I know there are some for real Bernard FANS floating around here, but the reality is this......If the current version of these two fighters where to face off Bernard would not make it to the closing bell. Glens activity and more important his experience would be too much for the faded champ. Nard would make it interesting for the first four rounds but he would get smoked the rest of the way.........Point Blank.
The title should read: "Glen Johnson would give Bernard Hopkins a beating if they where to fight right now!"
I don't think so. I think Bernard decisions him.
Really? The faith that some of you guys have in his boxing skill is off the charts. Glen is just as active as Calslappy but brings better pressure and power. Nard would gas inside five and start relying on his tricks which won't work because Glen has seen them before and pressure the shit of B-HOP until he folds. I wouldn't be surprised if Hopkins would try to foul himself out escape the beating.
I see today's Johnson versus today's Hopkins as a pick 'em with an edge to Johnson....
The oddsmakers would definitely have Johnson as the underdog though....
The oddsmakers would definitely have Johnson as the underdog though....
The fight certainly would be more competitive than the first one in which Hopkins gave him a brutal beating. Before Johnson was more of a boxer but after his Road Warrior transformation he became a slugger. It works for him and he seems to have improvd not only his stamina but also his peek a boo defense. I think it speaks well of Johnson that he didn't retire after the Hopkins fight, not many would have stuck around after having been so througoughly dominated.
While Hopkins does not posses the same workrate as in 97 he has also improved. I'm not going to name his improvements because they should be obvious to those who have followed his career but I will say that Hopkins knows how to beat guiys like Johnson all night long. First of all Johnson is very flat footed and this will allow Hopkins to outmanouver him. Hopkins might not be the beast he was back in the day but he can still fight on the inside by holding and hitting and throwing the occasional flurry like when he mugged Wright.
While Hopkins does not posses the same workrate as in 97 he has also improved. I'm not going to name his improvements because they should be obvious to those who have followed his career but I will say that Hopkins knows how to beat guiys like Johnson all night long. First of all Johnson is very flat footed and this will allow Hopkins to outmanouver him. Hopkins might not be the beast he was back in the day but he can still fight on the inside by holding and hitting and throwing the occasional flurry like when he mugged Wright.
QUOTE(The C.E.O. @ Sep 26 2008, 10:44 AM) [snapback]405329[/snapback]
I see today's Johnson versus today's Hopkins as a pick 'em with an edge to Johnson....
The oddsmakers would definitely have Johnson as the underdog though....
The oddsmakers would definitely have Johnson as the underdog though....
My thoughts exactly. Bernard is far more sneeky than Johnson but Johnson is so much more active than Hopkins. I think Hopkins style would make Johnson a little less active then normal. Just look at how he made Calzaghe look. In the end this is a hard fight to pick. Flip a coin.
Nope. BHOP decisions him!!!!
I think you went a bit too far when you said B-hop wouldnt make it to the closing bell.....
QUOTE(BoxingStill#1 @ Sep 26 2008, 05:11 PM) [snapback]405337[/snapback]
I think you went a bit too far when you said B-hop wouldnt make it to the closing bell.....
I really don't think so. Calslappy feathers fisted as he is had B-Hop faking low blows just off of his work rate. Glen would do a lot better against Hop than Cal did because he has pop to go along with his activity. Five punches around a just not going to get it done against Glen Johnson. It's no secret this board very pro B-Hop, I'm going to make the same thread in another board to see if the responses are the same.
? The faith that some of you guys have in his boxing skill is off the charts.
Spoken like someone who's never been in the ring. First of all if you're going to make a daring pick such as this, atleast bring something to back up your argument. Just because someone is more active doesn't mean they're better or would come through another person.
Recent examples include Juan Diaz vs. Nate Campbell and of course Bernard Hopkins vs. CAlazaghe. Say what you want about that fight (I had it 6 rounds to 6 with Hop winning due to the knockdown but I can accept a Cal win only based on out working Bernard's rate).
First off what Bernard does better than ANY fighter in recent history even now is he takes away what you like to do best. Basically he picks off your feathers, then your wings to where as you have nothing left.
If you'd like proof of this, look at Taylor's, Tarver's, Wright's and Cal's average punch numbers then look at them after they fought Bernard. So basically he's taking away your bazooka, your machine gun and if you don't have an accurate hand gun, then you're stuck.
Secondly before I elaborate, to this comment
here to face off Bernard would not make it to the closing bell.
When in the HELL has Bernard EVER EVER been dominated at ANY point in any fight to where as he was, out on his feet, sluggish, punch drunk or totally daised?? Name me one instance when he's ever been on "queer street" and you'd atleast have something to back up your argument. The answer would be never not even in his fights against Jones or Mercado where he was knocked down twice. So why suddenly would Glen Johnson who was annihilated literally by Hopkins the first time (you probably saw the recent broadcast of Johnson vs. Dawson that spawned this comment two days ago) suddenly walk through Bernard when we've NEVER witnessed Bernard having been walked through by more active fighters than Glen and harder punchers???
Just like theres more to basketball than dunking and more to baseball than home runs, they're entirely much more to boxing than mere activity.
I'll admit, Hopkins output is so abysmal at this point I wish he'd retire and he makes it very hard for judges to give him rounds in todays climate/yearning of "TV Friendly" fighters. But his defense, his ability to counter, his timing, his positioning, his ability to dupe you into thinking a clinch is coming but he pops you a good one and just overall ring generalship is STILL off the charts and thats what would prevent him from just being "crushed" as you initial post suggest.
We've seen Glen Johnson lose, recently (Clinton Woods, Tarver). Hopkins is still a better overall boxer than both of those guys (not taking anything away from Tarver as I know he's loathed here).
I have a question for you, YES or NO and be honest. Have you EVER seen their first fight in its complete entirety???
Spoken like someone who's never been in the ring. First of all if you're going to make a daring pick such as this, atleast bring something to back up your argument. Just because someone is more active doesn't mean they're better or would come through another person.
Recent examples include Juan Diaz vs. Nate Campbell and of course Bernard Hopkins vs. CAlazaghe. Say what you want about that fight (I had it 6 rounds to 6 with Hop winning due to the knockdown but I can accept a Cal win only based on out working Bernard's rate).
First off what Bernard does better than ANY fighter in recent history even now is he takes away what you like to do best. Basically he picks off your feathers, then your wings to where as you have nothing left.
If you'd like proof of this, look at Taylor's, Tarver's, Wright's and Cal's average punch numbers then look at them after they fought Bernard. So basically he's taking away your bazooka, your machine gun and if you don't have an accurate hand gun, then you're stuck.
Secondly before I elaborate, to this comment
here to face off Bernard would not make it to the closing bell.
When in the HELL has Bernard EVER EVER been dominated at ANY point in any fight to where as he was, out on his feet, sluggish, punch drunk or totally daised?? Name me one instance when he's ever been on "queer street" and you'd atleast have something to back up your argument. The answer would be never not even in his fights against Jones or Mercado where he was knocked down twice. So why suddenly would Glen Johnson who was annihilated literally by Hopkins the first time (you probably saw the recent broadcast of Johnson vs. Dawson that spawned this comment two days ago) suddenly walk through Bernard when we've NEVER witnessed Bernard having been walked through by more active fighters than Glen and harder punchers???
Just like theres more to basketball than dunking and more to baseball than home runs, they're entirely much more to boxing than mere activity.
I'll admit, Hopkins output is so abysmal at this point I wish he'd retire and he makes it very hard for judges to give him rounds in todays climate/yearning of "TV Friendly" fighters. But his defense, his ability to counter, his timing, his positioning, his ability to dupe you into thinking a clinch is coming but he pops you a good one and just overall ring generalship is STILL off the charts and thats what would prevent him from just being "crushed" as you initial post suggest.
We've seen Glen Johnson lose, recently (Clinton Woods, Tarver). Hopkins is still a better overall boxer than both of those guys (not taking anything away from Tarver as I know he's loathed here).
I have a question for you, YES or NO and be honest. Have you EVER seen their first fight in its complete entirety???
QUOTE(MarzB @ Sep 26 2008, 07:46 PM) [snapback]405340[/snapback]
? The faith that some of you guys have in his boxing skill is off the charts.
Spoken like someone who's never been in the ring. First of all if you're going to make a daring pick such as this, atleast bring something to back up your argument. Just because someone is more active doesn't mean they're better or would come through another person.
Recent examples include Juan Diaz vs. Nate Campbell and of course Bernard Hopkins vs. CAlazaghe. Say what you want about that fight (I had it 6 rounds to 6 with Hop winning due to the knockdown but I can accept a Cal win only based on out working Bernard's rate).
First off what Bernard does better than ANY fighter in recent history even now is he takes away what you like to do best. Basically he picks off your feathers, then your wings to where as you have nothing left.
If you'd like proof of this, look at Taylor's, Tarver's, Wright's and Cal's average punch numbers then look at them after they fought Bernard. So basically he's taking away your bazooka, your machine gun and if you don't have an accurate hand gun, then you're stuck.
Secondly before I elaborate, to this comment
here to face off Bernard would not make it to the closing bell.
When in the HELL has Bernard EVER EVER been dominated at ANY point in any fight to where as he was, out on his feet, sluggish, punch drunk or totally daised?? Name me one instance when he's ever been on "queer street" and you'd atleast have something to back up your argument. The answer would be never not even in his fights against Jones or Mercado where he was knocked down twice. So why suddenly would Glen Johnson who was annihilated literally by Hopkins the first time (you probably saw the recent broadcast of Johnson vs. Dawson that spawned this comment two days ago) suddenly walk through Bernard when we've NEVER witnessed Bernard having been walked through by more active fighters than Glen and harder punchers???
Just like theres more to basketball than dunking and more to baseball than home runs, they're entirely much more to boxing than mere activity.
I'll admit, Hopkins output is so abysmal at this point I wish he'd retire and he makes it very hard for judges to give him rounds in todays climate/yearning of "TV Friendly" fighters. But his defense, his ability to counter, his timing, his positioning, his ability to dupe you into thinking a clinch is coming but he pops you a good one and just overall ring generalship is STILL off the charts and thats what would prevent him from just being "crushed" as you initial post suggest.
We've seen Glen Johnson lose, recently (Clinton Woods, Tarver). Hopkins is still a better overall boxer than both of those guys (not taking anything away from Tarver as I know he's loathed here).
I have a question for you, YES or NO and be honest. Have you EVER seen their first fight in its complete entirety???
Spoken like someone who's never been in the ring. First of all if you're going to make a daring pick such as this, atleast bring something to back up your argument. Just because someone is more active doesn't mean they're better or would come through another person.
Recent examples include Juan Diaz vs. Nate Campbell and of course Bernard Hopkins vs. CAlazaghe. Say what you want about that fight (I had it 6 rounds to 6 with Hop winning due to the knockdown but I can accept a Cal win only based on out working Bernard's rate).
First off what Bernard does better than ANY fighter in recent history even now is he takes away what you like to do best. Basically he picks off your feathers, then your wings to where as you have nothing left.
If you'd like proof of this, look at Taylor's, Tarver's, Wright's and Cal's average punch numbers then look at them after they fought Bernard. So basically he's taking away your bazooka, your machine gun and if you don't have an accurate hand gun, then you're stuck.
Secondly before I elaborate, to this comment
here to face off Bernard would not make it to the closing bell.
When in the HELL has Bernard EVER EVER been dominated at ANY point in any fight to where as he was, out on his feet, sluggish, punch drunk or totally daised?? Name me one instance when he's ever been on "queer street" and you'd atleast have something to back up your argument. The answer would be never not even in his fights against Jones or Mercado where he was knocked down twice. So why suddenly would Glen Johnson who was annihilated literally by Hopkins the first time (you probably saw the recent broadcast of Johnson vs. Dawson that spawned this comment two days ago) suddenly walk through Bernard when we've NEVER witnessed Bernard having been walked through by more active fighters than Glen and harder punchers???
Just like theres more to basketball than dunking and more to baseball than home runs, they're entirely much more to boxing than mere activity.
I'll admit, Hopkins output is so abysmal at this point I wish he'd retire and he makes it very hard for judges to give him rounds in todays climate/yearning of "TV Friendly" fighters. But his defense, his ability to counter, his timing, his positioning, his ability to dupe you into thinking a clinch is coming but he pops you a good one and just overall ring generalship is STILL off the charts and thats what would prevent him from just being "crushed" as you initial post suggest.
We've seen Glen Johnson lose, recently (Clinton Woods, Tarver). Hopkins is still a better overall boxer than both of those guys (not taking anything away from Tarver as I know he's loathed here).
I have a question for you, YES or NO and be honest. Have you EVER seen their first fight in its complete entirety???
Good points here Marz.
And I don't see how this is a pro Bernard board. We have one hardcore Snaggle Tooth fan and that's about it. If this were a pro Bernard forum you'd be seeing countless threads about him and how he is unbeatable and has never lost a fight.
This would be a really good fight and hopefully someone inside the boxing world is thinking this too..I don't know who I'd give the fight to..B-Hop is smarter but Johnson can NEVER be counted out at 175..It could go either way but my intinct tells me B-Hop would win..Johnson never wins decisions,even when he actually won the fight..This happens to him all the time..I'd say more than 5-10 of his losses were because of judges not going his way when he really did win..Johnson has a chance to win and B-Hop has a good chance to win..hahaha..Can't count either one of these guys out really..B-Hop does have problems with very active guys these days and might get out worked..
QUOTE(MarzB @ Sep 26 2008, 07:46 PM) [snapback]405340[/snapback]
? The faith that some of you guys have in his boxing skill is off the charts.
Spoken like someone who's never been in the ring. First of all if you're going to make a daring pick such as this, atleast bring something to back up your argument. Just because someone is more active doesn't mean they're better or would come through another person.
Recent examples include Juan Diaz vs. Nate Campbell and of course Bernard Hopkins vs. CAlazaghe. Say what you want about that fight (I had it 6 rounds to 6 with Hop winning due to the knockdown but I can accept a Cal win only based on out working Bernard's rate).
First off what Bernard does better than ANY fighter in recent history even now is he takes away what you like to do best. Basically he picks off your feathers, then your wings to where as you have nothing left.
If you'd like proof of this, look at Taylor's, Tarver's, Wright's and Cal's average punch numbers then look at them after they fought Bernard. So basically he's taking away your bazooka, your machine gun and if you don't have an accurate hand gun, then you're stuck.
Secondly before I elaborate, to this comment
here to face off Bernard would not make it to the closing bell.
When in the HELL has Bernard EVER EVER been dominated at ANY point in any fight to where as he was, out on his feet, sluggish, punch drunk or totally daised?? Name me one instance when he's ever been on "queer street" and you'd atleast have something to back up your argument. The answer would be never not even in his fights against Jones or Mercado where he was knocked down twice. So why suddenly would Glen Johnson who was annihilated literally by Hopkins the first time (you probably saw the recent broadcast of Johnson vs. Dawson that spawned this comment two days ago) suddenly walk through Bernard when we've NEVER witnessed Bernard having been walked through by more active fighters than Glen and harder punchers???
Just like theres more to basketball than dunking and more to baseball than home runs, they're entirely much more to boxing than mere activity.
I'll admit, Hopkins output is so abysmal at this point I wish he'd retire and he makes it very hard for judges to give him rounds in todays climate/yearning of "TV Friendly" fighters. But his defense, his ability to counter, his timing, his positioning, his ability to dupe you into thinking a clinch is coming but he pops you a good one and just overall ring generalship is STILL off the charts and thats what would prevent him from just being "crushed" as you initial post suggest.
We've seen Glen Johnson lose, recently (Clinton Woods, Tarver). Hopkins is still a better overall boxer than both of those guys (not taking anything away from Tarver as I know he's loathed here).
I have a question for you, YES or NO and be honest. Have you EVER seen their first fight in its complete entirety???
Spoken like someone who's never been in the ring. First of all if you're going to make a daring pick such as this, atleast bring something to back up your argument. Just because someone is more active doesn't mean they're better or would come through another person.
Recent examples include Juan Diaz vs. Nate Campbell and of course Bernard Hopkins vs. CAlazaghe. Say what you want about that fight (I had it 6 rounds to 6 with Hop winning due to the knockdown but I can accept a Cal win only based on out working Bernard's rate).
First off what Bernard does better than ANY fighter in recent history even now is he takes away what you like to do best. Basically he picks off your feathers, then your wings to where as you have nothing left.
If you'd like proof of this, look at Taylor's, Tarver's, Wright's and Cal's average punch numbers then look at them after they fought Bernard. So basically he's taking away your bazooka, your machine gun and if you don't have an accurate hand gun, then you're stuck.
Secondly before I elaborate, to this comment
here to face off Bernard would not make it to the closing bell.
When in the HELL has Bernard EVER EVER been dominated at ANY point in any fight to where as he was, out on his feet, sluggish, punch drunk or totally daised?? Name me one instance when he's ever been on "queer street" and you'd atleast have something to back up your argument. The answer would be never not even in his fights against Jones or Mercado where he was knocked down twice. So why suddenly would Glen Johnson who was annihilated literally by Hopkins the first time (you probably saw the recent broadcast of Johnson vs. Dawson that spawned this comment two days ago) suddenly walk through Bernard when we've NEVER witnessed Bernard having been walked through by more active fighters than Glen and harder punchers???
Just like theres more to basketball than dunking and more to baseball than home runs, they're entirely much more to boxing than mere activity.
I'll admit, Hopkins output is so abysmal at this point I wish he'd retire and he makes it very hard for judges to give him rounds in todays climate/yearning of "TV Friendly" fighters. But his defense, his ability to counter, his timing, his positioning, his ability to dupe you into thinking a clinch is coming but he pops you a good one and just overall ring generalship is STILL off the charts and thats what would prevent him from just being "crushed" as you initial post suggest.
We've seen Glen Johnson lose, recently (Clinton Woods, Tarver). Hopkins is still a better overall boxer than both of those guys (not taking anything away from Tarver as I know he's loathed here).
I have a question for you, YES or NO and be honest. Have you EVER seen their first fight in its complete entirety???
I'll reply to this tomorrow when I'm not so drunk. LOL
But your first assertion is totally WRONG.
LOL. The same Glen Johnson that has big time trouble with Antonio Tarver and Clinton Woods? LOL. What a joke.
Hopkins decisions him. All Glen does is come forward. You can't beat Hopkins by just coming forward. Ask Trinidad and by October 18th, I think we'll be able to ask Kelly Pavlik too.
Hopkins will have trouble with quick guys like Winky(Even though he did beat him), Calzaghe, and Roy. Doesn't mean he can't figure them out. But a fast handed guy who has a little variety to his game will always have a better shot at beating Hopkins moreso than a guy that mostly just comes forward and takes 4 shots to land 1.
Hopkins will have trouble with quick guys like Winky(Even though he did beat him), Calzaghe, and Roy. Doesn't mean he can't figure them out. But a fast handed guy who has a little variety to his game will always have a better shot at beating Hopkins moreso than a guy that mostly just comes forward and takes 4 shots to land 1.
QUOTE
You can't beat Hopkins by just coming forward. Ask Trinidad and by October 18th, I think we'll be able to ask Kelly Pavlik too.
And if Trinidad don't feel like talking, just ask fucking Glenn Johnson. Hopkins already whipped his ass from pillar to post.
I don't even want to think about another Bernard fight ever happening again. He was awesome, but man he is just too old now.
OK I'm sober now..................
Spoken like someone who's never been in the ring.
I already addressed this............Totally off base you should have asked the question before jumping the gun Grass hopper. LOL
I did mention that Glen has some key differences than Cal, being power, experience and better defense IMO. If you didn't see that I won't hold it against you. It's just a boxing discussion and everybody it could be easy for some one to miss something like that.
Recent examples include Juan Diaz vs. Nate Campbell and of course Bernard Hopkins vs. CAlazaghe. Say what you want about that fight (I had it 6 rounds to 6 with Hop winning due to the knockdown but I can accept a Cal win only based on out working Bernard's rate).
Cambell has A LOT more left in the tank that B-HOP does at this point in his career and that is why I make this prediction. I think some of you B-Hop supporters are going to be real disappointed after the Pavlik fight. But we will see........
First off what Bernard does better than ANY fighter in recent history even now is he takes away what you like to do best. Basically he picks off your feathers, then your wings to where as you have nothing left.
He DID better than any fighter. After the Cal fight it's Crystal clear that Hop is a 6 round fighter and can't go a full twelve and with a a guy as experienced and skilled a Glen it would be a bad matchup for him if they where to fight right now.
Good point....but that is only half the equation that you need in order to decisively win a fight. Hop cannot keep up pick up the pace if the fight requires it. He would have to be atleast some what active in order to beat Glen.
Secondly before I elaborate, to this comment
That was mostly said to bring attention to the thread and insight debate. Though I still think that it is very possible for Glen to get this version of Hop out of there in in less than 12. I'm willing to concede that it isn't probable since Hop has never been hurt. I just think that Glen has a better chance than most to get it done.
I just think that Glen is so experienced and a good of enough boxer in his own right that a lot of that stuff will not be as effective on him as it Winky. Glen wont give Hop the same respect that Winky gave Hop and he for sure isn't getting his faced mushed in at the press conference. Hop Psycholigical shit won't work on Glen they would be fighting on even terms.
Before I read your post NO, but before replying to this Post. YES LOL
The biggest thing that I noticed off the bat was how active Hop was in that fight and the fact that Glen was trying to box with Hopkins. Really, there first fight shouldn't even be discussed because if they where to fight right now it would be a totally different fight. Be honest would it be a totally different fight Yes or No. LOL
QUOTE(MarzB @ Sep 26 2008, 07:46 PM) [snapback]405340[/snapback]
QUOTE
? The faith that some of you guys have in his boxing skill is off the charts.
Spoken like someone who's never been in the ring.
I already addressed this............Totally off base you should have asked the question before jumping the gun Grass hopper. LOL
QUOTE
First of all if you're going to make a daring pick such as this, atleast bring something to back up your argument. Just because someone is more active doesn't mean they're better or would come through another person.
I set the bait with the thread title to engage some one like you into the debate. Theres a METHOD to the madness. LOLI did mention that Glen has some key differences than Cal, being power, experience and better defense IMO. If you didn't see that I won't hold it against you. It's just a boxing discussion and everybody it could be easy for some one to miss something like that.
Recent examples include Juan Diaz vs. Nate Campbell and of course Bernard Hopkins vs. CAlazaghe. Say what you want about that fight (I had it 6 rounds to 6 with Hop winning due to the knockdown but I can accept a Cal win only based on out working Bernard's rate).
Cambell has A LOT more left in the tank that B-HOP does at this point in his career and that is why I make this prediction. I think some of you B-Hop supporters are going to be real disappointed after the Pavlik fight. But we will see........
First off what Bernard does better than ANY fighter in recent history even now is he takes away what you like to do best. Basically he picks off your feathers, then your wings to where as you have nothing left.
He DID better than any fighter. After the Cal fight it's Crystal clear that Hop is a 6 round fighter and can't go a full twelve and with a a guy as experienced and skilled a Glen it would be a bad matchup for him if they where to fight right now.
QUOTE
If you'd like proof of this, look at Taylor's, Tarver's, Wright's and Cal's average punch numbers then look at them after they fought Bernard. So basically he's taking away your bazooka, your machine gun and if you don't have an accurate hand gun, then you're stuck.
Good point....but that is only half the equation that you need in order to decisively win a fight. Hop cannot keep up pick up the pace if the fight requires it. He would have to be atleast some what active in order to beat Glen.
Secondly before I elaborate, to this comment
QUOTE
here to face off Bernard would not make it to the closing bell.
QUOTE
When in the HELL has Bernard EVER EVER been dominated at ANY point in any fight to where as he was, out on his feet, sluggish, punch drunk or totally daised?? Name me one instance when he's ever been on "queer street" and you'd atleast have something to back up your argument. The answer would be never not even in his fights against Jones or Mercado where he was knocked down twice. So why suddenly would Glen Johnson who was annihilated literally by Hopkins the first time (you probably saw the recent broadcast of Johnson vs. Dawson that spawned this comment two days ago) suddenly walk through Bernard when we've NEVER witnessed Bernard having been walked through by more active fighters than Glen and harder punchers???
That was mostly said to bring attention to the thread and insight debate. Though I still think that it is very possible for Glen to get this version of Hop out of there in in less than 12. I'm willing to concede that it isn't probable since Hop has never been hurt. I just think that Glen has a better chance than most to get it done.
QUOTE
Just like theres more to basketball than dunking and more to baseball than home runs, they're entirely much more to boxing than mere activity.
Thats not the only variable in this fight, though it's one fo the most important ones. QUOTE
I'll admit, Hopkins output is so abysmal at this point I wish he'd retire and he makes it very hard for judges to give him rounds in todays climate/yearning of "TV Friendly" fighters. But his defense, his ability to counter, his timing, his positioning, his ability to dupe you into thinking a clinch is coming but he pops you a good one and just overall ring generalship is STILL off the charts and thats what would prevent him from just being "crushed" as you initial post suggest.
I just think that Glen is so experienced and a good of enough boxer in his own right that a lot of that stuff will not be as effective on him as it Winky. Glen wont give Hop the same respect that Winky gave Hop and he for sure isn't getting his faced mushed in at the press conference. Hop Psycholigical shit won't work on Glen they would be fighting on even terms.
QUOTE
We've seen Glen Johnson lose, recently (Clinton Woods, Tarver). Hopkins is still a better overall boxer than both of those guys (not taking anything away from Tarver as I know he's loathed here).
Come on man don't bring in A-B-C logic into this shit both of those can deal better with activity than Hop can right now.QUOTE
I have a question for you, YES or NO and be honest. Have you EVER seen their first fight in its complete entirety???
Before I read your post NO, but before replying to this Post. YES LOL
The biggest thing that I noticed off the bat was how active Hop was in that fight and the fact that Glen was trying to box with Hopkins. Really, there first fight shouldn't even be discussed because if they where to fight right now it would be a totally different fight. Be honest would it be a totally different fight Yes or No. LOL
QUOTE(Method @ Sep 27 2008, 08:04 AM) [snapback]405378[/snapback]
LOL. The same Glen Johnson that has big time trouble with Antonio Tarver and Clinton Woods? LOL. What a joke.
A-B-C Logic you know better than that...............
QUOTE(The Conscience @ Sep 27 2008, 12:41 PM) [snapback]405410[/snapback]
A-B-C Logic you know better than that...............
Styles make fights..Don't compare Tarvers or Woods style with B-Hop NOW
QUOTE(JonnyBlaze @ Sep 27 2008, 05:43 PM) [snapback]405415[/snapback]
Styles make fights..Don't compare Tarvers or Woods style with B-Hop NOW
That's exactly my point we can't look at those fight and say because fighter "A" beat fighter "B" that he is automatically going to beat fighter "C". I would hope that everybody on this board is knows enough about boxing not to use that logic. I just see that some times people use that arguement when it's suits there point even though they know it's faulty logic.
QUOTE(The Conscience @ Sep 27 2008, 05:48 PM) [snapback]405424[/snapback]
That's exactly my point we can't look at those fight and say because fighter "A" beat fighter "B" that he is automatically going to beat fighter "C". I would hope that everybody on this board is knows enough about boxing not to use that logic. I just see that some times people use that arguement when it's suits there point even though they know it's faulty logic.
Glad ya think so too..
QUOTE
That's exactly my point we can't look at those fight and say because fighter "A" beat fighter "B" that he is automatically going to beat fighter "C".
Forget using "Fighter B" as a proxy for what "Fighter A" would do to "Fighter C" if they ever met. They DID already meet, and "Fighter A" ALREADY DID IT to "Fighter C" (which was my original post, that I guess went right over your head).
Is that A-B-C or 1-2-3 enough for you?
QUOTE(Method @ Sep 28 2008, 04:02 AM) [snapback]405616[/snapback]
Forget using "Fighter B" as a proxy for what "Fighter A" would do to "Fighter C" is they ever met. They DID already meet, and "Fighter A" ALREADY DID IT to "Fighter C". (Which was my original post, that I guess went right over your head).
Is that A-B-C or 1-2-3 enough for you?
Is that A-B-C or 1-2-3 enough for you?
I would be with IF Bernard could do what he did 11 years ago for at least 8 rounds, but todays Hopkins wouldn't even be able to fight one whole round at that pace. Not only that BUT Glen doesn't do what he did 11 years ago at all. So it's a totally different fight........
I agree that it iis a totally different fight. But Hopkins has gotten better defensively since then. Yeah Johnson is active, so was Calzaghe and he missed a shitload of shots and never had Hopkinns on the verge of a stoppage. Hopkins was exhausted and he still made Zaghe miss. No different with Johnson, all those punches he would throw need to land. Plus like I said before, Johnson is flat footed, like Wright, and that leaves him available to be outmanouvered.
HOPKINS DECISIONS JOHNSON!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't see why this is even a debate! It may be a little closer than the first fight but Clearly Hopkins wins
I don't see why this is even a debate! It may be a little closer than the first fight but Clearly Hopkins wins
QUOTE
I would be with IF Bernard could do what he did 11 years ago for at least 8 rounds, but todays Hopkins wouldn't even be able to fight one whole round at that pace. Not only that BUT Glen doesn't do what he did 11 years ago at all. So it's a totally different fight........
I can only assume you never saw the first fight. Hopkins would likely have no problem replicating the performance. It was rather easy. Move and counter. Nothing more. Glenn just came straight forward ALL fucking night, much like he does now. The difference between THAT Glenn and THIS Glenn is that THIS Glenn gasses now (which is why he struggled to finish Dawson, why he lost 2 of three to Tarver, and why he split a bunch with Clinton Woods.
Glenn looked great against Roy because Roy sat back up against the ropes assuming the blistering pace Glen let loose w out of the gate would leave him tired mid way through the fight. It didn't. GLenn Sustained, and ultimately owned Jones for every minute of every round up to the point of the KO.
Any other fighter that could have, would have stuck and moved. Easy.
People act as if Glenn Johnson has completely overhauled his style. He HASN'T. He's the same fucking guy. He looks better or worse, depending on who's across from him.
QUOTE(Method @ Sep 28 2008, 02:50 PM) [snapback]405689[/snapback]
I can only assume you never saw the first fight. Hopkins would likely have no problem replicating the performance. It was rather easy. Move and counter. Nothing more. Glenn just came straight forward ALL fucking night, much like he does now. The difference between THAT Glenn and THIS Glenn is that THIS Glenn gasses now (which is why he struggled to finish Dawson, why he lost 2 of three to Tarver, and why he split a bunch with Clinton Woods.
Glenn looked great against Roy because Roy sat back up against the ropes assuming the blistering pace Glen let loose w out of the gate would leave him tired mid way through the fight. It didn't. GLenn Sustained, and ultimately owned Jones for every minute of every round up to the point of the KO.
Any other fighter that could have, would have stuck and moved. Easy.
People act as if Glenn Johnson has completely overhauled his style. He HASN'T. He's the same fucking guy. He looks better or worse, depending on who's across from him.
Glenn looked great against Roy because Roy sat back up against the ropes assuming the blistering pace Glen let loose w out of the gate would leave him tired mid way through the fight. It didn't. GLenn Sustained, and ultimately owned Jones for every minute of every round up to the point of the KO.
Any other fighter that could have, would have stuck and moved. Easy.
People act as if Glenn Johnson has completely overhauled his style. He HASN'T. He's the same fucking guy. He looks better or worse, depending on who's across from him.
some people act as if tarver fought johnson 3 times. tarver didn't want to fight again. and i can guarantee you that, win or lose, hopkins does not want to fight glen now or any time in the future.
QUOTE(Method @ Sep 28 2008, 03:02 AM) [snapback]405616[/snapback]
Forget using "Fighter B" as a proxy for what "Fighter A" would do to "Fighter C" if they ever met. They DID already meet, and "Fighter A" ALREADY DID IT to "Fighter C" (which was my original post, that I guess went right over your head).
Is that A-B-C or 1-2-3 enough for you?
Is that A-B-C or 1-2-3 enough for you?
Looks like you or someone edited your post..
Ya gotta love Meth's manlove for Hopkins. He is like the fucking Energizer bunny never getting tired & just keeps on going.
Hopkins struggles with high workrate fighters these days. Forget about talking it up with his fights from 10 odd years ago they are both different fighters today & it would be a different ball game for both guys.
Who would win? I don't know but I would lean towards Johnson based on his workrate although if it is a GBP event shady outcomes will eventuate so I would pick X by decision.
Hopkins struggles with high workrate fighters these days. Forget about talking it up with his fights from 10 odd years ago they are both different fighters today & it would be a different ball game for both guys.
Who would win? I don't know but I would lean towards Johnson based on his workrate although if it is a GBP event shady outcomes will eventuate so I would pick X by decision.
Fuck manlove, deuchebag. Explain how Glenn Johnson is a completely different fighter? I didn't start this thread Shit, I don't start ANY Hopkins' threads, so if I come in here refuting some garbage statements, don't turn it in to some bullshit.
I like Glenn Johnson as much as anybody, but the guy is LIMITED. Period. He looked good agaisnt Roy because Roy let him. Roy paid for the strategy he chose to implement. Other than that, Glen looked hit or miss against Tarver, Woods, and, despite the fact that I thought he should have nodded Dawson, Glenn gassed throughout the fight and couldnt finish him. Dawson beat him by boxing him.
Glenn's style is Tailor made for Hopkins ,and he's no where near as quick with his hands as Calzaghe, but he's a lead footed grunt. There's nothing really to solve there.
If ANYONE wanted to see what Trinidad Hopkins was gonna look like, all they needed to do was see the Hopkins/Johnson fight.
Glenn is damn near 40 himself. he's not bringing a different look t this point. He's the SAME guy he ALWAYS was.
I like Glenn Johnson as much as anybody, but the guy is LIMITED. Period. He looked good agaisnt Roy because Roy let him. Roy paid for the strategy he chose to implement. Other than that, Glen looked hit or miss against Tarver, Woods, and, despite the fact that I thought he should have nodded Dawson, Glenn gassed throughout the fight and couldnt finish him. Dawson beat him by boxing him.
Glenn's style is Tailor made for Hopkins ,and he's no where near as quick with his hands as Calzaghe, but he's a lead footed grunt. There's nothing really to solve there.
If ANYONE wanted to see what Trinidad Hopkins was gonna look like, all they needed to do was see the Hopkins/Johnson fight.
Glenn is damn near 40 himself. he's not bringing a different look t this point. He's the SAME guy he ALWAYS was.
I think that Johnson would be a 60/40 to win against Hopkins but that is more to do with how far Hopkins has slid compared to Johnson. that is what makes them different fighters from what they were years ago. I personally think that Johnson would be able to close the gap & bull his way inside being able to apply accurate pressure to Hopkins. That is not to say that Hopkins woul dnot have his moments but at his age & the pace he fights I don't think it will be enough to eke out a W.
I always crack up at your nuthugging of Hopkins because it is so damm blatant, not that there is anything wrong with nuthugging your favourite fighter.
I always crack up at your nuthugging of Hopkins because it is so damm blatant, not that there is anything wrong with nuthugging your favourite fighter.
QUOTE(Fitz @ Sep 28 2008, 09:35 PM) [snapback]405728[/snapback]
Aye fuckhead 
QUOTE
I always crack up at your nuthugging of Hopkins because it is so damm blatant, not that there is anything wrong with nuthugging your favourite fighter.
Wouldn't it be"blatant" if I was out here beating drums or pom-poms for the guy as opposed to just responding to threads started by others? I mean, the thread IS kind of direct, is it not? If you could somehow quantify how your dumb ass came up with a 60/40 probability, I'm all ears...especially when Hopkins whooped both Johnson AND a current Tarver (the current Tarver that BEAT Johnson) pillar to post.
Im honestly not expecting much from a guy that gets off watching kids light their fucking farts on fire, but, out of the equal opportunity policy that we run here on the boards, we'll allow you to keep breathing.
Bla bla bla Meth.
The Tarver that fought Hopkins was a poor version that was returning to 175 from his lofty starring role in Rocky 27. I base my opinion that it is a 60/40 after seeing how both fighters look currently as opposed to 10 years ago. Hopkins has looked like shit in his last few fights & Johnson looks slightly better. That combined with Johnsons pressure fighting style means I have the opinion that he have a better than even chance of beating Hopkins due mostly to Hopkins reluctance to fight & his gunshy attitude in recent years.
BTW the guy in my avatar is actually squirting lighter fluid on his pants not lighting his farts on fire. That said with eyes like you have I am hardly suprised Hopkins has never lost a fight in your opinion.
The Tarver that fought Hopkins was a poor version that was returning to 175 from his lofty starring role in Rocky 27. I base my opinion that it is a 60/40 after seeing how both fighters look currently as opposed to 10 years ago. Hopkins has looked like shit in his last few fights & Johnson looks slightly better. That combined with Johnsons pressure fighting style means I have the opinion that he have a better than even chance of beating Hopkins due mostly to Hopkins reluctance to fight & his gunshy attitude in recent years.
BTW the guy in my avatar is actually squirting lighter fluid on his pants not lighting his farts on fire. That said with eyes like you have I am hardly suprised Hopkins has never lost a fight in your opinion.
QUOTE(Method @ Sep 28 2008, 11:16 PM) [snapback]405743[/snapback]
Wouldn't it be"blatant" if I was out here beating drums or pom-poms for the guy as opposed to just responding to threads started by others? I mean, the thread IS kind of direct, is it not? If you could somehow quantify how your dumb ass came up with a 60/40 probability, I'm all ears...especially when Hopkins whooped both Johnson AND a current Tarver (the current Tarver that BEAT Johnson) pillar to post.
Im honestly not expecting much from a guy that gets off watching kids light their fucking farts on fire, but, out of the equal opportunity policy that we run here on the boards, we'll allow you to keep breathing.
Im honestly not expecting much from a guy that gets off watching kids light their fucking farts on fire, but, out of the equal opportunity policy that we run here on the boards, we'll allow you to keep breathing.
Dude,the Tarver that fought Johnson(either time) was NOT the Tarver that fought B-Hop..You must be insane!!Tarver had just dropped 45 lbs before B-Hop..He also was partying a few nights before the fight happened with some football team..He was not focused one bit for the B-Hop fight..The Tarver that fought Johnson was focused and would have made a hell of a lot better fight with B-Hop then he did..He looked really weak in the B-Hop fight and ya gotta admit that..
I remember Tarver and Hopkins being interviewed by ESPN a few weeks before the Hopkins fight he was wearing a pink polo and a hat. He said he had already been in shape and he was going to beat Hopkins out.
Too bad he didn't focus as he got fuckin raped by a 41 year old moving up in weight but no shame in losing to Hopkins
Too bad he didn't focus as he got fuckin raped by a 41 year old moving up in weight but no shame in losing to Hopkins
QUOTE(biggeorge89 @ Sep 28 2008, 11:57 PM) [snapback]405754[/snapback]
I remember Tarver and Hopkins being interviewed by ESPN a few weeks before the Hopkins fight he was wearing a pink polo and a hat. He said he had already been in shape and he was going to beat Hopkins out.
Too bad he didn't focus as he got fuckin raped by a 41 year old moving up in weight but no shame in losing to Hopkins
Too bad he didn't focus as he got fuckin raped by a 41 year old moving up in weight but no shame in losing to Hopkins
Fighters say that shit all the time..Ya can't always take that seriously..He would be stupid if he didn't say he was in shape since that was the big question..If he said otherwise he would of given the master of mental games even more of a edge in the mental department..
Also,there never is shame in losing to B-Hop since no matter how old he is he can still be a threat to anyone..
I agree it became redundant as a excuse after Tarver's carry on with ROID. That does not change the fact that the Tarver that beat ROID & Johnson was a different fighter to the Tarver that copped a schooling from Hopkins.
All said & done it was still a fantastic display from Hopkins & possibly his finest showing as a fighter due to his age & relative reluctance to box as opposed to his usual old age style of hit, hold, maul, foul wash rinse repeat.
All said & done it was still a fantastic display from Hopkins & possibly his finest showing as a fighter due to his age & relative reluctance to box as opposed to his usual old age style of hit, hold, maul, foul wash rinse repeat.
Stop making excuses, Tarver got killed, nuthugger...
And you're a nuthugger of Hopkins..
QUOTE(Fitz @ Sep 29 2008, 12:59 AM) [snapback]405763[/snapback]
But like it has been said in the past. The weight drop excuse became void when Tarver wouldn't buy it when Jones used the same one and he was moving down as a REAL heavyweight.
That's a good point Fitz..If someone won't allow the excuse they surely can't make the excuse or have the excuse used on them..You make a lot of sense in your posts..
QUOTE(JonnyBlaze @ Sep 29 2008, 06:37 AM) [snapback]405767[/snapback]
And you're a nuthugger of Hopkins..
And Judah & Tyson & Raheem. BG nuthuggs them all equally & has done so for years but we still love him.
I might be a nuthugger, but all I know is, Hopkins was an old man moving up in weight and he beat Tarver..120-107...if Tarver wasn't focused well okay..but he didn't even know how to get to Hopkins and was outclassed. People should stop acting like Hopkins was prime for this fight as well. A prime Hopkins would also do a number on the best version of Tarver.
I'm a Tarver fan but Hopkins is like the anti-Tarver style wise (gritty, skilled, dirty)
I'm a Tarver fan but Hopkins is like the anti-Tarver style wise (gritty, skilled, dirty)
QUOTE(biggeorge89 @ Sep 29 2008, 01:47 AM) [snapback]405772[/snapback]
I might be a nuthugger, but all I know is, Hopkins was an old man moving up in weight and he beat the shit out of Tarver..120-107...if Tarver wasn't focused well he is stupid. People should stop acting like Hopkins was prime for this fight as well. A prime Hopkins would also do a number on the best version of Tarver.
I think a prime B-Hop would beat Tarver too..I think it'd be a better fight though than what we saw..I'm a fan of Tarver,I'm def. not a nuthugger..Tarver is stupid for what he did in that fight..For sure..He wasn't focused at all..I never said he'd beat B-Hop but if he was himself it would of been a better fight..He might of won but we don't know..B-Hop could be 50 and he'd still beat most guys or atleast give guys hard times but definitely will make people look bad..
Theres only 2 guys I'd ever admit to being close to a "nuthugger" of and thats Ray Robinson and Holyfield..
To me its a style thing..Tarver might have given Roy a more difficult fight than Hopkins would...but Hopkins is like Tarvers kryptonite IMO..
QUOTE(biggeorge89 @ Sep 29 2008, 01:55 AM) [snapback]405775[/snapback]
To me its a style thing..Tarver might have given Roy a more difficult fight than Hopkins would...but Hopkins is like Tarvers kryptonite IMO..
Maybe..I hope they fight again soo we can see if it was just a fluke or not..B-Hop would be smart to do that fight again since no one has ever beaten Tarver twice..Than I'd call him Tarvers kryptonite if he did that..I think Tarver is Roy's kryptonite..
QUOTE(biggeorge89 @ Sep 29 2008, 01:55 AM) [snapback]405775[/snapback]
To me its a style thing..Tarver might have given Roy a more difficult fight than Hopkins would...but Hopkins is like Tarvers kryptonite IMO..
Also the style thing is a good point..
QUOTE(JonnyBlaze @ Sep 29 2008, 01:53 AM) [snapback]405774[/snapback]
Theres only 2 guys I'd ever admit to being close to a "nuthugger" of and thats Ray Robinson and Holyfield..
Just to be clear though,I'm not a nuthugger of either but am a huge fan of both..Big difference..
Although it might MIGHT be more competitive than their first fight it really is drawing a long bow to say that Glen stops Hopkins.
I think Nard is still about 20 years away from getting stopped by anyone.
Maybe Pavlik might end up surprising me on that one but I highly doubt it. Nard's power and accuracy get him out of a lot of trouble. Take Calzaghe he tasted it in the first round and pretty much decided right there that he would have to safety slap his way to victory.
I think Pavlik will be the same, very cautious about getting countered by Nard as he rushes in.
And I'd say that goes for Glen too. Dawson may be much younger but I'm not sure if his punches carry the same sting as Nard's. A few decent counters from Nard and Glen won't be stalking in the same way he did at times against Chad.
Nard's power is the most underrated weapon in his arsenal.
I think Nard is still about 20 years away from getting stopped by anyone.
Maybe Pavlik might end up surprising me on that one but I highly doubt it. Nard's power and accuracy get him out of a lot of trouble. Take Calzaghe he tasted it in the first round and pretty much decided right there that he would have to safety slap his way to victory.
I think Pavlik will be the same, very cautious about getting countered by Nard as he rushes in.
And I'd say that goes for Glen too. Dawson may be much younger but I'm not sure if his punches carry the same sting as Nard's. A few decent counters from Nard and Glen won't be stalking in the same way he did at times against Chad.
Nard's power is the most underrated weapon in his arsenal.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.