I pick B-Hop & this is why....
Bernard Hopkins could fight any style of fight. He could fight inside, outside, brawl, & box (look at his fights with Tito & Echols).
He's never been KO'd (RJJ has been back to back)
He knew how to EASILY beat Tarver & RJJ got beat by Tarver twice (one of the loses was a KO).
20 successfull title defenses of the middleweight (160lbs.) crown (He broke HAGLER'S record of 13 defenses)
12 Years Unbeaten (1993-2005)
He moved up in weight on captured the Light Heavyweight Title (even Ray Robinson failed to capture the Light Heavyweight Title)
He's has MORE longevity (He's 42 & still winning).
Noticeable Wins:
Felix Trinidad (KO'd)
Oscar De La Hoya (KO'd)
Antonio Tarver (easy decision)
Ronald 'Winky' Wright (close decision)
I know some of you B-Hop haters are going to say RJJ beat B-Hop! Anyways, that doesn't mean ANYTHING. Why?
To be continued (I'm adding on).
2007-12-18
12:23:56
·
3 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Sports
➔ Basketball
Since someone has lost to someone doesn't mean they're a lesser fighter then the person who beat them. Every fighter is HUMAN & there is 1,000 reason why someone could lose ONE fight. Anyways, check this out:
Buster Douglas KO'd Tyson but is Buster considered a better fighter then Tyson? No!
Old washed-up Corrie Sanders KO'd a prime Wladimir Klitschko but is Sanders considered a better fighter then Klitschko? No!
Crackhead Oliver McHall KO'd Lennox Lewis but is McHall considered a better fighter then Lennox? No!
B-Hop lost his first fight to Clinton Mitchell but is Mitchell considered a better fighter then Hopkins? No!
So to you guys who holds RJJ's victory over B-Hop needs to shove it because your're not true boxing fans.
BTW, at times styles makes fights.
2007-12-18
12:42:25 ·
update #1