Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Hopkins vs. Wright PPV numbers
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Boxing
Pages: 1, 2
MarzB
I thought this would have atleast done 300K but it to do even less for the numbers to not yet have been announced.

I see GBP is taking the TopRank stance of not releasing "bad" PPV numbers huh,lol... They had no problem even on Tuesday after the PBF/DLH show releasing those.

One more notch where GBP is no different than TOP RANK or DKP.

Kijis Konar
Boxing fans knew they were not going to see real action. I'm glad it didn't do well on sales.
kidbazooka1
People knew what they were getting with Hop/Wright no surprise the fight did horrible.
JD
I read that it did right around 300,000 buys.

I am trying to remember where I read it, because if I do - I will throw it up here.
JD
From Rafael's notebook...

The July 21 Bernard Hopkins-Winky Wright light heavyweight championship fight on HBO PPV generated between 300,000 and 330,000 buys -- roughly $15 million -- Golden Boy CEO Richard Schaefer told ESPN.com.
Method
15M...not all that bad considering they got a guaranteed 5 to split. I would assume that they would get some upside then. Who knows.

While we're at it...we ever get the PPV figures for Roy Jones/Hanshaw?
Mean Mister Mustard
As much as I wanted this fight to happen, I must admit it should not have been PPV.
NickBarker
It amazes me that there are people who would buy this card that wouldn't buy the Cotto/Judah one.
Method
I bought Cotto / Judah, but what it amazes me is that people shit all over two top P4P'ers, yet eagerly throw money away on guys that ain't.

Like I said, can someone tell me what RJ's PPV did? As long as people are charging promotional companies for bad PPV's aren't released. And what was the PPV opposite of Hopkins / Tarver? Cotto / Malagnaggi? Those numbers were never released either. Whatever.
Spyder
The Roy Jones-Hanshaw numbers were not released probably because Roy Jones was the only one getting paid.
Jack 1000
I didn't order the PPV and to be honest am not even watching the replay, even though I got the tape going. I tried the first three rounds, but they were so boring to watch and I know that the rest of the fight doesn't get much better. It really was the ZZZZZ fest that people predicted. I remember the prime Hopkins when he was interesting to watch. Wright has always been boring.

Jack
Method
Some people need their boxing spoonfed to them Jack. You're one of them. For a guy who gets off playing with word processing programs, funny you could classifcy anything as boring. Hell, most of the reports out there concede it was much more action than anticipated. Whatever. Some people don't understand the subtleties of the science. Chess ain't for everyone...that's why they have checkers -- for the dimwitted.
Imperius3
I kinda agree, but I wouldn't say dimwitted...although maybe a little shallow.

The fight actually exceeded my expectations.
neophyte7
Most of these posters have to be women on their periods.. some of the arguments and baseless comments are sickening... Hopkins and Wright is not boring and marked a clash of great fighters. Sorry there was not much stand still face fighting without head movement... these guys are much more than that. There are many styles and approaches in a match. ONLY IMMATURE CASUAL FANS GET MAD BECAUSE two fighters don't fight in a style that they want to see...
salvador
QUOTE(neophyte7 @ Jul 29 2007, 01:43 PM) [snapback]351626[/snapback]
ONLY IMMATURE CASUAL FANS GET MAD BECAUSE two fighters don't fight in a style that they want to see...


And fans who pay $49.95 for a fight on tv (when the Superbowl, World Series, and Kentucky Derby are free) only to see two guys who were unwilling to take the risks required to generate the kind of drama that would justify the sticker price.

As far as the chess analogy: the difference is that in chess there's eventually a checkmate. It might be thoughtful and subtle for hours, but eventually there's the kill. Watching Winky-Hopkins was like watching a chess match with a time limit and an arbitrary scoring system to see who's won half way through the game. The kill never entered into the equation.

The fight was better than I expected, as Winky was even more aggressive than he was in the Taylor fight, but it still wasn't worth $49.95 because neither guy went into the ring wanting to prove his greatness. They both wanted to win while taking the least amount of risk to do it.
Method
The kill never entered into the equation, perhaps true, but for all intents and purposes, Wright was finished after 12, and if boxing was still 15 rounds, the chess equivalent of limitless, then Wright would have been killed. The championship rounds were 'checkmate'.
salvador
QUOTE(Method @ Jul 29 2007, 02:58 PM) [snapback]351635[/snapback]
The kill never entered into the equation, perhaps true, but for all intents and purposes, Wright was finished after 12, and if boxing was still 15 rounds, the chess equivalent of limitless, then Wright would have been killed. The championship rounds were 'checkmate'.


If Winky really is a chess player, don't you think he would have paced himself for 15 rounds and not gone after Hopkins quite as aggressively?

Anyway, the only reason I would criticize this fight was that it was PPV. Both guys are obviously great fighters and the fight exceeded my expectations by a fairly wide margin. We (and HBO) knew going in what the deal was. I just think that if you are going to charge $50 for a tv fight, both guys should be expected to take the kind of risks necessary to, at the very least, make the decision a clear one. And neither guy did that (though Winky made more of an effort than Hopkins).

Again, if it had been regular HBO, no problem.
fantasiabruja
I wasn't going to order it but by the time the clock struck 8:30 pm I was like a crack head that needed a hit badly and my wife noticed it and asked me why was'nt I ordering it and I said it dont mean that much to me she told me order the stupid fight. I said no I'm not waisting my money and so she waited to I got up to use the bathroom and when I came back in the room she had ordered it. The under card was good and the main event was alright.
24 A BRICK
it's funny that the only ones defending the PPV fight are the Hopkin's fan, or the people who are ashamed to admit they threw away $50.00 on a BS fight. feed that SCIENCE shit somewhere else. SCIENCE is not about being warned constantly throughout a fight. SCIENCE is not counter-hugging and counter headbutting throughout a fight. like it or not, Hopkins pulled a John Ruiz in that fight. as far as chess & checkers...the Hopkins-Winky fight was a game of marbles.
salvador
QUOTE(fantasiabruja @ Jul 29 2007, 10:46 PM) [snapback]351673[/snapback]
I wasn't going to order it but by the time the clock struck 8:30 pm I was like a crack head that needed a hit badly and my wife noticed it and asked me why was'nt I ordering it and I said it dont mean that much to me she told me order the stupid fight. I said no I'm not waisting my money and so she waited to I got up to use the bathroom and when I came back in the room she had ordered it. The under card was good and the main event was alright.


You must be newlyweds.
jlupi
hops may have always been INTERESTING to watch, never exciting. I think Wink gets a bad rap. Hes only boring when hes running away w the fight. many of his competitive fights have not been boring. He lost this fight because he fell into hops style of fight.
Tha Docta
QUOTE(jlupi @ Jul 30 2007, 10:11 AM) [snapback]351714[/snapback]
hops may have always been INTERESTING to watch, never exciting. I think Wink gets a bad rap. Hes only boring when hes running away w the fight. many of his competitive fights have not been boring. He lost this fight because he fell into hops style of fight.



i for one have never enjoyed a winky wright fight. regardless of how competitive it was. to me, his style is just not pleasing to watch at all, even when the fight is close.

just watched the fight for the first time on saturday and boy was that ugly. winky looked sloppy in there, but i think the weight had alot to do with it. manny steward was not cutting these guys any slack either.
Mean Mister Mustard
QUOTE(Method @ Jul 29 2007, 12:07 PM) [snapback]351623[/snapback]
Some people need their boxing spoonfed to them Jack. You're one of them. For a guy who gets off playing with word processing programs, funny you could classifcy anything as boring. Hell, most of the reports out there concede it was much more action than anticipated. Whatever. Some people don't understand the subtleties of the science. Chess ain't for everyone...that's why they have checkers -- for the dimwitted.


I would not say that fans who did not enjoy this fight are dimwits who only want to see brawls. I already said in other threads that I had always wanted to see these 2 guys fight and it was fun watching 2 guys who have never been beaten by wide margins face each other off. But I can understand why some did not like it and found it boring. This was not a technical boxing boxing match like Hearns-Benitez but rather an in-fight clinic to see who could take the other guy out of their element. Hopkins won that fight and it was fun watching it because of the stature of both guys.

I did not enjoy watching PBF box circles around Baldomir last year because you knew that was going to happen and that Baldomir was not as good enough to rough Mayweather up or hit hard enough to stop him with one shot. But some people did enjoy that fight ,seeing a defensive master at work doing what neither Judah or Gatti were able to do to Baldomir. So some people like certain boxing clinics yet can't stand others.

By the way when Kellerman said that Hopkins has never been an entertaining fighter, he must not have watched Hops first defenses of the IBF belt when he was either knocking out or just plain abusing fighters for 12 rounds.
jlupi
By the way when Kellerman said that Hopkins has never been an entertaining fighter, he must not have watched Hops first defenses of the IBF belt when he was either knocking out or just plain abusing fighters for 12 rounds.

>>>>

back when he had trouble getting on tv and getting decent money?

hes always been good. but always rouph/dirty and hasnt always made for a great fight to watch. Hes always been very good at getting fighters to fight his fight.
Don Flamenco
QUOTE(Tha Docta @ Jul 30 2007, 10:59 AM) [snapback]351718[/snapback]
i for one have never enjoyed a winky wright fight. regardless of how competitive it was. to me, his style is just not pleasing to watch at all, even when the fight is close.



Not even when he fought Tito? dntknw.gif
Tha Docta
QUOTE(Don Flamenco @ Jul 30 2007, 04:00 PM) [snapback]351744[/snapback]
Not even when he fought Tito? dntknw.gif



the tito fight was boring. i said i dont even like it when hes in fights that are close, and the tito fight was anything but close. i think wright could have made a statement against tito and got him outa there but he let off the gas.
BigG
Like I said, TRUE fans would enjoy a good chess match and showcase of skills. If you weren't interested in Hopkins-Winky, you might as well not watch boxing or just stick to watching fights like Gatti-Ward. I know I enjoyed Hopkins-Winky, Mayweather-Judah, etc.
moscow bear
QUOTE(biggeorge89 @ Jul 31 2007, 09:44 AM) [snapback]351797[/snapback]
Like I said, TRUE fans would enjoy a good chess match and showcase of skills. If you weren't interested in Hopkins-Winky, you might as well not watch boxing or just stick to watching fights like Gatti-Ward. I know I enjoyed Hopkins-Winky, Mayweather-Judah, etc.


with all due respect you just cant compare the excitement of Mayweather-Judah with Hops-Wright. Hopd-Wright WAS boring, not saying that all Hops' fights are.
Method
The excitement of Mayweather/Judah? All due respect, Hopkins/Wright did better numbers than May/Judah, from what I've read, and what the fuck was so exciting about it? The brawl? Look, I enjoyed Mayweather/Judah just fine, because I appreciate various aspects of the sport, but Im with George on this one.
Tha Docta
QUOTE(Method @ Jul 31 2007, 09:18 AM) [snapback]351808[/snapback]
The excitement of Mayweather/Judah? All due respect, Hopkins/Wright did better numbers than May/Judah, from what I've read, and what the fuck was so exciting about it? The brawl? Look, I enjoyed Mayweather/Judah just fine, because I appreciate various aspects of the sport, but Im with George on this one.



i enjoyed mayweather v judah more than hops vs winky. while hops v winky was not as bad as i thought it would be, the fight just looked sloppy to me. and it was still boring. hops has become the lightheavy version of john ruiz, and winky could barely keep his balance with the extra weight. i have no problem if people enjoy those types of fights, its just not my cup of tea.
Southeastpaw
It is not fair to say that fight fans that don't like chess match type fights are not real fight fans. I know many don't like Merchant, but would you label him as not a true fight fan? What about Kellerman? What about Steward? Comon guys. Just because some don't care for a certain style of boxing that you do, they don't know shit??? I came to respect Hopkins as a fighter and was looking forward to this fight, but the fight was aggrivating. I am not going to criticize the people that thoroughly enjoyed the bout. That is their shit. But I think that the majority of fight fans like to see a somewhat visibly clean craft, rather than looking for it between sloppy holds, headbutts, and fouls. The majority, not all. Just my take.
caneman
for whoever said that is bad PPV #'s....let me point out that it did the same # as gatti/PBF @ 330K wtf.gif
Method
When you have two of the best, very rarely do you get "visibly clean"...which is to say, it's not spoonfed. You have to be able to understand what you're watching. I have no problem with any other facets of the ring, but to see the crying and complaining because two of the top 5 P4P'ers fought, and it wasn't a rock 'em sock'em affair, is kinda ridiculous, IMO. The fight went pretty much as I though it would. Well, Hopkins won it a little easier than I thought he would (I thought it would be an 8-4'ish affair). Contrary to most complaints on this board, and in agreement with the ringside consensus, the fight was more entertaining and action packed than I thought it would be. Whatever.
salvador
QUOTE(Method @ Jul 31 2007, 10:40 AM) [snapback]351820[/snapback]
When you have two of the best, very rarely do you get "visibly clean"...which is to say, it's not spoonfed. You have to be able to understand what you're watching.


I think the exact opposite is true. More often than not, when two of the very best FIGHTERS get in the ring, both guys are going in to make a point: Pacquiao against everybody, Ali against everybody, Tyson against everybody, Hagler against everybody, old Roy Jones against everybody, ect. Sometimes when the best meet you get close fights like Holyfield-Lewis or Barrera-Morales, but it's not because either guy was looking to win on points like Winky and Hopkins were looking to do on Saturday.

And "understanding what you're watching" ain't tough when you're watching boxing. One guy is doing more damage to the other guy or he isn't. If you have eyes and can count to 12, you can understand everything you need to know about boxing.

The bottom line is that this fight was between two of the p4p best BOXERS in the world, with boxer meaning defensive minded counterpunchers who are very unwilling to take one to land one and who are willing to wait for however long it takes in order to be taking less than one to land one. Risk is the foundation of excitement in just about everything in life and especially in boxing, and these guys don't take risks. As a consequence, their fights will always be boring. But again, we knew that going in.
Tha Docta
QUOTE(Method @ Jul 31 2007, 10:40 AM) [snapback]351820[/snapback]
When you have two of the best, very rarely do you get "visibly clean"...which is to say, it's not spoonfed. You have to be able to understand what you're watching. I have no problem with any other facets of the ring, but to see the crying and complaining because two of the top 5 P4P'ers fought, and it wasn't a rock 'em sock'em affair, is kinda ridiculous, IMO. The fight went pretty much as I though it would. Well, Hopkins won it a little easier than I thought he would (I thought it would be an 8-4'ish affair). Contrary to most complaints on this board, and in agreement with the ringside consensus, the fight was more entertaining and action packed than I thought it would be. Whatever.



i think almost everyone was expecting the cure for insomnia, but that wasnt the case. i still thought the fight was sloppy, and to someone that didnt know either of these guys, they surely wouldnt have thought that these two were p4p fighters. its obvious that winky needs to drop back to 160. if hopkins next fight has a ref that doesnt allow holding and hitting, then hes in deep shit.

i havent been crying or complaining, but i still didnt enjoy watching this fight. and hopkins really needs to stop saying hes gonna knock people out, cause the man will not register another knockout before he retires.
Method
QUOTE(salvador @ Jul 31 2007, 10:54 AM) [snapback]351824[/snapback]
I think the exact opposite is true. More often than not, when two of the very best FIGHTERS get in the ring, both guys are going in to make a point: Pacquiao against everybody, Ali against everybody, Tyson against everybody, Hagler against everybody, old Roy Jones against everybody, ect. Sometimes when the best meet you get close fights like Holyfield-Lewis or Barrera-Morales, but it's not because either guy was looking to win on points like Winky and Hopkins were looking to do on Saturday.

And "understanding what you're watching" ain't tough when you're watching boxing. One guy is doing more damage to the other guy or he isn't. If you have eyes and can count to 12, you can understand everything you need to know about boxing.


Paq / Marquez? Jones / Hopkins? There were a few Ali fights that the man received questionable decisions. I don't think both guys were looking for points wins, per se, but neither guy has ever been close to being stopped, so that's basically what you're stuck with.

As for having eyes and being able to count. I guess I'll just leave that alone. That's like saying all you need to do to perform calculus is have a pencil and a calculator (whether you know what to do with it or not). I'll leave it at that.

Like I said, I'm with George on this one.
salvador
QUOTE(Method @ Jul 31 2007, 11:01 AM) [snapback]351827[/snapback]
Paq / Marquez? Jones / Hopkins? There were a few Ali fights that the man received questionable decisions. I don't think both guys were looking for points wins, per se, but neither guy has ever been close to being stopped, so that's basically what you're stuck with.

As for having eyes and being able to count. I guess I'll just leave that alone. That's like saying all you need to do to perform calculus is have a pencil and a calculator (whether you know what to do with it or not). I'll leave it at that.

Like I said, I'm with George on this one.


The only reason I keep responding to this is the notion that somehow anyone who didn't like the fight needs his boxing "spoonfed" to him, which I find to be worse than condescending, because it's condescending and wrong at the same time.

Pacquiao came forward all night with his chin out trying to ko Marquez (after 3 knockdowns in the first round), but Marquez outboxed him. Just because the fight was close didn't mean that Pacquiao wasn't trying for greatness.

And not all of Jones' fights were great, but mostly he dominated to the point that the judges were irrelvelant. In every one of Ali's fights that I've ever seen, Ali was trying to put on a show with everything he had, especially in his closest fights. And I think it goes without saying that if Ali was in a fight as close as Hopkins-Wright, Ali would have been swinging for the fences in the last two rounds.

As far as the simple math of being able to add to 12, it's in the context of being able to tell which guy is doing more damage in each round and then adding those rounds up, knowing that 12 is as high as you need to go. Boxing is that simple to understand. Where the hell does calculus come in? Are you really telling me that the subtleties of feinting, posturing, and holding require calculus to figure out?

Would you rather see a bullfighter who is so skilled that he can manage to tire the bull to the point of exhaustion from 30 feet away, or would you rather see that same bullfighter use his skill and dexterity to tire the bull, with his body just inches from the horns? Because to me, the answer is simple. And I don't think that boxing aficionados and bullfighting aficionados are that far apart.
Method
QUOTE(salvador @ Jul 31 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]351835[/snapback]
The only reason I keep responding to this is the notion that somehow anyone who didn't like the fight needs his boxing "spoonfed" to him, which I find to be worse than condescending, because it's condescending and wrong at the same time.


If the only reason you are responding is because what I responded with seemed condescending, then let me assure you, the only reason I bothered responding to this thread AT ALL is because all the whining and complaining about a boring fight or whatever when most of the time everyone complains that the best don't fight the best, etc. etc...here we have arguably two of the sports best with the ringside concensus citing more action than anticipated, with both guys scoring higher offenses than recent fights, and cats are whining and hating. There have been far worse matches on PPV, and far less exciting matches that were totally hyped and completely fizzled (DLH/Mayweather comes to mind).

QUOTE(salvador @ Jul 31 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]351835[/snapback]
As far as the simple math of being able to add to 12, it's in the context of being able to tell which guy is doing more damage in each round and then adding those rounds up, knowing that 12 is as high as you need to go. Boxing is that simple to understand. Where the hell does calculus come in? Are you really telling me that the subtleties of feinting, posturing, and holding require calculus to figure out?


Well, with two top P4P fighters with similar styles/skill sets, sometimes it's not as obvious as who's got the bloody nose or the black eye. Where ring generalship is concerned, it's not as cut and dry as rock em sock em, regarless if a guy is throwing more, landing less, and being manipulated all over the ring. As for the calculus metaphor, don't take it literally. It was just in relation to your assertion that all you need to do is have eyes and be able to count to 10. I disagree. I think its a little more complex than that. I have watched plenty of fights with people who have no fucking clue what they're watching, and I have watched fights with people that understand it to a tee. There IS a disparity between the levels of "boxing IQ", or the term wouldn't have ever been used, nor would we have such concepts as "ring generalship" or "effective aggression".

QUOTE(salvador @ Jul 31 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]351835[/snapback]
Would you rather see a bullfighter who is so skilled that he can manage to tire the bull to the point of exhaustion from 30 feet away, or would you rather see that same bullfighter use his skill and dexterity to tire the bull, with his body just inches from the horns? Because to me, the answer is simple. And I don't think that boxing aficionados and bullfighting aficionados are that far apart.


So then your preference is clear. To me, if a bullfighter can tire a P4P bull out as easy as you present in your analogy, then sure, I have no problem watching it. I have no problem watching someone get jedi mindtricked right out of the game and then dissected thereafter. Would it be a different story if that bull in question was some shotty, plodding, journeyman three-legged bull, and even moreso that's all that matador preferred to face? Yeah, I wouldn't have time nor interest. But the P4P matador imposing his will/skill on the P4P bull? Hey, if you can do it and manage to not spill a drop of blood on your trunks....nice work. Unlike you, I DO think boxing and bullfighting are FAR apart. In boxing, you may have two matadors -- say, Wright/Hopkins, for example....or you could have two bulls -- say Ward/Gatti, for example. In bullfighting, you'll never have a bull vs bull or matador vs. matador.

All good. To each his own. Like I said, I tend to agree with guys like Katz, Hauser, Fernandez etc. No complaints outta me.
BigG
The thing is, boxing is disciplined sport. When you watch Hopkins, you might not find the way he fights pretty but will you doubt his skills and resume? Hopkins is all about the science of the sport..hit and not get hit. But he can get gritty when he has to. Say what you want about the Hopkins-Winky fight, but when have you seen Winky so shaky??? I mean he just looked so roughed up at the end of the fight.

Don't get me wrong, I love the KO artist. I love watching Cotto brutalize people becuase he is intelligent pressure fightter and you all know Tyson is my favorite. But I also love watching guys like Whitaker, Mayweather, Hopkins, Jones. Like them or not, the very BEST of the generation; smart boxers who make people look silly and outclass them.
Method
Again, right with you.
salvador
QUOTE(Method @ Jul 31 2007, 12:51 PM) [snapback]351841[/snapback]
To me, if a bullfighter can tire a P4P bull out as easy as you present in your analogy, then sure, I have no problem watching it. I have no problem watching someone get jedi mindtricked right out of the game and then dissected thereafter. Would it be a different story if that bull in question was some shotty, plodding, journeyman three-legged bull, and even moreso that's all that matador preferred to face? Yeah, I wouldn't have time nor interest. But the P4P matador imposing his will/skill on the P4P bull? Hey, if you can do it and manage to not spill a drop of blood on your trunks....nice work. Unlike you, I DO think boxing and bullfighting are FAR apart. In boxing, you may have two matadors -- say, Wright/Hopkins, for example....or you could have two bulls -- say Ward/Gatti, for example. In bullfighting, you'll never have a bull vs bull or matador vs. matador.


You're right. I'd like to watch some jedi mindtricks too. And if the matador could kill the bull from 30 feet away without getting blood on his trunks, I'd love to see it - as long as he kills the bull.

Anyway, I think we understand each other and have exhausted this topic, again! laugh.gif




Elijah
While I knew this shouldn't have been a PPV and I knew what type of fight to expect between Winky/Hopkins I am happy I got the PPV based on the surprising undercard. That's the beauty of boxing, you pay for the PPV and what's SUPPOSED to be a boring main event and a mediocre undercard and we ended up getting a FOTY candidate in Katsidis/Amonsot and got to see a very good up and comer and not a bad fight in its own right in Linares/Larios.
Tha Docta
QUOTE(biggeorge89 @ Jul 31 2007, 01:13 PM) [snapback]351844[/snapback]
The thing is, boxing is disciplined sport. When you watch Hopkins, you might not find the way he fights pretty but will you doubt his skills and resume? Hopkins is all about the science of the sport..hit and not get hit. But he can get gritty when he has to. Say what you want about the Hopkins-Winky fight, but when have you seen Winky so shaky??? I mean he just looked so roughed up at the end of the fight.

Don't get me wrong, I love the KO artist. I love watching Cotto brutalize people becuase he is intelligent pressure fightter and you all know Tyson is my favorite. But I also love watching guys like Whitaker, Mayweather, Hopkins, Jones. Like them or not, the very BEST of the generation; smart boxers who make people look silly and outclass them.



i think alot of the damage on winkys face was the result of headbutts. i didnt enjoy the fight, but ive heard plenty of people say they did, so to each his own.

jlupi
Ive said many times " boxing on its highest level is never boring" that said some fights are LESS entertaining than others. Ive watched hops for a long time now and by and large he makes for an ugly fight.

but I never walked away and i keep coming back
jlupi
Ive said many times " boxing on its highest level is never boring" that said some fights are LESS entertaining than others. Ive watched hops for a long time now and by and large he makes for an ugly fight.

but I never walked away and i keep coming back
Tha Docta
QUOTE(jlupi @ Jul 31 2007, 03:09 PM) [snapback]351864[/snapback]
Ive said many times " boxing on its highest level is never boring" that said some fights are LESS entertaining than others. Ive watched hops for a long time now and by and large he makes for an ugly fight.

but I never walked away and i keep coming back



i hear ya on the coming back part. i hate it when im sitting in my living room on a saturday night and theres a ppv on that i swore i would not buy because i didnt think it was worth it. but i gladly punch in the code and buy that shit for some reason.

this may be a little off topic, but what was the worst ppv that everyones purchased?? mine may be barrera vs fana. there may be a worse one, but i cant think of it at the moment.
Southeastpaw
The magnitude and meaning of the fight alone was PPV material. The outcome was meaningful and PPV material. But the actual fight I cannot sit through again. lol. Hopkins can look ugly and good at times. But Winky's style is straight up horrendous. I would love to see another boxer learn Winky's technique and fight him. That technique is a cop out in my book. He is totally covered up, will not commit, and gets in so close that he smoothers his opponent. Effective? Yes. Respectable? Not in my eyes. These styles together just made for an ugly ugly fight. I understood what was going on during the fight. But I did not like it at all. I take the good with the bad in boxing. But I prefer, as would most humans, a Corrales/Castillo type perfromance between P4Pers rather than what we had the other week. Castiilo/Corrales was a beautiful display of inside fighting. There was science involved in that fight. There were some fouls. And like other sports, fouls can be committed, you just pay the price. Corrales knew, IMO, what he was doing with spitting out the mouthpeice, and it was worth it to get a point deducted rather than get KOed. That is smart fighting, not cheating. Hopkin took this to the max in there with Winky. And probably should have been deducted a point. But this fight was an offbalance, foulfilled, just plain out ugly fight. No way around it. It was anticlimactic. The PPV was worth it for the magnitude of the bout. Had to get it just eing a fan of the sport. Just can't rewatch it.
24 A BRICK
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah BLAH! LMAO @ the hypocrisy on this board. one guy is is with one guy, because he defends his everlasting love boxer Hopkins. it looks like the other guy all of a sudden appreciates the "SCIENCE" of Hopkins. the only thing you appreciate is your video being posted in Hopkins website, that the reason you're defending Hopkins performance. ya kats is too funny, see-through peek-a-boos.
BigG
LMAO..you joined July 18.....if you've been on this board long enough, you'd have known that I was a Hopkins fan LONG before the video thing.

I don't need to defend Hopkns performance, results speak for itself...UD 12 Ronald Wright. first man to beat Winky clearly in a VERY long time. However ugly it may be.
Kijis Konar
Hopkins did a beautiful job in dominating Wright, and a true boxing fan probably appreciated the science behind his performance.

Now, personally, I prefer brawlers to technicians any day of the week.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.