BoxRec

Ironically, was it not Bernard who once said "I would never let a white boy beat me. I would never lose to a white boy. I couldn't go back to the projects if I let a white boy beat me."






















We'll of course it was Davie, you just quoted him word for word

punchoutsb wrote:If you don't like racists, why are such a Floyd fan? Is freedom not famous enough for you too look away for his racism?

And someone who claims to be put on earth to exterminate homosexuals shouldn't be calling anyone a bigot or subhuman...

Floyd isn't a racist for one and has nothing at all to do with this conversation, Freedom says his website is Protestant and Americans (what kind of Americans, I'm one but I'm not on his site), a person doesn't have to be ramous for me to look at them or not if they are racist.

As far as your claim of me being put on Earth to exterminate them then you shouldn't be so sensitive about your choice of being drilled by men.

Brut wrote:Floyd isn't a racist for one and has nothing at all to do with this conversation, Freedom says his website is Protestant and Americans (what kind of Americans, I'm one but I'm not on his site), a person doesn't have to be ramous for me to look at them or not if they are racist.

No, I said I'm neither American nor Protestant.

You say I'm in the KKK but that's a lie, I wouldn't even be qualified because it's an American Protestant organization.

Brut wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:If you don't like racists, why are such a Floyd fan? Is freedom not famous enough for you too look away for his racism?

And someone who claims to be put on earth to exterminate homosexuals shouldn't be calling anyone a bigot or subhuman...

Floyd isn't a racist for one and has nothing at all to do with this conversation, Freedom says his website is Protestant and Americans (what kind of Americans, I'm one but I'm not on his site), a person doesn't have to be ramous for me to look at them or not if they are racist.

As far as your claim of me being put on Earth to exterminate them then you shouldn't be so sensitive about your choice of being drilled by men.

1. Yes he is, and it has to do with you being a massive hypocrite.

2. It's not my claim, it's a direct quote of yours. I'm not homosexual (and there's nothing wrong if you are, you seem to care an awful lot about Floyd and his life), but at least unlike you I'm not a bigot towards them. Bigots like you give human beings a bad name.

If the officiating is fair, Kovalev will win. But I think it will not be fair and Hopkins will win a close decision (probably a technical decision after a cut caused by a head butt).

But let's be honest: a Russian fighting in the USA is not going to receive a fair shake against an all-time great American boxer.

The officials (and commentators too) will be rooting for Hopkins.

fergusg wrote:OMFG! That’s bum-clenchingly absurd behaviour!

No. It were 1999 and Roy Jones was fighting Dariusz in Germany, some of you would be making similar threads.

I just hope Kovalev gets a fair shake, and isn't the victim of shady officiating.

fergusg wrote:I Googled it to see the other places that you’ve posted it!

OMFG! That’s bum-clenchingly absurd behaviour!

Yes...googling someone's posts to see where else they have been posted is bum-clenchingly absurd behavior.

Nah. It'll probably be Steve Smoger giving Bernard Hopkins another rimjob. One of the worst refs in the business hands down. But even if it isn't stinky Steve, the ref won't be doing anything when Hopkins gets dirty, err I mean does his super cool crafty veteran tricks.

Kovalev needs to KO him dead.

EduardosFist wrote:Nah. It'll probably be Steve Smoger giving Bernard Hopkins another rimjob. One of the worst refs in the business hands down. But even if it isn't stinky Steve, the ref won't be doing anything when Hopkins gets dirty, err I mean does his super cool crafty veteran tricks.

Kovalev needs to KO him dead.

Yes, exactly.

verballistic wrote:I'm sure if Kovalev loses a disputed decision you'll ignore the fact that Atlantic City is only a stone's throw from Hopkins' hometown of Philly & find a way to make it a racial/ethnic issue...especially if the ref or some of the judges are Jewish.

That Hopkins is fighting in his home country near his hometown will very likely be a factor. Poor Murat was fighting two men in the ring: Hopkins and Smoger too.

You're the only one who always brings race/ethnicity into every discussion, you seem to be obsessed with it. Your constant bashing of every fighter from eastern Europe reveals your own prejudice.

You are extremely nationalistic. If you were a referee yourself, you'd always do all you could to help the American boxers, and if you were a judge you'd score every round against Kovalev and other foreign boxes regardless of what happened.

HBO is PRAYING that Kovalev wins by KO!!!

Yet, this "persecuted" guy Freedom is calling on some US conspiracy. When was the last time a US conspiracy was designed to help a black ex-felon?

I know Hopkins has made some good $, but in the US, nationalism is totally fake. We only cheat for billionaires ... and Evander Holyfield that one time.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:When was the last time a US conspiracy was designed to help a black ex-felon?

Do you have to bring your hypocritical racist views into every thread?

Is there any chance we could keep "race" out of all this. Boxing is a competitive sport between two men, does it matter if they are black, white or yellow with blue stripes?

This is really HOF level trolling.
Tunney winds people up with his usual stuff, it dies out in the middle of August after about 50 misguided posts. Then Tunney re-ignites the pilot light on his original turd-burning furnace more than a month later, getting even more bites for his shvt sandwich.
Utterly masterful. Tunney, Russia would have won the Cold War with you in charge.

giacomino wrote:This is really HOF level trolling.
Tunney winds people up with his usual stuff, it dies out in the middle of August after about 50 misguided posts. Then Tunney re-ignites the pilot light on his original turd-burning furnace more than a month later, getting even more bites for his shvt sandwich.
Utterly masterful. Tunney, Russia would have won the Cold War with you in charge.

This post is spot on

punchoutsb wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:When was the last time a US conspiracy was designed to help a black ex-felon?

Do you have to bring your hypocritical racist views into every thread?

DX!!!

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:When was the last time a US conspiracy was designed to help a black ex-felon?

Do you have to bring your hypocritical racist views into every thread?

DX!!!

NWO!!!

I really don't think foreigners understand American nationalism.

HBO (an American company) is praying that Kovalev wins. I think American boxing fans would be split 50/50 regarding who they would want to win.

Americans are purely nationalistic during the Olympics. After that, we kinda choose whoever we like or makes the most economical sense. Just like Calzaghe, Kovalev has NOTHING to worry about in terms of corruption. In fact, I think he'll get the benefit of Lampley's horrible play by play and on Lederman's scorecard.

Kovalev is an HBO fighter with a potential to get good money made. Hopkins is not their fighter, and it could be his last fight. Of course they want Kovalev to win, but judges are the whole different story

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:I really don't think foreigners understand American nationalism.

HBO (an American company) is praying that Kovalev wins. I think American boxing fans would be split 50/50 regarding who they would want to win.

Americans are purely nationalistic during the Olympics. After that, we kinda choose whoever we like or makes the most economical sense. Just like Calzaghe, Kovalev has NOTHING to worry about in terms of corruption. In fact, I think he'll get the benefit of Lampley's horrible play by play and on Lederman's scorecard.

Exactly. We don't give a crap if a guy is from our country. If he's an a$$hole he's an a$$hole. If he sucks he sucks. Americans don't root for fighters because they're american. Really ever.

Leather Daddy wrote:The referee will be unfair to Kovalev.

The judges will also be unfair to Kovalev. Any close round will automatically go to Bernard because he's American. Kovalev needs to absolutely dominate rounds in order to win them. In fact they just robbed a Russian in the USA in the last month or so - Anton Novikov was only given a draw VS American Jessie Vargas, and I thought Novikov won atleast 9 rounds. There are many examples of Euros and foreigners being robbed in USA in recent years so we should expect the same for Kovalev-Hopkins.

Realistically, Kovalev probably needs a KO to win. The only way he wins a decision is if he dominates and drops BHOP (Like Maidana-Broner).

Kovalev will never win a close decision against BHOP and the ref and judges will do their best to screw him.

I don't believe this at all. This is an HBO production. HBO NEEDS Kovalev to win this fight. Hopkins is basically done. Or very close. Kovalev will be around another 8-10 yrs. Kovalev lives in Florida and has been in the states for awhile and been on the network repeatedly. He's not some schmuck flying in from overseas. He's already got money behind him.

Referee:

David Fields

Judges:

Lawrence Layton
Carlos Ortiz
Clark Sammartino

All of them are Americans, no Russian officials. The fight is near Hopkins home city.

Freedom2013 wrote:Referee:

David Fields

Judges:

Lawrence Layton
Carlos Ortiz
Clark Sammartino

All of them are Americans, no Russian officials. The fight is near Hopkins home city.

Freedom, please tell me when the judges gave Hopkins rounds unfairly? It's scary to think you are a regular person somewhere in the world with this level of obvious bias.

In fact, let me make you look stupid with the evidence ...

One judge scored Hopkins/Shumenov a draw. Hopkins needed a KD to win on that one card. The other two judges only gave Hopkins 8 rounds.

I believe the majority of people thought Hopkins CLEARLY beat Pascal in the 2nd fight. However, Hopkins only won 7 rounds on two scorecards. I don't even want to get into the first fight.

If you really want to nitpick, the Hopkins/Calzaghe fight could have been scored much closer, but the judges in AMERICA favored Calzaghe's activity.

I've gone back to 2008. WHERE IS THE PRECEDENCE FOR HOPKINS GETTING BIASED OFFICIATING AND JUDGING?

You are a very very sad racist man.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

Freedom2013 wrote:Referee:

David Fields

Judges:

Lawrence Layton
Carlos Ortiz
Clark Sammartino

All of them are Americans, no Russian officials. The fight is near Hopkins home city.

Freedom, please tell me when the judges gave Hopkins rounds unfairly? It's scary to think you are a regular person somewhere in the world with this level of obvious bias.

In fact, let me make you look stupid with the evidence ...

One judge scored Hopkins/Shumenov a draw. Hopkins needed a KD to win on that one card. The other two judges only gave Hopkins 8 rounds.

I believe the majority of people thought Hopkins CLEARLY beat Pascal in the 2nd fight. However, Hopkins only won 7 rounds on two scorecards. I don't even want to get into the first fight.

If you really want to nitpick, the Hopkins/Calzaghe fight could have been scored much closer, but the judges in AMERICA favored Calzaghe's activity.

I've gone back to 2008. WHERE IS THE PRECEDENCE FOR HOPKINS GETTING BIASED OFFICIATING AND JUDGING?

You are a very very sad racist man.

1. The cards for Shumenov-Hopkins were too close and the 114-113 card for Shumenov was laughable; in my opinion Shumenov won 3 rounds at best.
2. Giving Hopkins 7 of 12 rounds is compatible with thinking he clearly won the Pascal rematch.
3. I thought the draw in Hopkins-Pascal I was fair, so by all means 'get into' that bout.
4. Hopkins got outlanded significantly by Calzaghe and for the large majority of the bout he went into a shell and was spoiling. Two judges rightfully had Calzaghe winning and the card for Hopkins was very generous to him. People talk of Hopkins' 'effective aggression' but apart from the knockdown and a moment near the end of the 6th Hopkins seemed far more bothered by Joe's aggression than Joe did by his, hence the incessant holding, flopping to the canvas, and all that.
5. I thought the judges were generous to Hopkins against Murat, with the two 11-1 cards being too wide. Murat won at least 3 and up to 4 rounds in my view.

I don't know if the officials will be fair or not, but isn't there usually an effort to avoid having all of them from one boxer's country? Do certain sanctioning bodies put more emphasis on that than others?

crusader wrote:1. The cards for Shumenov-Hopkins were too close and the 114-113 card for Shumenov was laughable; in my opinion Shumenov won 3 rounds at best.
2. Giving Hopkins 7 of 12 rounds is compatible with thinking he clearly won the Pascal rematch.
3. I thought the draw in Hopkins-Pascal I was fair, so by all means 'get into' that bout.
4. Hopkins got outlanded significantly by Calzaghe and for the large majority of the bout he went into a shell and was spoiling. Two judges rightfully had Calzaghe winning and the card for Hopkins was very generous to him. People talk of Hopkins' 'effective aggression' but apart from the knockdown and a moment near the end of the 6th Hopkins seemed far more bothered by Joe's aggression than Joe did by his, hence the incessant holding, flopping to the canvas, and all that.
5. I thought the judges were generous to Hopkins against Murat, with the two 11-1 cards being too wide. Murat won at least 3 and up to 4 rounds in my view.

I don't know if the officials will be fair or not, but isn't there usually an effort to avoid having all of them from one boxer's country? Do certain sanctioning bodies put more emphasis on that than others?

I highly disagree with your rant in #4 but I agree with all the rest. Any person who thought that Shumenov vs Hopkins was anywhere near close is not a real fan of the sport of boxing.