of extra experience. May not be exactly green I suppose but Hopkins lacked experience. The loss was good for him really.

Posted by: Spyder Aug 24 2009, 10:27 PM

Hopkins started boxing at age 10 and had 99 amateur fights.

Still lost as to how Jones was more experienced, and Hopkins considered "green"?

Posted by: Mean Mister Mustard Aug 24 2009, 11:01 PM

People need to come back to the bottom line, which is that Hopkins does not need Jones. Period. Hell just a couple of months ago everyone here was depressed after seeing Jones cover up like a frightened turtle against Calzaghe and now all of a sudden "Hopkins has to fight him! He needs it!" Please.

Is it because Jones looked good against Lacy? Is that why some of you want to see the fight?

Adamek might look like a plodder with no skill but if he fits that description then how the hell did he get by Cunningham?

Let's first see if Jones Jr can even get past Danny Green and then we'll talk about him earning a shot at Hopkins. Until then this conversation is worthless.

Posted by: Fitz Aug 24 2009, 11:18 PM

Floyd tried to get DLH down to fight at 150. He tried to do it. Kind of like the difference between a guy who committed a crime and a guy who got busted trying it. The intent was still there so don't give me that. Not a valid reason.

What did you witness him doing 'first' hand?

Once again I can see why someone doesn't like Leonard, but Leonard was a better boxer, brawler had a better resume than Floyd and actually fought some ATG. He is better than Floyd in every way. While he may have been an ass, I just don't understand the dramatic difference on how you love one guy and despise the other.

Posted by: Fitz Aug 24 2009, 11:23 PM

I think it's because one guy was closer to his prime than the other. RJJ wasn't too far from his prime while Hopkins reached it years later. Much like Lennox Lewis. I'm sure around the same time Lewis had the same amount of fights as other fighters, but he hit his prime later. I don't think 'green' should be used by comparing how many fights or age, I think it's how far away from their best and I think Jones was closer to his prime than Hopkins in 93.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 24 2009, 11:25 PM

Come on Stevenski play fair. They were both fighting for their first world titles and thought to be evenly matched. Roy beat B-Hop unanimously. There should be no excuses. Bernard stayed at middle and Roy went on to to bigger and better things. For the record I too am a B-Hop fan. Had the privilege of meeting him recently and he's a good dude but Marvin Hagler was a monster in the ring. He really believed in his "Destruct and Destroy" motto and was a pretty skillful fighter at that.

Posted by: STEVENSKI Aug 25 2009, 12:21 AM

Not only did Leonard fight some ATG fighters he beat them too. Ray Leonard is as shady as they come but his resume makes good reading.



Whatever, as Fitz pointed out they hit their primes at different times. I am not disputing that Roy beat him in any way. I am also of the opinion that Marv would have beat Hopkins as well. Hearns & Leonard in their primes vs prime Hopkins means stretcher time.

Posted by: Method Aug 25 2009, 04:49 AM

So was Ex in his prime. You're not laying any basis which would distinguish the two. Period.



If you call the baseless, sweeping generalizations you keep offering up "rational discussion", then you're a no-hoper.

Posted by: Spyder Aug 25 2009, 05:36 AM

Roy was definitely better than Hopkins. We can agree on that.

Posted by: StyleZ Aug 25 2009, 07:54 AM

First of ALL, I don't "Love" the guy. Just because I defend him doesn't mean I love him. I Hope Juan Manuel Marquez knocks his teeth in. And all this BS about what Floyd was trying to do is stupid. At the end of the day Floyd went up to fight Oscar at his weight on his terms. But the whole crime analogy was cute...


And what the fuck does Leornard being better than Floyd have to do with anything?

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 25 2009, 09:23 AM

This whole thing is about opinions. You can't factually prove that B-Hop can beat Hagler or anyone else. If we go by facts Roy has a solid win over B-Hop and Jermaine has 2 now Roy was a great middle-wt but Jermaine damn sure wasn't. Hagler had one close fight in his whole championship reign and that was against the great Ray Leonard. I respect your opinion but Hagler was arguably the greatest middle-wt of all.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 25 2009, 09:38 AM

That's a whack theory cause if we start all that Shane Mosley should've smacked down Vernon Forrest. When Hearns and Leonard fought it didn't come down to who hit their primes it came down to the better fighter that night. I don't think the B-hop who fought Roy was no different from the B-Hop who fought Taylor only the Roy B-Hop was quicker. B-Hop got beat by a better fighter that's it there's no excuse. All one has to do is look at the fighters that didn't let B-Hop bully them and that didnt fall for his traps and all of them came out with victories. The greatness of B-hop shows that there wasn't many who did.

Posted by: Mean Mister Mustard Aug 25 2009, 09:49 AM

Listen Sugar, I respect you because I've never seen you lash back with insults in this forum. That being said, you have some weird ass logic.

Your argument, as I see it, is that Hopkins would lose to Hagler because the 2 middleweights that were equal or more skilled/talented than him were able to beat him and therefore Hagler would beat him as well. That however, would be missing your own argument that styles make fights. Jones was incredibly fast and knew what he was doing in there. Jermain Taylor was also a quick guy. So you see, Hopkins was bothered by speed. Now Hagler in his prime could box or slug but he was no Jermain Taylor in the handspeed department let alone Roy Jones Jr. Also, the Taylor fight happened when Hopkins was 40! So I don't know why you keep bringing that fight up.

Hagler didn't just have one close fight aduring his championship reign. He also had a close one against Leonard, Mugabi and Roldan. During Hagler's championship reign he only fought 2 fighters who could box really well and those guys were Hearns and Duran. The latter almost outboxed him so I don't think it's wuite a stretch to say that Hopkins could decision Hagler.

So I'm not saying that the only reason Hopkins lost is because of handspeed, but what I am saying is that Hopkins lost to a style of fighter, 2 of those controversial losses happened to him at 40 years old and Hagler did have many close bouts both before and during his reign as middleweight champ. So a fight between these two, at least on paper, appears to be close.

Posted by: jlupi Aug 25 2009, 10:24 AM

Im w roy. He was simply the best Ive seen live when in his prime. of course if you factor longevity hops may be the best ever-
just when you start count him out he comes back.

Posted by: Method Aug 25 2009, 11:28 AM

Thank you.



Dumbass, I never interjected Hagler, Leonard OR Hearns into this discussion, someone else did. I merely refuted some of many baseless, sweeping, general statements that were made in this thread. AFTER someone else brought Hearns, Leonard and Hagler into the conversation that was only supposed ot be about Hopkins/Jones' negotiations, I said I BELIEVE he runs through Hearns, beats Leonard, and said he was a more complete fighter than Hagler (but that Hagler is obviously the toughest of the three). I qualified it ALL as my opinion, and then all the ignorant motherfuckers came running in like I just pissed on the bible of boxing by blaspheming the guys of the '80s - two of which never really did dick at middleweight.

Among MANY others, You came out and said that "Hagler knocks Hopkins the fuck out". Great. Thanks for that cerebral breakdown. Well thought out, rational conversation. After you put it that way, how could ANYONE disagree.

Among others, JLuv came out and said "Hagler would chase Hopkins out of the ring", and that Hopkins went "life & death" w Robert Allen in their first fight, said the fight was a draw on the cards at the time of the stoppage, posted the cards, and basically showed his ASS by not being able to accurately read score cards.

MarzB likened Hopkins 4 round debut loss to Clinton Mitchel to Hagler's two losses to Monroe (~ 27th fight), Watts (~29th fight)...go fucking figure that one out.

Now you claim Taylor has two "solid" wins? Those wins were disputed as fuck. Hell, objective truth be told, so was the Calzaghe fight. Regardless, Hagler was done at age 32, and Hopkins is still kicking ass and taking names at 44.

And honestly? What does all of this have to do with the overall theme by Roy's Boy Toys trying to argue that Roy Jones has ANY LEVERAGE WHATSOEVER in negotiating a fight w Hopkins - (you remember, primarily the THREAD topic)? Jones has ZERO leverage here and that if he really wants the fight he should take the short end of the purse. I support that Hopkins has earned the right to 60%, win lose or draw - REGARDLESS of the hypothetical tangents some of the sorry ass motherfuckers here want to take the subject of the thread on.

Bernard ain’t talking about having other things to do, but he also ain't trying to hear Roy throw around creative purse splits when, and this is really the crux of the argument, as long as Roy was winning, he was NEVER TRYING TO HEAR ANYTHING BUT him getting 60%...and even 80% in a rubber match should he lose.

Now go ahead and play your DMV employee card and try and deflect about how you don't appreciate being called names and how offended you are at vulgar language.

Honestly, the fact that your last post is talking about how "I can't prove any of this" is HILARIOUS, considering you and a few others have been making all these baseless assertions.

Posted by: JD Aug 25 2009, 12:05 PM

Hopkins - Hagler would have been interesting because of the versatility of Nard, as well as the fact that he was unbeatable against southpaws. Hagler's style actually would have played into Hopkins hands. If B-Hop realized that Marvin was that strong on the inside, he wouldn't have been there...defensively Hopkins was better, offensively Hagler was better.

I can accept someone taking either guy in a close one. In no way, shape or form do I see this fight as a blowout, nor do I see anyone being chased out of the ring or outclassed. I am not sure what would happen to be honest.

Posted by: The Conscience Aug 25 2009, 12:05 PM

19 Pages?

Posted by: Spyder Aug 25 2009, 12:53 PM

Neither fighter has leverage over the other. Neither needs the other to "cement" their legacy. The fucking fight doesn't HAVE to happen.

If the fight NEVER happens, both fighter's lives will go on. They will take other fights, and both retire legends. I honestly don't think that Hopkins wants the fight. He remembers what Roy tried to do to him when Roy was on top, and it sucked for him. Roy was able to talk about '93, how he was the P4P Champ, he had all of the drawing power...blah blah blah

For a man with as much pride as Hopkins has, there was nothing that he could say. He felt like a fool, and it pissed him off. Now Hopkins is trying to make Roy feel the same way that he felt, but Roy ain't playing that game.

Roy is 1-0 in that series. Roy can live knowing that he beat one of the best middleweights ever, and that guy never beat him. Goodnight...sorry about your luck.

This fight should fairly be a 50-50 split, with a shared promotion. Now, if they feel like letting their egos gamble a little bit, then a 40/40/20 split would be EXTREMELY fitting.

But whatever...I'd like to see the fight, but I won't be upset if it never happens.

Posted by: STEVENSKI Aug 25 2009, 05:54 PM

Stop, just stop for god's sake please stop with this!

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 25 2009, 06:23 PM

Not my argument at all. I say Hagler was arguably the greatest middle-wt ever, definitely top 3 that's why I say he beats B-Hop. I did say that Hagler had a close fight with Ray but the other fighters you mentioned got KTFO so how was that close? They were very tough fights but ultimately Marv knocked them out and nobody asked for a rematch besides Hearns. The Duran fight wasn't close. The great Roberto went the distance but was clearly defeated. Hopkins bullies fighters and when he can't he has a problem, that's what happened against Roy, Taylor and Calzaghe. I aint never heard of Marvin Hagler fearing or being intimidated by any fighter and he fought some very tough dudes. When you look at B-Hop's record how many of those guys were as talented as Roy, Taylor and Calzaghe? My point exactly. B-Hop is a great fighter but it takes a great fighter to make a great fighter and Marv was in with a few and defeated all of them except for the controversial Leonard fight.

Posted by: Mean Mister Mustard Aug 25 2009, 06:31 PM

Well Hopkins is without a doubt in the top 3 if not 5. So when you are dealing with the cream of the crop every guy has a chance to beat the other.

You keep mentioning the Taylor losses and the Calzaghe fights but those happened when Hopkins was in his forties and they were just as close as the Hagler-Leonard fight.

The duran fight was close, I had Hagler winning it but only because he rallied late. In fact if I remember correctly in one of the judges cards he won by only 2 points I believe. And that was against a lightweight, a great one but a lightweight.


Hopkins does bully fighters and when he can't he boxes. Watch the Echol fights.

You say you've never heard of Hagler being intimidated well Hopkins hasn't either and I don't see what that has to do with their legacy? Winning inside the ring is what counts, not whether a guy is intimated or not.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 25 2009, 06:35 PM

Dude the best thing for you to do is not address me at all since you have respect issues. If other dudes are alright with you calling them out of their names so be it but your not gonna disrespect me so to you your way and to me mine.

Posted by: Fitz Aug 25 2009, 07:35 PM

Actually it was valid. Your reasoning for hating Leonard is he 'sucked' someone down. I point out that Floyd ASKED, TRIED to get Oscar down to 150, but it didn't happen. His intent was EXACTLY the same. The difference? One guy accepted and the other guy didn't. The only difference was Leonard and Floyd's opponent. It was the opponents choice that made/prevented it from happening, but Floyd still tried it. That's when I brought in the crime analogy. May be cute, but it's correct. Unless you tell me how Floyd's intentions were different.

Also you didn't answer on what you witnessed Leonard doing "first" hand.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 25 2009, 09:07 PM

We can go back and forth with opinions but being a former fighter myself and coming from a family of both pro and top amateur fighters and trainers I know first hand how important intimidation can be in a fight. A lot of fights are won or loss before you enter the ring based on intimidation. Im sure B-Hop isn't intimidated by another fighter but something is to be said of him being unwilling to avenge his only sound defeat. Who does B-Hop fight with Adamek moving to heavy? Echols was good but a brawler that was perfect for B-Hop. He was certainly not a Leonard, Hearns, Hamsho, Duran,etc. Just like some dont wanna defend B-Hop I dont wanna speak of him like I dont respect and appreciate what he's done I just dont think he would've beaten Hagler.

Posted by: Mean Mister Mustard Aug 25 2009, 09:45 PM

Yes intimidation is a huge factor but it's not a factor when one evaluates a fighter's career. What counts are the victories.



Not really. He wanted the fight back in the 90's and Jones wouldn't have it. Then in 02 the 60-40 deal was up and he didn't take it. Ok. Now however, a Jones win would do little for him other than give him some satisfaction.



I never said he was a SRL. I brought up Echols in response to your claim that when Hopkins couldn't bully someone he would resort to stalling. That didnt happen against Echols in their 2 fights, he didn't wild either against Mercado or Allen. Hopkins is a tough man and he wouldn't be out of his depth against any fighter in history.

Like you said, we could go back and forth. Let's just agree that niether fighter would destory the other with ease.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 25 2009, 10:42 PM

Cool, I agree it definitely wouldn't be an easy fight for either guy.

Posted by: Method Aug 26 2009, 04:28 AM

Let's just agree that Sugar Q is a a fucking moron. I'm pretty sure after reading all of his comments in this thread that is generally acceptable as a universal Fight Hype truth.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 09:43 AM

The internet, where cowards can call names and talk as slick as they want cause your spineless ass would never say it to my face. In elementary school we're taught to respect the rights and properties of others. Apparently you failed at that. My apologies to all who have to read this BS. I will do my best in the future to see a fool and leave him as a fool. We're here because we all love the sport of boxing not to cowardly sit behind a computer and disrespect people we know absolutely nothing about because only a coward would do that. :-)

Posted by: Method Aug 26 2009, 10:17 AM

My man, I would say it to you SQUARE in your face. You are a fucking moron.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 11:52 AM

Sure you would,lol. You sound like an insecure white dude cause a black dude wouldn't use moron and only an insecure pussy dude would pop shit online. But if you'd like to put up some money (like 15 g's) I'd be glad to match it then kick your ass for charity,lol. We can do any of the New York or Philly gyms. Oh yea and even better the new gym in Newark,NJ. B-Hop's been there recently so Im sure we can get him to come back it would be good for the city :-)

Posted by: Method Aug 26 2009, 12:02 PM

Ay fuck nut, the ONLY reason you're reading this ONLINE is because this thread is taking place ONLINE. The term keyboard gangster doesn't apply here whatsoever. I'm not in here threatening you're dumb ass. The 21 pages of this thread are laced with ignorant, moronic, baseless, sweeping generalizations/comments made by you. I'm not "name calling", crybaby, Im reading your comments, as are a few others in here, and interpreting them as you being nothing more than an ignorant motherfucker. Now, that shouldn't be construed as name calling or disrespect. It's the flat-out TRUTH, and my man, the truth should NEVER hurt.

You wanna put up $15 G's? Wow. You so Gangsta'. I live in Miami, fuckstick, so I don't know why you're asking me to come to Dirty Jerz (not to mention the fact that given how stupid you are I seriously doubt you have a discretionary $15k to throw to charity). You might want to invest that in an education. Better yet, you seem like the type that has an illegitimate (or two), I'm sure he/she could use it.

I think you have exposed who the real "Keyboard Gangster" is, Sugar Britches.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 12:08 PM

I can do St Pete area too dude. I'll be in Orlando next month. No gangsta here but if you can be offensive and disrespectful then you must be gangsta, lol. I never called you out of your name and your not gonna disrespect me. There's plenty of gyms in Florida and I got your moron and your bitch for 15 g's any time your punk ass is ready other than that shut the fuck up.

Posted by: Method Aug 26 2009, 12:40 PM

Blah blah blah you dumb fuck. I got $50K that says you don't. Im in Miami, so whenever you feel like it, hit me up...though I would think if you're so eager to play for money, you'd be anxious to spend the $200 on a flight to make it happen ASAP.

As for your Jersey Gym, next time you see Bernard there why don't you walk up to him and tell him how you think a welterweight Tommy Hearns, Ray Leonard run through him, and how he would get KTFO by Hags. Oh, and you can also mention to him that he's a punk for not taking Roy's demands.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 12:45 PM

This conversation clearly shows who's ignorant and uneducated,lol. I can be googled and can get Chris Lighty on the phone right now (team Winky) and get this shit poppin punk. I'm a successful businessman and your not a priority but I can put your ass kickin in my appointment book for after my LA trip, lol. This is between me and you not B-Hop.

Posted by: Method Aug 26 2009, 12:51 PM

Why the fuck should I get Chris Lighty on the phone. I could give fuck all about Chris Lighty. You get Chris Lighty on the phone you fucking jerkoff. Call Chris Lighty, and tell him you wanna get your ass handed to you by someone on an internet message board.

....and as far as the comments about Hopkins, I just figured since he's in your gym, you'd have no problem saying all the shit I just mentioned that you so vehemently argue in here. I mean, that is, unless you're just a "keyboard gangster".

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 12:55 PM

In a conversation I would have no problem voicing my opinion respectfully to B-Hop and no one else. The key word is respectfully. I didnt ask you to call Chris I said I could because Chris has access to gyms in your area.

Posted by: The Original MrFactor Aug 26 2009, 12:57 PM

Hey guys, ummm... Can I promote this?? I can at least get it on PPV... This may be interesting.

Posted by: The Original MrFactor Aug 26 2009, 12:59 PM

Ooooooohhhh... he called you a Jerk off!!! You gonna take that Suge?!?!?

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 12:59 PM

Let's go Im sharp as hell right now. Name the gym,lol.

Posted by: The Original MrFactor Aug 26 2009, 01:00 PM

Awwww shit... Meth he called you a punk. I cant beleive you gonna let him get away with that shit!!!

Posted by: Method Aug 26 2009, 01:01 PM

If your comments weren't so fucking moronic (and a few people in here commented as such), or if your opinion was educated, you might be worthy of my respect, but bro, you're comments in this thread are fucking borderline retarded, so what did you think you were entitled to?

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 01:02 PM

Lol, fuck Meth. Get you a tee shirt with "Method from Fighthype" on it so I can punch you in your big ass mouth when I see you, lol.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 01:05 PM

Wow Hagler would KO B-Hop is moronic. I would KO you that aint. Hagler aint fighting no more but I am, lol.

Posted by: The Original MrFactor Aug 26 2009, 01:07 PM

In all seriousness... Let me stop before this shit get out of hand. I'm just kidding. I hope you two guys can settle the conflict on line. It should never come to a physical thing with guys on here. We're all internet "friends" so to speak. You guys have a HUGE difference of opinion and should just leave it at that. As far as name calling, I've come to accept that is just how Meth expresses himself. He's a passionate cat and has firm opinions. He dont mean shit by it. Dont take it personal Suge... Stay PEACEFUL guys...

Posted by: Method Aug 26 2009, 01:09 PM

Sure thing, Sugar Britches.

Don't forget to wear your Vernon Forrest Destiny's Child jersey (though I suspect once you start runnin your mouth it wont be hard to figure out who the fuckin retard is.

Posted by: TRU Aug 26 2009, 01:10 PM

Ok little men... Sugar Q and Iron Lung. This is your daddy.

Share the rattle and eat some gerber apple sauce... 8====D ~ ~ ~

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 01:10 PM

If you were raised properly you would respect a retarded person as well and that's a really fucked up thing to say dude but it shows the kinda dude you really are. Enough of the BS.

Posted by: TRU Aug 26 2009, 01:13 PM

Posted by: Method Aug 26 2009, 01:14 PM

Sugar - you can PM me any additional correspondence. The thread hi-jackin stops here.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 01:16 PM

I tried to stop it long ago you insisted.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 01:19 PM

Once again my apologies to all who had to deal with this BS. Im not a knucklehead but I demand respect. I look forward to getting back to why we're here "TO VOICE OUR OPINIONS ABOUT THE SPORT WE LOVE WHILE BEING RESPECTFUL OF OTHER'S AND THEIR OPINIONS"

Posted by: Method Aug 26 2009, 01:20 PM

Respect is earned. That's just the reality of it.

Posted by: TRU Aug 26 2009, 01:21 PM

Take it easy Breadman. No need to go all philly with it.

Posted by: Mean Mister Mustard Aug 26 2009, 01:22 PM

LOL just trying to stir the pot up more but I think both guys are done so let's leave it alone.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 01:27 PM

And disrespect warrants disrespect. Grievous words stare up strife. BS brings more BS. So why not respect a MF until he disrespects you.

Posted by: Mean Mister Mustard Aug 26 2009, 01:32 PM

Man, I thought you were done.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 01:34 PM

Lol I'm done team Fighthype :-)

Posted by: Method Aug 26 2009, 01:34 PM

Because I ABHOR ignorance. And this thread is flush with comments from you just wreak of it...

..."you MUST be a white boy because a black man would NEVER use the word 'abhor', but lookie hear, I can pop off get my rocks off stop off pick somthin up from the drop off I bet you $15G's blah blah blah blah blah"

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 01:42 PM

You started the BS with the disrespectful name calling when I wasn't even addressing you but I'm man enough to apologize for any offensive thing I've said and move on. You've said some disrespectful racially prejudice shit but I'm not offended because I'm not that person you were referring to. It's sad though if you think African Americans are broke and uneducated cause that's a whack ass stereotype especially in my circle.

Posted by: Method Aug 26 2009, 01:48 PM

I'm sorry, there's 24 pages of posts, in here. Please pull any ONE where I injected RACE into this thread to try and gain some leverage.

You made the comment about white and black. I never said shit about race. I could give a fuck about it. I don't care what fucking color you are - you pop off w some ignorant bullshit, I'm gonna call you on it - whether here OR in person.

I mean, this is the typical DMV bullshit. Can't debate intelligently, so you have resort to pulling a race card, demanding respect, etc.

It's SO weak.

Posted by: TRU Aug 26 2009, 01:49 PM

What weight are both of you guys at?

Last time I checked Method was sitting somewhere around 320 pounds of pure butter. The guy wont stop eating cheeseburgers.

What about you Sugar Q? You sound like a little man.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 01:57 PM

No need for race here dude I come from a melting pop but if you called me a dumbass, moron to my face you would need new teeth. When did INTELLIGENT DEBATE start consisting of name calling? Im a college grad and never heard that one. That's where ignorance comes in. Children call names when someone doesn't agree with them not adults and as adults it's our job to teach our children not to do that.

Posted by: Method Aug 26 2009, 02:00 PM

WTF are you talking about? YOU interjected race into the whole conversation...




LMAO...And then just accused me of making racial comments...



Please do me a favor and show me anywhere in this 24 page thread where I mention race. Seriously. You made the comment. Surly you can back this one up.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 02:00 PM

Im about 190 but we dont need a catch-wt LOL

Posted by: Mean Mister Mustard Aug 26 2009, 02:03 PM

I have a question. Why is it that whenever a conversation on a message board gets heated and one poster calls the other out they have to mention money? It's always the same thing

"Come down to Montana and I will kick your ass. We can put up 5 LARGE if you want".

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 02:05 PM

You said I didn't have 15 g's and if I did I should keep it cause I need it, couldn't afford to give it to charity, I'm a gangsta, uneducated sounds like you have a picture in your mind. A really fucked up picture but you had the Wrong dude.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 02:09 PM

I know you guys are team fighthype but stand up for what's right MMM. Calling someone out and calling them a dumbass is two different things. Tell me I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong but I aint nobodies dumbass.

Posted by: Method Aug 26 2009, 02:09 PM

Like I said, please pull up anywhere in this 24 page thread where I mention race. You wanna talk about insecure pussies. Maybe my comments hit a little close to home, but I never mentioned mentioned race. Seems like you're hung up on race.

Posted by: Mean Mister Mustard Aug 26 2009, 02:17 PM

First of all, if you knew the whole details of Teamfighthype you'd be very disappointed. 2nd of all I only asked a question because it seems to me that if anyone wants to beat up the other then why should money be invovled? The cash issue is something I've noticed in a lot of callouts and I don't get it. no bias here. You 2 are grown men, you don't need anyone here backing the other up in a message board discussion.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 02:17 PM

Let's see don't know if you know what a melting pot is but it's a pot full of mixtures meaning I have black, white, hispanic and native american blood as close as my mom. I am totally colorblind and so is my surroundings. A person doesn't have to say black to say something fucked up you can say hood, ghetto, broke, uneducated and that would suffice. We all intelligent enough to know where that's going. Insecure pussies? I wont even have sex with an insecure pussy,lol. I'm through with this.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 02:22 PM

The concept of Fighthype doesn't matter here. Your coming to the defense of a guy who started this by calling names when the better way would be to say keep it clean. Cash is a way to make sense of it similar to 2 fathers making their 2 sons put on boxing gloves to settle their differences. If I beat someone up it's gonna be for a cause not just some ole BS. Don't know why others do it but that's my reason. I'm not a street thug but I can go handle myself if need be.

Posted by: Method Aug 26 2009, 02:24 PM

I know what a melting pot is. That has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING.

You didn't accuse me of saying something "fucked up". You accused me of saying something RACIST. Just point out the RACIST comments I made and put this thing to rest. Seriously. This can all come to a screeching halt. You accused me of interjecting race into this thread. Just prove it. This isn't an "opinion" thing. You're asserting that I said something. Back it up.

Posted by: TRU Aug 26 2009, 02:24 PM

15k for a streetfight or a boxing match?

Posted by: Mean Mister Mustard Aug 26 2009, 02:27 PM

But isn't it already for something? Isn't it to show him some respect?

I tell you, hypothetically speaking, the only reason I would demand some cash is to pay for the plane ticket. I'm not wasting hard earned money just to show someone I don't know any respect.

Posted by: Mean Mister Mustard Aug 26 2009, 02:30 PM

Apparently it does because here's what you said



And when did I stand up for Method? What did I say that is giving you the idea that I'm siding with him against you?

I'm not going to comment any further because you seem to think I'm picking sides.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 02:32 PM

You wanna put up $15 G's? Wow. You so Gangsta'. I live in Miami, fuckstick, so I don't know why you're asking me to come to Dirty Jerz (not to mention the fact that given how stupid you are I seriously doubt you have a discretionary $15k to throw to charity). You might want to invest that in an education. Better yet, you seem like the type that has an illegitimate (or two), I'm sure he/she could use it.



Uneducated, Dirty Jerz, gangsta, don't have an extra 15 g's and illegitimate kids. Lol

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 02:34 PM

LOL Im good dude all Im saying is if it were me calling names I would be cool with someone saying Q you should cool it with the name calling. Keep it clean.

Posted by: Method Aug 26 2009, 02:36 PM

Like I said, please post ANYTHING I said where I interjected RACE into this conversation.

Posted by: TRU Aug 26 2009, 02:38 PM

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 02:41 PM

Uneducated, dont have an extra 15 g's, a gangsta, and have illegitimate kids. Your certainly not referring to a white dude.

Posted by: Method Aug 26 2009, 02:47 PM

Insecure and defensive.

Im "not referring to a white dude"?

I didn't mention race, bro. What the fuck are you so insecure about it? Why are you so hung up on race?

Typical DMV. When in doubt, play the fucking race card. Bro, you have made a lot of baseless claims in this thread, but this is the sorriest. Aside from the fact that YOU pulled the race card...

Now THAT is a direct reference to race. See the difference, you fucking moron?

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 26 2009, 02:56 PM

LMAO, not insecure at all my dude never that but I would love to move past this BS. I'm still going to Orlando on business, we can meet up so I can call you a fucking moron right back. LOL

Posted by: Method Aug 26 2009, 02:59 PM

We'd be way past this if you didn't try and pull a rabbit (read: RACE CARD) out of a hat.

That's pretty much been my entire issue with you in this thread. Baseless bullshit. And now that Im calling you out on yet some more of it, "you wish we could get past it". Fine. Whatever.

Orlando. Great. Let me guess. You'll be the guy in the Mickey Mouse costume. I'll be sure to keep a look out.

Posted by: TRU Aug 26 2009, 03:21 PM

Posted by: streetlion1 Aug 26 2009, 03:25 PM

Forget the bullshit....B-Hop would destroy Roy Jones Jr....IMO he would school Chad Dawson....if he went to cruiser against Adamek it could very well be a replay of Pavlik-Hopkins either way he wins big.

B-Hop is the best middleweight of all time! thats just my opinion....let history decide where he falls.. As far as who he "would" of beatin out of the best middleweights ever....possibly all of them!

His toughest fight coming against Hagler. He wouldnt of been able to bully Hagler and beat him rough house style but B-Hop is a better defender and has just all around better skills. No way could I say he wouldnt of beatin them because when it comes down to it competition level or not....not one of them accomplished what B-Hop did in that division.

Posted by: rusty_trombone Aug 26 2009, 03:48 PM

This is fucking gold right here. Damn, I used to live in Florida I would definitely go to this.

Posted by: Lil-lightsout Aug 26 2009, 04:41 PM

I respect your opinion, but I think he would have alot of trouble with Dawsons speed, kind of like he had trouble(not really trouble,maybe bothered) by JT and Calzaghe's speed. And Adamek is pretty good and tough and bigger than Hops, I would favor Bernard slightly over Adamak. As far as Jones and Hopkins would play out, Hopkins would probably KO Jones later in the fight, I think Roy's speed at first MIGHT be able to buy him some time.

My only thing with Hopkins as far as accomplishments go, is the lack of true good middleweights he faced during his reign. I still think Hopkins could have fared well against anyone, and really there is no way of knowing what would have happened, but I just think Hops determination and skills would enable him to compete with probably anyone. Just my opinion.

These are some of the fighters I wished he could have faced during the 90's, these are off the top of my head, and I do realize unfortunately alot of these fighters moved up to 168 while Hopkins stayed at 160, and due to many other circumstances fights just do not get made.

James Toney, Mike McCallum, Nigel Benn, Gerald McClellan, Julian Jackson, Lamar Parks, Reggie Johnson, Chris Eubank, Michael Nunn.

Just off the top of my head, I am sure there were some other good 160-168 pounders that would have made a good fight with Hopkins.

Posted by: Fitz Aug 26 2009, 06:08 PM

STFU guys. We are way past this. We don't care about Roy or BHop in this thread now

Method and Sugar. Post pics, weight, height reach and background. That way we can start some betting lines

Posted by: Mean Mister Mustard Aug 26 2009, 06:14 PM

Yeah, what the fuck are you guys talking about? Jones, Hopkins? Get with the times. This is all about Method v.s Sugar Q.

Posted by: Lil-lightsout Aug 26 2009, 07:14 PM

Sorry for derailing the Hopkins-Jones thread with talk about Hopkins and Jones,lol.

And I do not like you disrespecting me by telling me to "STFU". You wanna make it a double-header? I weigh 150(still shredded) and am 5' 6". Had a long amateur background. Can you make to Florida? I don't got the mad cash those ballers got to throw around, but say for 50 big ones, uh I mean 50 bucks. Obviously I am joking.

I must admit, it was very entertaining reading these last couple of pages.

Posted by: MarzB Aug 26 2009, 07:19 PM

Sorry for derailing the Hopkins-Jones thread with talk about Hopkins and Jones,lol.

LOL. I notice something about Hopkins. When Hopkins tends to be pressed in interview situations where he can't deal with question at hand or the person isn't satisfied with his answer, he bails. WTF??

He did it on this call when it was said a "winner take all" which I KNOW isn't realistic obviously but surely he could have answered that.

He also did it on an interview (I'll find it and post it) on NYC station HOT97 where the co-host wasn't feeling him. The cost host happened to be of PR descent and Hopkins said, "oh you're still mad at me cuz you lost a lot of money on the Tito fight",lol. Something to that effect but Hopkins was right. When the dude kept pressing him on the "flag" issue, Hopkins got tired and just hung up.

That right there shows this isn't a coincidence. When Hopkins says from his mouth he's worried about judges (as I posted here earlier), that tells me he knows he's not gonna blow Roy away and he already has doubt.

Posted by: STEVENSKI Aug 26 2009, 08:05 PM

Forget money guys. Sign a agreement that the loser pays the winners hospital bills & fight to a near death experience.

For the record Method was not in any way racist in this thread, he used genralisations & certain people chose to interpret them as racist overtones.

I could be wrong & it is only black people who have illigitimate children & a lack of money to throw around?

Sounds more like a economic & education based genralisation than a skin tone one.

We all bleed red & if these cats get it on I want to see blood & have it uploaded onto youtube. You may get 5 stars!

Posted by: The Original MrFactor Aug 26 2009, 08:16 PM

Excuse me for my ignorance, but whats the deal with the DMV and the race card?? Please explain?

Posted by: Fitz Aug 26 2009, 08:22 PM

$50? Plleeeeeease. That's slave wages....even for easy work. You weigh too much also, I weigh 190 and I am not travelling to someone's backyard for those slave wages. I am better and you must come down here. [/Mayweather Jr]

Posted by: StyleZ Aug 26 2009, 08:32 PM

You're RACIST!

Posted by: King Eugene Aug 26 2009, 09:37 PM

I swear I was thinking the same thing. This is very entertaining. I can just imagine what the weigh in would be like. I'd actually come back to Florida to see this but I'd be pissed off if it turned out to be like a toughman contest fight.

This thread is pure comedy! I could throw like the last 7 pages in the funny comments thread in the general discussion section.

Posted by: Warlord Aug 26 2009, 11:53 PM

Why not?

If you immediately associate the phrase "uneducated, don't have an extra 15 g's, gangasta with illegitimate kids" with black people, then it would seem you're the racist, wouldn't it?

You lost everything when you injected race into the debate, and then followed it up with a challenge to fight in real life. That shit's just gay. Almost as gay as the faggot who claimed he could take Joe Calzaghe in a street fight.

Bow out now and live to fight another day. You took an "L" here.

Posted by: King Eugene Aug 27 2009, 12:41 AM

You cats on here are brutal. I could just imagine everybody out at a bar drinking and a topic discussion similar to this came up.

Posted by: pacco_diablo Aug 27 2009, 07:09 AM

Judging from the lenght of this thread, maybe a Hopkins/Jones PPV could be a huge draw.

Posted by: StyleZ Aug 27 2009, 08:01 AM

As long as Method Vs Sugar Q is on the undercard.

Posted by: pacco_diablo Aug 27 2009, 08:25 AM

hahaaaa.

Posted by: streetlion1 Aug 27 2009, 09:52 AM

I agree with the Dawson take. I think Dawson presents the best fight that can be made with Hopkins right now. He doesnt have the foot-work and movement of CalSlappy but his speed and power would have to be dealt with.... I think in the end it would come down to Bernards experience, great defense, and counter-punching ability. I think B-Hop would win the fight U.D. Yet like I said in another thread if Dawson proved me wrong I wouldnt be totally surprised...hes one of my favorite young fighters.

I also agree with wanting to see him fight James Toney back then....that wouldve been a good one!

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 27 2009, 12:37 PM

Good post Lil my point exactly. :-)

Posted by: TRU Aug 27 2009, 01:12 PM

It's not really fair to criticize Hopkins' lack of NAME middleweight opponents during his reign.

He fought the best in his division at the time when everything lined up. As most of you know, it takes alot for things to line up within boxing due to the long list of... mandatories, injuries, stalling out for more money, moving around weight classes, promotional disputes, etc. etc. etc.

Posted by: Method Aug 27 2009, 01:31 PM

Your point exactly? You didn't come ANYWHERE CLOSE to saying "I still think Hopkins could have fared well against anyone...I just think Hops determination and skills would enable him to compete with probably anyone." Rather, you said he'd get KTFO vs Hags, and lose easily to Leonard, Hearns. You said he didn't belong anywhere near the top middleweights of all time. So what the fuck are you claiming "My point exactly" to Lil-Lightsout's aforementioned quote?

Seriously, bro, you need to just press the eject button on your mouse and get yourself the fuck out of this thread, because you are a walking contradiction, and digging yourself all kinds of holes.

Posted by: StyleZ Aug 27 2009, 01:57 PM

SMH...

Method,

Let it go... You Won.

Posted by: Method Aug 27 2009, 02:01 PM

Yeah, but this is the fucking trick birthday candle that you blow out...it stays extinguished for a minute...flickers...sparks...and boom...it's lit again.

I've stayed the fuck out of this thread, but I'm not gonna sit idle and watch this cat try and twist and flip flop and hijack other people's comments with the "my thoughts exactly" when, in reality, for 24 pages his thoughts were the polar opposite..

Posted by: TRU Aug 27 2009, 04:00 PM

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 27 2009, 04:07 PM

Put me out punk! I told you to stop talking to me if you dont wanna fight so stop talking or meet me in Florida. Do you think you got something off cause I'll come to your house and punch you in your big (behind the computer) mouth. I still say Hagler stops B-Hop in a 15 round fight and dont give a fuck who dont like it. Never said easily I said he stops him. I also say a focused Ray Leonard beats him again my opinion and i dont give a fuck if you or anybody else dont like it. I know you think your a big man behind your computer but I got a method for your punk ass.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 27 2009, 04:10 PM

This BS wouldnt happen if we start webcam chatting with audio, disrespectful MF's would show respect then,lol. Everyone in this thread can see me trying to sidestep (move on pass) his ass but he think he can keep poppin shit behind his computer.

Posted by: Method Aug 27 2009, 04:24 PM

I'm calling you out because you made yet ANOTHER ignorant comment. If you don't want me talking to you in this thread, then quit making ignorant comments.

"Oh my thoughts, exactly, Lil Lights Out!"

STFU, you said nothing of the kind.

Come to Miami you little faggot. I'll give you my fuckin address. Let me know when you're broke ass can get to town. You ain't the first ignorant fuck that tried to come at me with some bullshit like this. You can talk as bad ass as you want. Its ALWAYS a different story when someone gets a good look front and center....but no 180 lb punchy little uneducated pussy's gonna make me nervous.

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 27 2009, 04:25 PM

Oh Im coming punk where can I find your punk ass?

Posted by: Sugar Q Aug 27 2009, 04:27 PM

You's a silly mother fucker Im more educated than your whole family and can buy your little cheap ass. You helped make me rich punk by buying my product :-) LMAO

Posted by: Method Aug 27 2009, 04:27 PM

Miami Beach.

Posted by: Method Aug 27 2009, 04:29 PM

Ahhhahahahaha. Sure you can. I got a W2 that says otherwise, faggot.

Posted by: TRU Aug 27 2009, 04:37 PM

400K BITCH!!!

Posted by: rusty_trombone Aug 27 2009, 05:12 PM

Now I want to know what product Sugar Q sells.

Posted by: Fitz Aug 27 2009, 05:51 PM

I just want to say that this is an awesome thread.

Posted by: TRU Aug 27 2009, 06:15 PM

In the red corner... straight outta Philadelphia by the way of New York and Miami... standing at 6'1" at a hefty 240 pounds... METHOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the blue corner... hailing from Philadelphia by the way of 15K... standing at 6'0" at a lean and mean 190 pounds... SUGAR Q!

Fellas keep all the punches above the belt line and protect yourselves at all times. I'm neither far nor firm but I sure as hell am corrupt.

Swing wildly and dont be suprised when yo dame is missin...

Posted by: Spyder Aug 27 2009, 06:16 PM

I didn't realize we had such high-rollers amoung us. Fools buying each other...

Maybe Hype should add a stock exchange to the casino section.

Posted by: King Eugene Aug 27 2009, 09:28 PM

This thread reminds me of something my HS coach told me once.

Once a recruiter came to check out a few kids. They where doing the Oklahoma drills and this one kid kept on getting pancaked back to back but never stopped coming. The HS coach turned to the recruiter and said dont you just love that kids heart? This kid can play for me anyday. The recruiter said I'd rather have the one thats knocking him down. LOL

In other words I'm not laying my money on the guy who keeps getting knocked down. You can pretty much figure out which one of the two he is. LOL

Posted by: the ollie reed fan club Aug 29 2009, 06:16 PM

Is this fight gonna be shown on PPV? I'm definately purchasing it if it is. Beware Sugar, Method is very experienced in these kind of stoush's. I'm gonna have to go with the veteran in this one.

Posted by: snoopnick Aug 31 2009, 03:04 AM

Damn. I'm not on the board for 3 days and look what happens. Ya'll need to make some brutes.

Posted by: STEVENSKI Aug 31 2009, 03:36 AM

Wow you are such a fucking toughie Sugar . What is the method you claim to have for your madness?

I am no genius but I am smart enough to know there are millions & millions of guys that could kick my arse all over the shop & I can accept that.

Posted by: KookedKrack Aug 31 2009, 04:00 PM

damn how could i have missed the greatness that is this thread

Posted by: Fitz Aug 31 2009, 10:40 PM

Haha.

http://www.fighthype.com/pages/content5583.html

Roy is so delusional. They "don't judge p4p on skill any more", "Bernard is boring". Jones ranted for a while, and this dick head is going by how they don't judge p4p lists on skill any more and he is defending himself because he throws quick left hooks.
Sorry, but they don't judge lists on how quick you throw hooks either. Why is this guy trying to mention Hopkins name to make a name for himself? Can't keep Bernard's name out of his mouth, doesn't he have a fight with Danny Green to worry about?

Posted by: streetlion1 Aug 31 2009, 11:05 PM

I thought it was funny how he was saying that he is close to being his old self again...where clearly he isnt.


I wanna see Hopkins fight Dawson....but im getting to the point where I wanna see B-Hop fight Jones just to hand him another K.O. loss and retire him for good.

Posted by: Fitz Aug 31 2009, 11:13 PM

This guy is pretty much making an argument on how p4p lists should be judged on how quick you can throw consecutive hooks, lol. He also talks about himself like he is some kind of warrior. Did he forget in the 3rd Tarver fight where he fought to survive and just going 12 rounds was going to be a moral victory for him?