Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bernard Hopkins: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:02, 18 October 2007 editRjd0060 (talk | contribs)33,499 edits rm more comments← Previous edit Revision as of 23:03, 18 October 2007 edit undo66.30.156.157 (talk) →Light HeavyweightNext edit →
Line 60: Line 60:


& Calzaghe will be undisputed champ by december, though you'll probably name the next american 168lber that comes along as your 'real champ'. & Calzaghe will be undisputed champ by december, though you'll probably name the next american 168lber that comes along as your 'real champ'.

Jones was the real Champion because he unified all but 1 of the belts . The, WBO title that no one even cares about.Everybody knows this. In fact the WBO isn't even included in unification. Are you psychic? Calzaghe may unify but right now he's a paper champion like you said right? Or does your retarded logic only apply when it suits you?

Revision as of 23:03, 18 October 2007

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBoxing
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Boxing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Boxing on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BoxingWikipedia:WikiProject BoxingTemplate:WikiProject BoxingBoxing
WikiProject Boxing "To Do":

→ Help pick the next article for collaboration.


Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPhiladelphia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Delaware
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware.

Why is the neutrality of this article disputed?


For one, read the "Return in 2007" section on his fight with Winky Wright. It's laughably biased. --S.Reemas, 8/10/07


Yeah , so ? All that is true Reemas , so whats the problem ? Name 1 thing that wasn't true.

Hopkins vs Taylor

Who deleted the statement that Hopkins bunched his punches into the last four rounds? I saw the fight, and that's exactly what happened. It's misleading to quote the total punch counts (which favour Hopkins) without mentioning this. Hopkins obviously did more overall than Taylor, but boxing rounds are scored in isolation and while Hopkins won the last few rounds easily, Taylor won most of the early rounds barely. Either way, with no knockdowns or anyone being badly hurt, these rounds are scored 10-9 to the winner. I'm a big Hopkins fan and I was disappointed when he lost, but I scored the fight to Taylor by a point and the decision was probably fair.

As an aside, it was Hopkins age that caused him to have to save everything till late. He would have easily beaten Taylor if he still had the stamina and workrate he had back in '01. Holymolytree2 21:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Light Heavyweight

Why are tools adding that Hopkins won the light heavyweight title against Tarver?? Erdei is still the linear world champion.

& Holymolytree2 is correct about Hopkins-Taylor.

Edit: Seems like the same Hopkins nuthugger is try to revise Hopkins-Taylor & keeps laughably adding the Sugar Ray Robinson reference.

You're one to talk. At least the Robinson reference is sourced. You continue to revert edits without reason and insist that Erdei is the "world" light heavyweight champion. There is a case to be made for that designation but there is certainly no consensus on this. Your continuing reversions to push your own agenda without trying to come to consensus with other editors isn't keeping with Misplaced Pages policy.MKil 20:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)MKil

Nonsense. Sourced from where? Yours or his ass? If you want consensus ask any historian who has a clue.

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/lheavy.htm

The featherweight world champions list needs updating also.

I fully recognize that some historians hold this view. It's not a universally held view, however. You'll find few (if any) in the media who support this view. You are pushing your POV here, along with being fairly rude. If you'd actually discuss this in a rational way, you might find that everything you touch isn't reverted and locked.MKil 20:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)MKil

LOL. MOST historians follow the traditional lineage. WTF would the media know? They probably believe The Ring. The only person who reverts is YOU, who then goes whining to the clueless admins to get the pages locked.


If you can prove your assertions, why don't you actually try to come to a consensus about it and discuss it? Instead, you call names and revert without reason. And that's why you get blocked. The idea that your views are the only correct ones and that everyone else is an idiot isn't the Wiki way.MKil 21:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)MKil

I see the same is back typing biased garbage. Keep it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.184.174 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What ever you say Tonto . Roy Jones was the legitimate Light Heavyweight Champ . That's why Hopkins is now . The lineal title is gone . When a guy like Hill or Erdie wins a lineal title and gives up all there belts so they can make crappy WBO mandatories they get stripped so forget it . Bert sugar is a boxing historian. his article is sourced on Hopkins succeeding where Robinson had failed so get over it .

LOL.....NONSENSE. Another who hasn't a clue what he's on about. You dont even know who was stripped of what or why. Or when the fuck the title was unified. Not to mention it was Jones who defended his paper titles via crappy mandatories himself. Bert Sugar's a boxing joke also....he picked DLH to beat Hopkins for christ's sake.

Jones was the recognized champion and that's that . He had all the belts . Your guy did everything possible to avoid unification . He dropped his title and fought bums . Jones fought all the mandatories in the WBA, WBC, and IBF. Your guy was fighting club fighters. What are you saying exactly? Jones was never the Champion? And you have the nerve to call someone else a moron? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.156.157 (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

More nonsense. The belts mean NOTHING, though the best fighters unified their belts anyways. Jones was nothing more than a title holder & a paper champion. Re-read the link I posted. No one "dropped" their belts either. Do you know anything?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.202.151 (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, Roy was the real champ. That Lineal title is bogus. You think if there was 1 champion he would have been able to fight club fighters and tomato cans for as long as Erdie did ? No, he would have been stripped like I said. That goes for Dariusz Michalczewski too . None of these guys had to fight any lineal #1 contenders so you can throw that belt in the toilet. That's common sense moron. Get a clue. Joe Calzaghe is a paper champion, Pacquio is a paper champion, ect... Get with the program.

- Even if the Linear title was bogus, how was freakin Jones the real champion??? Because he boxed on hbo & The Ring named him their shitty champion? LOL. What #1 contenders did HE fight? Maske, Hill & Michalczewski DID fight #1 contenders - they fought each other & unified, you twat. Then Jones came along & collected his paper titles.

& Calzaghe will be undisputed champ by december, though you'll probably name the next american 168lber that comes along as your 'real champ'.

Jones was the real Champion because he unified all but 1 of the belts . The, WBO title that no one even cares about.Everybody knows this. In fact the WBO isn't even included in unification. Are you psychic? Calzaghe may unify but right now he's a paper champion like you said right? Or does your retarded logic only apply when it suits you?

Categories: