Khan puts his money where his mouth is....

by coxy0001 Tue 20 Dec - 16:41

First topic message reminder :

Why couldn't he just stuff it all in his mouth quite literally? Khan has decided to formerly appeal, oh dear.

"Stop pushing him away Khan" - Everyone heard him getting warned, is just the desperate act of a sore loser.

http://ringtv.craveonline.com/blog/170809-10000-check-makes-it-official-khan-appeals-peterson-verdict

by Waingro Thu 22 Dec - 13:58

PPVxHOTTY wrote:Some of you that are moaning about Khan must have lost some brass , but one person in particular must have put his mortgage on Khan.

Waingro if it was Khans fault for agreeing to fight in DC why even bring the Britain scenario into equation and mention points deductions? Bottom line is Khan is badly managed and he seriously needs to fix up as this ranting is really embarrassing. When Hopkins drew with Pascal, Hopkins didn't throw rants to the media! he just accepted he got robbed and earned the rematch to prove his point. Theirs a difference in accepting defeat 'which neither Khan or Hopkins did' and a difference in accepting u got robbed 'Khan till this day cant accept he got robbed yet Hopkins accepted he got robbed'.

Mate Hopkins did complain when he got robbed he forced the WBC to give him a rematch which the did he also got his decision against Dawson overturned by appealing this is what Khan is trying to do he want to get the decision overturned and a rematch just like Hopkins did.

by azania Thu 22 Dec - 13:59

Waingro wrote:Khan needs to forget about Mayweather who would school him and concentrate on a rematch with Peterson who he will beat imo. If that fight was anywhere else Khan would have won this is why he is appealing it was a home town decision. If he loses the appeal Peterson should give him a rematch in a neutral place and prove he can beat him fairly if Khan wins his appeal then he should fight Bradley or Brook which would be good fights.

Horse manure. No robbery in my eyes. It was a close fight. Some of the rounds could have gone either way but the close rounds went to Peterson. Subjective scoring as it is in all boxing. Had it gone to Khan, Peterson would have been p'd off also. Such a close fight deserves a rematch whoever won it.

And mr gro, not every close fight that goes against the brit is a robbery. Murray/Sturm was a robbery in my eyes as Sturm won it clearly.

The issue for me was the idiotic ref.

by PPVxHOTTY Thu 22 Dec - 14:01

Waingro wrote:
PPVxHOTTY wrote:Some of you that are moaning about Khan must have lost some brass , but one person in particular must have put his mortgage on Khan.

Waingro if it was Khans fault for agreeing to fight in DC why even bring the Britain scenario into equation and mention points deductions? Bottom line is Khan is badly managed and he seriously needs to fix up as this ranting is really embarrassing. When Hopkins drew with Pascal, Hopkins didn't throw rants to the media! he just accepted he got robbed and earned the rematch to prove his point. Theirs a difference in accepting defeat 'which neither Khan or Hopkins did' and a difference in accepting u got robbed 'Khan till this day cant accept he got robbed yet Hopkins accepted he got robbed'.

Mate Hopkins did complain when he got robbed he forced the WBC to give him a rematch which the did he also got his decision against Dawson overturned by appealing this is what Khan is trying to do he want to get the decision overturned and a rematch just like Hopkins did.

But did Khan clearly win like Hopkins did against Dawson?

by azania Thu 22 Dec - 14:04

PPVxHOTTY wrote:Some of you that are moaning about Khan must have lost some brass , but one person in particular must have put his mortgage on Khan.

Waingro if it was Khans fault for agreeing to fight in DC why even bring the Britain scenario into equation and mention points deductions? Bottom line is Khan is badly managed and he seriously needs to fix up as this ranting is really embarrassing. When Hopkins drew with Pascal, Hopkins didn't throw rants to the media! he just accepted he got robbed and earned the rematch to prove his point. Theirs a difference in accepting defeat 'which neither Khan or Hopkins did' and a difference in accepting u got robbed 'Khan till this day cant accept he got robbed yet Hopkins accepted he got robbed'.

Are you being serious? Hopkins complained to anyone who could hear him. Oh and the co-owner of GBP managed to get a rematch immediately. I wonder how he managed that. Whistle

by Waingro Thu 22 Dec - 14:05

PPVxHOTTY wrote:
Waingro wrote:
PPVxHOTTY wrote:Some of you that are moaning about Khan must have lost some brass , but one person in particular must have put his mortgage on Khan.

Waingro if it was Khans fault for agreeing to fight in DC why even bring the Britain scenario into equation and mention points deductions? Bottom line is Khan is badly managed and he seriously needs to fix up as this ranting is really embarrassing. When Hopkins drew with Pascal, Hopkins didn't throw rants to the media! he just accepted he got robbed and earned the rematch to prove his point. Theirs a difference in accepting defeat 'which neither Khan or Hopkins did' and a difference in accepting u got robbed 'Khan till this day cant accept he got robbed yet Hopkins accepted he got robbed'.

Mate Hopkins did complain when he got robbed he forced the WBC to give him a rematch which the did he also got his decision against Dawson overturned by appealing this is what Khan is trying to do he want to get the decision overturned and a rematch just like Hopkins did.

But did Khan clearly win like Hopkins did against Dawson?

It was too hard to say who that fight imo it was over after a round so there was no way to know who would have won but Hopkins appealed and won and got his belt back this is what Khan is trying to do.

by Lance Thu 22 Dec - 14:06

hopkins and dawson is a totally different scenario. hopkins was injured

by PPVxHOTTY Thu 22 Dec - 14:06

[quote="azania"]

Waingro wrote:Khan needs to forget about Mayweather who would school him and concentrate on a rematch with Peterson who he will beat imo. If that fight was anywhere else Khan would have won this is why he is appealing it was a home town decision. If he loses the appeal Peterson should give him a rematch in a neutral place and prove he can beat him fairly if Khan wins his appeal then he should fight Bradley or Brook which would be good fights.

Rematch??? Peterson should make him suffer imo and fight Bradley or Ortiz! Did Khan give Maidana a rematch?

by PPVxHOTTY Thu 22 Dec - 14:08

Lance wrote:hopkins and dawson is a totally different scenario. hopkins was injured

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/fight-322251-hopkins-dawson.html

Explain that to Waingro

by Lance Thu 22 Dec - 14:09

peterson should give him a rematch, because its gonna be the highest earning fight out there for him at the moment. also he can win it more convincingly next time as long as he doesnt have such a nervous start. he should go in full of confidence after beating khan already

by Waingro Thu 22 Dec - 14:10

PPVxHOTTY wrote:
Lance wrote:hopkins and dawson is a totally different scenario. hopkins was injured

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/fight-322251-hopkins-dawson.html

Explain that Waingro

Yes Hopkins was injured but he appealed and got his belt back this is what Khan is trying to do

by Lance Thu 22 Dec - 14:12

Waingro wrote:
PPVxHOTTY wrote:
Lance wrote:hopkins and dawson is a totally different scenario. hopkins was injured

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/fight-322251-hopkins-dawson.html

Explain that Waingro

Yes Hopkins was injured but he appealed and got his belt back this is what Khan is trying to do

who do you think is more deserving of their belt back waingro?

by PPVxHOTTY Thu 22 Dec - 14:13

Lance wrote:peterson should give him a rematch, because its gonna be the highest earning fight out there for him at the moment. also he can win it more convincingly next time as long as he doesnt have such a nervous start. he should go in full of confidence after beating khan already

So if e.g. Bradley brings more to the table and Peterson accepts to fight Bradley I can see all you Khan nuthuggers saying 'oh hes ducking Khan' bottom line is...if you do the job correctly firstly why is their a need to become desperate for rematches?

by azania Thu 22 Dec - 14:13

PPVxHOTTY wrote:
Waingro wrote:
PPVxHOTTY wrote:Some of you that are moaning about Khan must have lost some brass , but one person in particular must have put his mortgage on Khan.

Waingro if it was Khans fault for agreeing to fight in DC why even bring the Britain scenario into equation and mention points deductions? Bottom line is Khan is badly managed and he seriously needs to fix up as this ranting is really embarrassing. When Hopkins drew with Pascal, Hopkins didn't throw rants to the media! he just accepted he got robbed and earned the rematch to prove his point. Theirs a difference in accepting defeat 'which neither Khan or Hopkins did' and a difference in accepting u got robbed 'Khan till this day cant accept he got robbed yet Hopkins accepted he got robbed'.

Mate Hopkins did complain when he got robbed he forced the WBC to give him a rematch which the did he also got his decision against Dawson overturned by appealing this is what Khan is trying to do he want to get the decision overturned and a rematch just like Hopkins did.

But did Khan clearly win like Hopkins did against Dawson?

The first fight was close and the hometown fighter got the benefit of the close rounds. Ring any bells?

by Lance Thu 22 Dec - 14:16

PPVxHOTTY wrote:
Lance wrote:peterson should give him a rematch, because its gonna be the highest earning fight out there for him at the moment. also he can win it more convincingly next time as long as he doesnt have such a nervous start. he should go in full of confidence after beating khan already

So if e.g. Bradley brings more to the table and Peterson accepts to fight Bradley I can see all you Khan nuthuggers saying 'oh hes ducking Khan' bottom line is...if you do the job correctly firstly why is their a need to become desperate for rematches?

cant stand khan myself, so you are a bit quick on your assumptions there. i like peterson, if he can earn more from bradley or anyone else he should go for it. but obviously with the hype surrounding his first match against khan i think he should be able to make a lot off a rematch

by azania Thu 22 Dec - 14:22

Lance wrote:
Waingro wrote:
PPVxHOTTY wrote:
Lance wrote:hopkins and dawson is a totally different scenario. hopkins was injured

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/fight-322251-hopkins-dawson.html

Explain that Waingro

Yes Hopkins was injured but he appealed and got his belt back this is what Khan is trying to do

who do you think is more deserving of their belt back waingro?

Neither. belts should be won and lost in the ring. The ref called it a KO and it should have remained so.

Should Solis/Vit fight be changed to a no contest?

by azania Thu 22 Dec - 14:23

Lance wrote:
PPVxHOTTY wrote:
Lance wrote:peterson should give him a rematch, because its gonna be the highest earning fight out there for him at the moment. also he can win it more convincingly next time as long as he doesnt have such a nervous start. he should go in full of confidence after beating khan already

So if e.g. Bradley brings more to the table and Peterson accepts to fight Bradley I can see all you Khan nuthuggers saying 'oh hes ducking Khan' bottom line is...if you do the job correctly firstly why is their a need to become desperate for rematches?

cant stand khan myself, so you are a bit quick on your assumptions there. i like peterson, if he can earn more from bradley or anyone else he should go for it. but obviously with the hype surrounding his first match against khan i think he should be able to make a lot off a rematch

Bottom line......money. Who pays more. Bradley cant draw flies and GBP have offered Peterson a 7 figure sum. If I were managing Peterson I'd take it as he'll beat Amir in a rematch.

by Lance Thu 22 Dec - 14:26

azania wrote:
Lance wrote:
PPVxHOTTY wrote:
Lance wrote:peterson should give him a rematch, because its gonna be the highest earning fight out there for him at the moment. also he can win it more convincingly next time as long as he doesnt have such a nervous start. he should go in full of confidence after beating khan already

So if e.g. Bradley brings more to the table and Peterson accepts to fight Bradley I can see all you Khan nuthuggers saying 'oh hes ducking Khan' bottom line is...if you do the job correctly firstly why is their a need to become desperate for rematches?

cant stand khan myself, so you are a bit quick on your assumptions there. i like peterson, if he can earn more from bradley or anyone else he should go for it. but obviously with the hype surrounding his first match against khan i think he should be able to make a lot off a rematch

Bottom line......money. Who pays more. Bradley cant draw flies and GBP have offered Peterson a 7 figure sum. If I were managing Peterson I'd take it as he'll beat Amir in a rematch.

agree with you on this. i fancy peterson to take a rematch. he always starts nervously, but id expect his confidence to have improved after such a win. and yes vitali solis should have been no contest, but unfortunately vitali was able to say his punch to the top of the head did damage. the dawson hopkins fight should be obvious to anyone.

by Imperial Ghosty Thu 22 Dec - 15:10

Hopkins more than deserved his belt back, the fight was ended because of a clear and blatent foul.

by azania Thu 22 Dec - 15:15

Jumping on your opponent's back is a foul. Hop should have been DQ'd then. After all he committed the foul. Chad just shrugged him off. The way Hop described you would have thought Chad threw him onto a piggy back and slammed him wwf style onto the mat.

Hop is a cheat as far as I can see. Tried to cheat JC and pascal with his constant whining and moaning like a little girl when hit.

by trottb Thu 22 Dec - 15:18

azania wrote:
Waingro wrote:Khan needs to forget about Mayweather who would school him and concentrate on a rematch with Peterson who he will beat imo. If that fight was anywhere else Khan would have won this is why he is appealing it was a home town decision. If he loses the appeal Peterson should give him a rematch in a neutral place and prove he can beat him fairly if Khan wins his appeal then he should fight Bradley or Brook which would be good fights.

Horse manure. No robbery in my eyes. It was a close fight. Some of the rounds could have gone either way but the close rounds went to Peterson. Subjective scoring as it is in all boxing. Had it gone to Khan, Peterson would have been p'd off also. Such a close fight deserves a rematch whoever won it.

And mr gro, not every close fight that goes against the brit is a robbery. Murray/Sturm was a robbery in my eyes as Sturm won it clearly.

The issue for me was the idiotic ref.

Arguing with yourself now, Az?

by Imperial Ghosty Thu 22 Dec - 15:25

You'll be hard pushed to find anyone who thinks that Dawson deserved to get the win in that fight, he literally threw Hopkins to the ground, none of this shrugging him off bullcrap you're trying to spout.

by azania Thu 22 Dec - 15:28

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You'll be hard pushed to find anyone who thinks that Dawson deserved to get the win in that fight, he literally threw Hopkins to the ground, none of this shrugging him off bullcrap you're trying to spout.

What was Hop doing on his back?

by azania Thu 22 Dec - 15:29

trottb wrote:
azania wrote:
Waingro wrote:Khan needs to forget about Mayweather who would school him and concentrate on a rematch with Peterson who he will beat imo. If that fight was anywhere else Khan would have won this is why he is appealing it was a home town decision. If he loses the appeal Peterson should give him a rematch in a neutral place and prove he can beat him fairly if Khan wins his appeal then he should fight Bradley or Brook which would be good fights.

Horse manure. No robbery in my eyes. It was a close fight. Some of the rounds could have gone either way but the close rounds went to Peterson. Subjective scoring as it is in all boxing. Had it gone to Khan, Peterson would have been p'd off also. Such a close fight deserves a rematch whoever won it.

And mr gro, not every close fight that goes against the brit is a robbery. Murray/Sturm was a robbery in my eyes as Sturm won it clearly.

The issue for me was the idiotic ref.

Arguing with yourself now, Az?

You think I'm waingro? Those are fighting words. I can take all manner of jibes and insults. But that is over-stepping the mark.

by Imperial Ghosty Thu 22 Dec - 15:30

azania wrote:
Imperial Ghosty wrote:You'll be hard pushed to find anyone who thinks that Dawson deserved to get the win in that fight, he literally threw Hopkins to the ground, none of this shrugging him off bullcrap you're trying to spout.

What was Hop doing on his back?

Regardless of which, it was not a punch which ended the fight so therefore should have been ruled either a DQ for Dawson or rightfully as it was changed to a no contest.

by azania Thu 22 Dec - 15:41

So Hop did an illegal move, got shoved off because of that illegal move and he retains the crown and now refusing to give dawson a rematch. The guy is a jerk of the worst kind.

by Imperial Ghosty Thu 22 Dec - 15:44

If my memory serves me right it was Dawson ducking below the belt line which initiated the action and counter action but don't let your personal feelings for someone get in the way, did you not accuse others of doing that yesterday?

by azania Thu 22 Dec - 15:53

My opinion of Hop is not clouding my judgement of affecting my point. Chad ducked low. Hop literally jumped on his back. His feet were in the air and he straddled hi. Perhaps he thought he was still in prison.

Chad removed him from his back where he shouldn't have been. Then Hop visited the same type of doc that Dirrell saw.

by Imperial Ghosty Thu 22 Dec - 15:56

So you're trying to suggest now that Hopkins didn't in fact injure his shoulder at all?

by JabMachine Thu 22 Dec - 16:09

I don't like Bhop - he's becoming bad for the sport. If someone jumps on your back in the same manner that he did to Dawson, I'd react the same, I wouldn't wait patiently for him to slide off, I'd get that guy off me. Its a boxing match, not a wrestling match. I'd make him regret doing it in the first place.

That said, I think it should have been a no contest and an immediate rematch ordered.

by Waingro Thu 22 Dec - 16:11

Hopkins is too old now it is bad for the sport he should retire look at guys like Holyfield and Jones they are still fighting when they should retire.

by Lance Thu 22 Dec - 16:12

azania you are talking nonesense. i seem to remember dawson refusing to give hopkins the rematch and being very disrespectul after he got the tko, so why should bernard do him any favours

by Lance Thu 22 Dec - 16:14

Waingro wrote:Hopkins is too old now it is bad for the sport he should retire look at guys like Holyfield and Jones they are still fighting when they should retire.

is steve davis ruining snooker or rolling stones ruining music? if you dont like them, watch someone else

by Waingro Thu 22 Dec - 16:18

Lance wrote:
Waingro wrote:Hopkins is too old now it is bad for the sport he should retire look at guys like Holyfield and Jones they are still fighting when they should retire.

is steve davis ruining snooker or rolling stones ruining music? if you dont like them, watch someone else

I do. Hopkins is a very dirty fighter and is one of the most fighters he is too old he should have retired when Calzaghe schooled him he was a disgrace in that fight trying to cheat and say he got hit low he was also grabbing and holding alot he has to do this now because he is too old he cant fight he has to cheat to win. Refs are too afraid to take points off him aswell so he does not get punished.

by JabMachine Thu 22 Dec - 16:20

Snooker isn't an age related sport, in that its not exactly physical, same as music.

What is being said here is that Holyfield and RJJ were amazing in their prime, and great for the sport, but now they're detracting from their previous endeavours.

Although the way that Waingro just responded, I think he's a WUM

by Lance Thu 22 Dec - 16:20

Waingro wrote:
Lance wrote:
Waingro wrote:Hopkins is too old now it is bad for the sport he should retire look at guys like Holyfield and Jones they are still fighting when they should retire.

is steve davis ruining snooker or rolling stones ruining music? if you dont like them, watch someone else

I do. Hopkins is a very dirty fighter and is one of the most fighters he is too old he should have retired when Calzaghe schooled him he was a disgrace in that fight trying to cheat and say he got hit low he was also grabbing and holding alot he has to do this now because he is too old he cant fight he has to cheat to win. Refs are too afraid to take points off him aswell so he does not get punished.

calzaghe schooled him did he? looked the other way round to me

by Imperial Ghosty Thu 22 Dec - 16:21

You really don't have a clue about boxing do you? Should try watching the Pavlik and Pascal fights then get back to me and say he should retire.

by Lance Thu 22 Dec - 16:22

JabMachine wrote:Snooker isn't an age related sport, in that its not exactly physical, same as music.

What is being said here is that Holyfield and RJJ were amazing in their prime, and great for the sport, but now they're detracting from their previous endeavours.

Although the way that Waingro just responded, I think he's a WUM

true, they are definately detracting from their previous endeavours, and most would agree they should retire. however there are thousands of boxing matches a year, and to say they are ruining the sport is ridiculous. its their career and life, to do as they choose

by Waingro Thu 22 Dec - 16:25

Yes Pavlik was a good win but Pavlik was overrated lookat Jones he beat Trinidad but that was because he is washed up. Hopkins is 46 now he istoo old so he has to cheat to win look at him when he was younger he did not have to do this. He is also a boring fighter people dont want to watch him fight he should retire before he gets knocked out like Jones he will end up getting badly hurt if he continues.

by Imperial Ghosty Thu 22 Dec - 16:26

So you say he has to cheat to win but overlook that he beat Pavlik and Pascal fairly and squarely?

by Lance Thu 22 Dec - 16:28

Waingro wrote:Yes Pavlik was a good win but Pavlik was overrated lookat Jones he beat Trinidad but that was because he is washed up. Hopkins is 46 now he istoo old so he has to cheat to win look at him when he was younger he did not have to do this. He is also a boring fighter people dont want to watch him fight he should retire before he gets knocked out like Jones he will end up getting badly hurt if he continues.

i bet my house that hopkins doesnt get knocked out or badly hurt before he retires. and plenty of people still want to watch him, hes still earning a great living. i seem to remember calzaghe and pascal using dirty tricks against him too, but that doesnt get mentioned

by JabMachine Thu 22 Dec - 16:30

Perhaps ruining the sport is a harsh look at it, but certainly ruining their own legacy. Bhop is just.....well....I box, and I just hate watching him. He does what he does and thats fine, but I just don't like seeing spoiling. Its not cheating, its just a really slimy way of operating as a boxer. I don't like holding at the best of times, and the head can be suspect - I just wish he'd box more and spoil less.

by Waingro Thu 22 Dec - 16:34

JabMachine wrote:Perhaps ruining the sport is a harsh look at it, but certainly ruining their own legacy. Bhop is just.....well....I box, and I just hate watching him. He does what he does and thats fine, but I just don't like seeing spoiling. Its not cheating, its just a really slimy way of operating as a boxer. I don't like holding at the best of times, and the head can be suspect - I just wish he'd box more and spoil less.

You are right about that but he cant box more because he is so old his stamina is gone so he has to hold and cheat to survive if he didnt do this he would get knocked out like Jones.

It is bad for a 46 year old guy to be champ in boxing it makes the sport look bad imo people dont want to see an old man as champ. Hopkins was quality but now he is too old imo and he should retire before he gets badly hurt look at Holyfield and Jones who wont retire they are doing themselves damage Hopkins should take that as a warning.

by Imperial Ghosty Thu 22 Dec - 16:54

Hopkins is still at the top of the division so his age doesn't really matter, might look bad on the younger fighters but it's down to them to beat him.

by Lance Thu 22 Dec - 16:54

hopkins winning the title at 46 brought good publicity to boxing where i was. also did he hold and cheat to survive against pavlik and pascal? pascals only other loss is to froch and pavlik is actually underrated by many. he fought bravely against martinez who is the only other guy to have beaten him.

by **HumanWindmill** Thu 22 Dec - 17:00

Waingro wrote:Hopkins is too old now it is bad for the sport he should retire look at guys like Holyfield and Jones they are still fighting when they should retire.

What a pity you weren't around to give Archie Moore some advice, Waingro.

by Rowley Thu 22 Dec - 17:01

HumanWindmill wrote:
Waingro wrote:Hopkins is too old now it is bad for the sport he should retire look at guys like Holyfield and Jones they are still fighting when they should retire.

What a pity you weren't around to give Archie Moore some advice, Waingro.

Moore lost to a welterweight he was rubbish Windy, what is wrong with you today, thats the second thing I have had to explain to you.

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 22 Dec - 17:02

HumanWindmill wrote:
Waingro wrote:Hopkins is too old now it is bad for the sport he should retire look at guys like Holyfield and Jones they are still fighting when they should retire.

What a pity you weren't around to give Archie Moore some advice, Waingro.

He was around Windy, thats why he fought on so long - he thought senile dementia was catching up to him

by PPVxHOTTY Thu 22 Dec - 17:04

azania wrote:
Lance wrote:
PPVxHOTTY wrote:
Lance wrote:peterson should give him a rematch, because its gonna be the highest earning fight out there for him at the moment. also he can win it more convincingly next time as long as he doesnt have such a nervous start. he should go in full of confidence after beating khan already

So if e.g. Bradley brings more to the table and Peterson accepts to fight Bradley I can see all you Khan nuthuggers saying 'oh hes ducking Khan' bottom line is...if you do the job correctly firstly why is their a need to become desperate for rematches?

cant stand khan myself, so you are a bit quick on your assumptions there. i like peterson, if he can earn more from bradley or anyone else he should go for it. but obviously with the hype surrounding his first match against khan i think he should be able to make a lot off a rematch

Bottom line......money. Who pays more. Bradley cant draw flies and GBP have offered Peterson a 7 figure sum. If I were managing Peterson I'd take it as he'll beat Amir in a rematch.

Money and another thing you're forgetting 'bargaining power' when Oscar fought both Floyd and Pacman why did he gain the higher share? What I dont understand is why are GBP offering a 7 figure sum if they're adamant the appeal or whatever you wanna call will be successful? surely they're just hyping up a 'potential' rematch! Bradley may not be able to attract 10 fans in his living room but now that Top Rank have Bradley I feel uncle Bob will relish a Peterson match up which is also a rematch as Bradley was victorious before. As each day goes by Khan and his silly rants are making him look more and more desperate.

by **superflyweight** Thu 22 Dec - 20:16

rowley wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:
Waingro wrote:Hopkins is too old now it is bad for the sport he should retire look at guys like Holyfield and Jones they are still fighting when they should retire.

What a pity you weren't around to give Archie Moore some advice, Waingro.

Moore lost to a welterweight he was rubbish Windy, what is wrong with you today, thats the second thing I have had to explain to you.

Correction, jeff. Moore was schooled by a welterweight. Saying that, Burley was quality IMO.

by azania Thu 22 Dec - 20:55

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So you're trying to suggest now that Hopkins didn't in fact injure his shoulder at all?

He said he could continue.

by Sponsored content