Joe Calzaghe - Bernard Hopkins The Record Comparison Part 2

[Beatboxer]

Ok here is the Hopkins part. Im going to go over which fights I believe are signficant in determining Hopkins legacy to this date and assess the quality of them before comparing them to Joes.



Roy Jones Junior: This was for the vacant IBF middleweight championship of the world. Jones would of course go on to become a multi-division champ, a superman phenom and the number 1 p4p boxer in the world for many years. Hopkins gave a good account of himself, but Jones won this fight convincingly even with a broken right hand. Nonetheless, it can be argued that Bernard was green at this point and a loss to a fighter the calibre of Jones by decision is no shame in itself! This fight happened in 1993.

Sergundo Mercado: These fights happened in 1994 and 1995. The first, which some idiot Hopkins haters haved cited as an example that his chin is not quite as solid as most believe was fought at altitude. This obviously hampered Hopkins severely and getting out with a draw in which he was clearly the better boxer is no shame. He put all doubts to rest in the rematch anyway and captured the IBF title. Good win for Hopkins and the start of his reign.

Joe Lipsey: Undefeated touted prospect....Hadn't yet mixed it with the best but still looked good. Hopkins literally executed this guy: he never fought again and the KO is both neat and sweet btw. A good win for Hopkins over a hot prospect. This fight took place in 1996.

Glen Johnson: A big win for Hopkins in my book. Johnson at this point was an undefeated hot middleweight prospect, which made a win against him at this stage very good in itself. However, the fact is this is a win that has appreciated with time and nobody has dominated and defeated Johnson quite as effectively as Hopkins thus far. Very good win. This fight took place in 1997.

Antwun Echols: Kid Dynamite was a feared puncher in the middleweight division and highly regarded. Hopkins first beat him in 1999 but its the rematch that really impresses me. Hopkins was slammed to the canvas dislocating his shoulder but showed incredible heart and desire to comeback and win by stoppage in the 10th! Impressive stuff over a good fighter. These fights took place in 1999 and 2000.


Syd Vanderpool: Good fighter. Hopkins has fought a number of these good contender types disposing of them all as any good champ should do. This fight took place in the year 2000.

Keith Holmes: Unfication fight. Dirty brawl. Holmes was a good fighter however and of course a fellow world champion. This was fought as part of the middleweight unfication tournament with both men widely been seen as fodder for the KO machine Felix Trinidad. Another good win for Hopkins. This fight took place in the year 2001.

Felix Trinidad: Finally recogntion. Does Trinidad really need introduction? 147 legend, king of 154, p4p one of the best fighters in the world at this point. Had also destroyed WBA Champ Joppy. Hopkins systematically destroys Trinidad in a shock. This is a big win. However, the blown up welter status cannot be denied and some would also argue that ODLH acutally beat him already and laid the blue print. Nonetheless it would be folly to suggest that this wasn't hugely signficant: the way Hopkins executed a game plan against Trinidad was masterful and showed the great fighter that he is. Big win for Hopkins that made him undisputed.

Alright, this section has kind of merged two parts of Hopkins careers:prospect and his intial years as champion. We see here that he has fought a similar quality to Joe Calzaghe with a mix of hot prospect, former world champions and highly regarded contenders. I will now go on to look in depth at Hopkins career since the 2001 Trinidad fight. But ill have to post a 2nd post due to character limits.

To be continued..

[Beatboxer]

2002-2004: Money over Legacy

Hopkins was finally king of the world: undisputed middlweight champion with a big win that gained him the recognition he deserved. He had taken out most of the contenders in his middleweight division. Legacy wise, he had already achieved alot. Where to go now if he was to further enhance that legacy? It seemed the only way was up to SMW or else LHW. Talk of a Roy Jones Junior fight emerged quickly....Negotiations were under way but Hopkins vanity ulimately scuppered the fight: he wanted a 50-50 split with a man who had already beaten him, the p4p king and one of the biggest boxers in the world! Why not take the 60-40 that Jones said he would fight him for publicly? Even 70-30 wouldn't be so bad: he would get the opportunity to avenge his loss enhance his legacy hugely and get a massive pay day into the bargain. Hopkins vanity kept this from happening and possibly another little thing that ill examine later....


The other alternative was 168. However this was a very European division where the two top fighters, Sven Ottke and Joe Calzaghe did not present nearly as lucrative a fight with Jones and in Ottkes case, there would probably be no point in even trying for it such was his reluctance to leave Germany. Negotiations began for a Calzaghe fight. Hopkins accepted the fight for 3 million. But something changed his mind just as the contracts were about to be signed....what was it? Fear? Unlikely...Hopkins was a great fighter with unwaveringly self belief...fear did not come into it. But doubt did....he could lose this fight. Calzaghe had enough credibility to fight on the basis of succesful fights against Sheika and Brewer...but then again there was another much safer option on the horizion...much more lucrative too and the media would probably be fooled as well legacy wise...

Oscar De La Hoya: A man who began his career as low as lightweight. However, he was boxings biggest draw outside of Mike Tyson. He was highly regarded. He had made noise about one day going to the middleweight division. All Hopkins had to do was wait at middleweight....how he was going to do this without losing credibility was tough but fuck it...he had fought most contenders at the weight for years without recognition....he could wait.

So in 2002 he fights once against Daniels a blown 154 fighter. Then a farce of a mandatory defence against Hakkar where he of course calls out 154lbers much to the amusement of Larry Merchant. He beats Joppy during this time which was a decent enough win.

Finally 2004 things come together. Disposing of Allen(mandatory) would pave the way for a money spinning showdown with DLH! He defeats him then as widely expected disposes of DLH.

What do I think of this win? Its decent. Hoya was and is a very good fighter and I give Hopkins credit for stopping him. However he is most effective at welter. And was clearly out his depth at 160.(Sturm) So no, not a huge amount of credit goes to this win. He waited and waited for it and why not? The money was huge. But legacy wise it means little.

Continued...

[Beatboxer]

2005 - Present Legacy Back on Track

Howard Eastman - Decent win. Perennial contender, one of the few viable ones at 160 in the aftermath of 2001. Eastman had regained his creditbility following the Joppy farce in which he should have became WBA champ. A good win for Hopkins this. 2005.

Jermain Taylor: Hot up and comer. Not unlike Jeff Lacy in the 160 division, Taylor was being touted for great things. Hopkins to his credit gave the young heir apparent his shot but stated he would execute him just as Trinidad had David Reid. He was wrong: A close fight but a clear win to Taylor in my eyes and Hopkins 10 year reign at 160 was over. A rematch was set for later that year with the result being the exact same. Unlike Calzaghe, he just couldn't comprehensively beat the new up and comer. Many began to speculate that Hopkins was finished. 2005.

A fight against RJJ was announced but cancelled when it was discovered no1 really wanted to see a couple of old guys who had lost their last few fights have a rematch(Take heed Holy and Tyson!)

Antonio Tarver: This fight was to take place at LHW with ring magazine champ Tarver, conquerer of RJJ. Tarver was a heavy favourite with the view being that Hopkins was past it. Hopkins bucked those assertions with a boxing clinic to become the new kingpin of 175! This was hugely impressive and a real shock to many. Tarver is erratic as shown by his losses to Johnson, Jones and Harding but he avenged all of those. Great win for Hopkins and champ in his second division. 2006

Winky Wright: This fight could have happened in 2005 when before were undisputed in their divisions. That it didn't isn't a big deal: Hopkins fought a very worthy contender in Taylor instead. Nonetheless, this fight at 170 for Hopkins gave him a major advantage given that he was always a very big MW to start with whilst Wrights best division was 154. Hopkins wins this fight against the man no1 wanted to face. I give him some credit but its not as big as it would have been at 160..Wright was clearly a little pudgy too.



The Final Comparison:

In terms of competiton, Hopkins HAS fought the superior competition. Not by much at all but by a little. RJJ and Tarver separate this for me. However, merely fighting the best competition does not make for a better legacy or else George Chuvalo would be an all time great. The fact is Hopkins lost not only to Jones but also to his heir apparent Jermain Taylor. Worst of all, there were the two best fighters that Hopkins ever faced at the weight. Not good.

Nonetheless, Hopkins proved himself over the years. Like Calzaghe he beat a number of contenders: Vanderpool and Echols. Hot prospects: Johnson and Lipsey. And fellow champions: Holmes and Trinidad. Truly impressive stuff. He also did something Joe has yet to do: become a champ in another division. However, unlike Calzaghe he has lost to some of his competition, most notably to Taylor the heir apparent. Please explain to me Hopkins fans the difference between beating Taylor at that point and Lacy? They were both hugely regarded prospects who had looked very good to that point. If anything, Lacy had beaten the better competition of the two till then. So exactly why are the Taylor losses glossed over for Hopkins and the Lacy victory dismissed for Calzaghe? It doesn't make sense!

Overall, however my opinion is this: Hopkins and Calzaghe are on a par legacy wise. Hopkins for me has beaten the slightly better competition on the merit of his win against Tarver. But he also lost to Jermain Taylor his heir apparent whilst Calzaghe disposed of Lacy which evens the scores a little bit.

Conclusion: One will edge ahead of the other on the basis of the up coming fight.

Your thoughts would be appreciated on all of this btw.

[Diablo]

Couldnt agree more. Their resumes are on par as far as im concerned

[GazOC]

Couldnt agree more. Their resumes are on par as far as im concerned

I agree, Hopkins slightly edges it but not by much.

[Beatboxer]

I agree, Hopkins slightly edges it but not by much.

Exactly.

Where does this myth come from...spun by the legions of idiots that Calzaghe spent 10 years squandering his potential whilst Hopkins fought a whos who at that time?

Who else could Calzaghe have fought I proposed yesterday? The twin businessman that were RJJ and Hopkins weren't game. Ottke? Please. DM is the only one we could really come up with.

Hopkins after 2001 stayed in the ravaged middleweight division when they were bigger more important fights in regards to his legacy in the divisions above. Why? DLH! Money spinner minimal risk.

That is not to say Hopkins isn't a very good fighter and champion. Far from it. But it does show how easily boxing fans are manipulated by the media and false perceptions.

Look a little deeper. In regards to this issue the truth is somewhere inbetween. If and when Calzaghe beats Hopkins I will have no hesitation in saying he has the superior resume.

[dan-b]

Beatboxer I really do take my hat off to you here. A really good & fair comparison that is difficult to refute. The only things I will say are that Hopkins definitely chased his undisputed status more vehemently than Joe & this was done without the backing of a powerful promoter which probably hindered him.

The only other thing is the Taylor fights, I think Hopkins definitely won the second fight & possibly the first. I may even study both fights closely and post up my own detailed analysis.

I must say it's good to see this kind of discussion taking place on here. I think one of the reasons I prefer Hopkins is that I love his storied journey to the undisputed title. A bad guy come good & someone I feel some affiliation to. Joe on the other hand is a highly skilled boxer but not someone I feel any empathy for.

[Beatboxer]

Beatboxer I really do take my hat off to you here. A really good & fair comparison that is difficult to refute. The only things I will say are that Hopkins definitely chased his undisputed status more vehemently than Joe & this was done without the backing of a powerful promoter which probably hindered him.

The only other thing is the Taylor fights, I think Hopkins definitely won the second fight & possibly the first. I may even study both fights closely and post up my own detailed analysis.

I must say it's good to see this kind of discussion taking place on here. I think one of the reasons I prefer Hopkins is that I love his storied journey to the undisputed title. A bad guy come good & someone I feel some affiliation to. Joe on the other hand is a highly skilled boxer but not someone I feel any empathy for.

Cheers mate.

Yes, my point is Hopkins is a very good fighter and has taken on very good competition. But its not lightyears ahead of Joes and I believe Hopkins losses balance out their resumes somewhat.

The Taylor fights are subjective...I was of the opinion that Taylor won both but recognised they were close. I watched them twice but I can't say I have any great inclination to do so again...they were rather dull.

All in all however I feel whoever wins the fight on April 19th edges ahead of the other legacy wise. Its got alot riding on it which just further adds to the anticipation. I simply can't wait.

[Smazz20]

I've never actually seen the ODLH V Sturm bout, but according to most, it was a very very dodgy decision. Had Sturm of actually got the nod over ODLH (thereby improving his own resume and stature) would a win for Hopkins over Sturm of done more for BHOP's career than his win over ODLH?

[Beatboxer]

I've never actually seen the ODLH V Sturm bout, but according to most, it was a very very dodgy decision. Had Sturm of actually got the nod over ODLH (thereby improving his own resume and stature) would a win for Hopkins over Sturm of done more for BHOP's career than his win over ODLH?

Sturm has went on to be proven to be a distinctly average fighter. Good, but by no means very good and certainly not great.

Would a win against him have did much for Hopkins? At the time maybe. People were talking up Sturms jab and speed and speculating that he might have a big future. He would have at least a name on his record having beaten a fat DLH and is at least a natural middleweight...

That being said, most thought that DLH had underestimated Sturm and gave him a by on that basis. I think legacy wise to the uninformed fan DLH represents more. To me, Sturm might have meant a little bit more at that time as he was a hot up and coming prospect who was the deserved victor over Hoya...

[TFFP]

That's some effort right there - hats off to ya

You've come to the rightful and inevitable conclusion, that they are both very similar despite the US based propaganda that tells us differently. Hopkins perhaps has a slight edge, his recent exploits (even against an old and mediocre Tarver) at his age are impressive.

[mattress]

Well done BB, great piece. Nice to see points put across without any dirt being flung...just good, hard, undeniable facts.

cheers

[dan-b]

Well done BB, great piece. Nice to see points put across without any dirt being flung...just good, hard, undeniable facts.

cheers

I'll second that. Very refreshing to see. Roll on April 19th.:good

[dwilson]

Great piece of work Beat boxer. Always nice to see fair appraisals of fighters.

I think the thing that makes the April 19th fight so interesting is that everything about the two guys is so even but completely different. Very hard to pick a winner, that is the type of fight I love to see.

[mike464]

One thing you have to remember is that all of Calzaghe's opponents (apart from two) were brought in by FW to lose. Like with Khan and Hatton before Zoo, he picked the opponents least likely to cause an upset.

Hopkins was often put in fights he wasn't supposed to win. Also, you can't argue with 20 world title defences.

[Max Molyneux]

You can't argue with 21 title defences either.

Calzaghe didn't need two attempts to win his first title either.

[jc]

Two very impressive but very similar resume's. Hopkins may edge on the famous names front, but when it comes to overral ability its shockingly similar. Calzaghes win over Hopkins will seal the argument.

[Beatboxer]

Two very impressive but very similar resume's. Hopkins may edge on the famous names front, but when it comes to overral ability its shockingly similar. Calzaghes win over Hopkins will seal the argument.

My thoughts exactly.

[Beatboxer]

You can't argue with 21 title defences either.

Calzaghe didn't need two attempts to win his first title either.

This is harsh on Hopkins.

RJJ the first time around...

[mike464]

and 20 legitimate title defences.

[mattress]

One thing you have to remember is that all of Calzaghe's opponents (apart from two) were brought in by FW to lose.

Personally, I judge boxers on their performance against other good (rated ) boxers. The ones that were 'brought in to lose' as you put have have little bearing on my overall assessment. If you are basing Calzaghe's performance next month on a few 'cans' then you are being a little naive.

[mattress]

Also, I think Hopkins has more British support than he gets back home. Not sure why tho'. Maybe the fact that Calzaghe is so disliked on here (by UK posters) should be more worrying/telling?

[dan-b]

Also, I think Hopkins has more British support than he gets back home. Not sure why tho'. Maybe the fact that Calzaghe is so disliked on here (by UK posters) should be more worrying/telling?

Are you kidding me? It's like an unofficial Calzaghe fansite on here. But seriously why does it matter if British people like Hopkins? I think the nationalistic element is mostly perpetrated by new fans.

[mattress]

Are you kidding me? It's like an unofficial Calzaghe fansite on here.

Maybe the British fans (of Hopkins) appreciate his style, tactics, etc. more so than the more casual American fan? Maybe Calzaghe is disliked because of the nuthuggery that goes on around here?

[dan-b]

Maybe the British fans (of Hopkins) appreciate his style, tactics, etc. more so than the more casual American fan? Maybe Calzaghe is disliked because of the nuthuggery that goes on around here?

I think if you are talking about hardcore British fans then you are probably right but I think most casual fans have watched the Lacy & Kessler fights & have decided Calzaghe is god.

My main gripe with Calzaghe is the inordinate amount of time he took to be recognised. A man of his talents should have done so much more & could have done so with a little more ambition & a little less ******.

[Beatboxer]

and 20 legitimate title defences.

And Calzaghes weren't?

Its less about quantity and more about quality anyway. I sought to demonstrate that both fought opponents of a very similar quality on a consistent basis.

You merely stating nonsense about Calzaghe only taking fights with little or no risk which always made him favourite whilst Hopkins took bouts in which he was constantly the underdog is just your opinion - which is wrong of course

[Calroid]

And Calzaghes weren't?

Its less about quantity and more about quality anyway. I sought to demonstrate that both fought opponents of a very similar quality on a consistent basis.

You merely stating nonsense about Calzaghe only taking fights with little or no risk which always made him favourite whilst Hopkins took bouts in which he was constantly the underdog is just your opinion - which is wrong of course

Right or wrong, Hopkins has been the underdog in a number of his biggest fights. In fact he's been the underdog for his last three, Tarver, Wright and now Calzaghe.

Serious question, I do not know the answer to it: Other than the Lacey fight where he was a slight underdog (11/10 to 4/6) which of his fights fights was Calzaghe the underdog in?

[Beatboxer]

Right or wrong, Hopkins has been the underdog in a number of his biggest fights. In fact he's been the underdog for his last three, Tarver, Wright and now Calzaghe.

Serious question, I do not know the answer to it: Other than the Lacey fight where he was a slight underdog (11/10 to 4/6) which of his fights fights was Calzaghe the underdog in?

None that I can think of.

Not that it matters in regards to the oppositions quality is a flawed point anyway.

Hes implying that every opponent Calzaghe had bar Lacy was a set up and a sure fire win because he was favourite. Does that mean that Mike Tysons opposition can be dismissed quality wise on the basis that he was favourite?

Furthermore, Hopkins lost one of the fights in which he was underdog justifying that status. More importantly still, he lost to a man he was favoured over in Jermain Taylor.

So what exactly is his point when he says that Hopkins was the underdog for some of his fights? Does that somehow prove that his opposition was infinetly better than Calzaghes just because Joe was the favourite for most of his fights?

Hardly.

[Calroid]

None that I can think of.

Not that it matters in regards to the oppositions quality is a flawed point anyway.

Hes implying that every opponent Calzaghe had bar Lacy was a set up and a sure fire win because he was favourite. Does that mean that Mike Tysons opposition can be dismissed quality wise on the basis that he was favourite?

Furthermore, Hopkins lost one of the fights in which he was underdog justifying that status. More importantly still, he lost to a man he was favoured over in Jermain Taylor.

So what exactly is his point when he says that Hopkins was the underdog for some of his fights? Does that somehow prove that his opposition was infinetly better than Calzaghes just because Joe was the favourite for most of his fights?

Hardly.

You're right it doesn't prove that Hopkins opposition was better than Calzaghe's. However what it does show is the lack of respect that Hopkins has had throughout his career. I may be wrong, because I cannot find a source, but I believe, if memory serves me right, that Hopkins was even the underdog when he fought Echols. The lack of respect that Hopkins has had throughout his career would explain why he is the way he is (personality).

Anyway another thing that it does show is that it is never a wise thing to count Hopkins out of any fight. I know that you are not doing this but so many people are. As history has proven, counting Hopkins out is never a wise thing to do.

I predict that this fight will be closer than many people are expecting and I also predict that Calzaghe's punch output per round for this fight will be the lowest it's been in years. I'm not going to predict a winner but I will have a small wager on Hopkins just because he is the underdog yet again.

The thing that sucks about this fight is that I'm actually going to Vegas on the 21st April, two days after the fight.:mad:

Oh well.

P.S. I did like your analysis of both fighters records, I would like to point out however that Taylor was a more accomplished amateur than Lacey. Also Taylor did win a bronze medal at the Olympics whilst Lacey got KOed. Whilst this does not translate into a better fighter in the pro ranks it does imply that Taylor was a more skilled boxer, at least when he started his pro career. Thus it is likely that it is more difficult to out skill a Taylor than a Lacey. That is not an attempt to demean Calzaghe's performance against Lacey (which was awesome) but more an attempt to defend Hopkin's performances against Taylor, which incidently I personally think he won both of them. (He was definately the stronger fighter at the end of both bouts, of course, that alone does not mean he won)

[Beatboxer]

You're right it doesn't prove that Hopkins opposition was better than Calzaghe's. However what it does show is the lack of respect that Hopkins has had throughout his career. I may be wrong, because I cannot find a source, but I believe, if memory serves me right, that Hopkins was even the underdog when he fought Echols. The lack of respect that Hopkins has had throughout his career would explain why he is the way he is (personality).

Anyway another thing that it does show is that it is never a wise thing to count Hopkins out of any fight. I know that you are not doing this but so many people are. As history has proven, counting Hopkins out is never a wise thing to do.

I predict that this fight will be closer than many people are expecting and I also predict that Calzaghe's punch output per round for this fight will be the lowest it's been in years. I'm not going to predict a winner but I will have a small wager on Hopkins just because he is the underdog yet again.

The thing that sucks about this fight is that I'm actually going to Vegas on the 21st April, two days after the fight.:mad:

Oh well.

P.S. I did like your analysis of both fighters records, I would like to point out however that Taylor was a more accomplished amateur than Lacey. Also Taylor did win a bronze medal at the Olympics whilst Lacey got KOed. Whilst this does not translate into a better fighter in the pro ranks it does imply that Taylor was a more skilled boxer, at least when he started his pro career. Thus it is likely that it is more difficult to out skill a Taylor than a Lacey. That is not an attempt to demean Calzaghe's performance against Lacey (which was awesome) but more an attempt to defend Hopkin's performances against Taylor, which incidently I personally think he won both of them. (He was definately the stronger fighter at the end of both bouts, of course, that alone does not mean he won)

Thanks for the feedback mate and you do make some good points.

I should also add that Taylor is infact one of my favourites and I cannot understand why he is criticised so. He has his flaws, but god the guy fights the best. Hopkins twice, Wright and of course Pavlik in a 3 year period. Even his 'gimmes' were against former world champs at 154 in Spinks and Ouma!

Even if you think Hopkins lost those fights, theres no great shame. Taylor, whilst not being great, is a very good fighter who was the heir apparent in a division that had been stale for years. Hopkins still made it close at the very least and did not disgrace himself with the showing at all.

What pisses me off is revisionists downplaying the signficance of the Lacy win, thats why I made the Taylor comparision. It is a comparision in terms of skill, but in terms of how they were percieved and the way their career was thought to be going and the stage they were at that point: it was largely the same for both men. Both men had looked good largely ploughing through the competition, which was decent prior to facing Hopkins and Calzaghe. And at that time, I believe over either carried the same weight as the other. Thats what I was saying.

Again though, good points and your feedback is much appreciated.

[Calroid]

Good talking to you.:thumbsup

[Beatboxer]

these are the only Calz-Hops threads I've enjoyed reading. Well done.

Cheers :good

I would have went for it in the main forum but seeing as the vast majority of posters there are ignorant idiots I felt it would be better recieved and debated here, where the majority actually know what they are talking about and are most importantly, objective.

[JonOli]

Overall, however my opinion is this: Hopkins and Calzaghe are on a par legacy wise.

How do you feel Joe's split win over Hopkins, and Hopkins win Pavlik has affected things?

[Beatboxer]

How do you feel Joe's split win over Hopkins, and Hopkins win Pavlik has affected things?

This old thread is back! Haha...

Yeah, I addressed the former in another thread titled 'Arise Sir Joe...' where basically to cut a long story short I said that I believed that Calzaghe now had the superior resume having beaten a fighter the quality of Bernard Hopkins whom I did not consider 'shot' and whom I considered to be the best fighter in the world at 175, Dawson had not proven otherwise at that point.

Hopkins beating Pavlik doesn't really change things greatly for Calzaghe from my perspective: it simply proves to all the haters that Hopkins was not in any way 'finished' or 'shot'. It simply vindicates my viewpoint more than anything and it does enhance Calzaghes legacy among boxing fans in general I think....people made out Joe won on activity alone but I think it's clear that it took a hell of alot of skill as well.

I think I also overrated Pavlik somewhat, I really like the guy and had actually wanted JC to fight him...I picked him over Hopkins. Guys a good fighter but his limitations were cruelly exposed by Hopkins and my hat goes off to people that saw that coming and a fair few on here did.

However, we must give Hopkins his due: this was a huge victory. I believe however, that Calzaghes win over Hopkins though it was officially split, is the bigger scalp given how good Hopkins truely is...no doubt that Pavlik was a massive, massive win for B-hop that improves his resume signficantly but it's clear that Joe beat a modern day legend that was still at a high point in his game, a truely great achievement.

For me, Calzaghe has a very slight edge resume wise on Hopkins after this year...very slight.

[JonOli]

I disagree, but cheers for the reply. :good

[Beatboxer]

I disagree, but cheers for the reply. :good

No problem, all about opinions :good

[icemax]

My main gripe with Calzaghe is the inordinate amount of time he took to be recognised. A man of his talents should have done so much more & could have done so with a little more ambition & a little less ******.

In two sentences you have hit the nail on the head for me. Joe Calzaghe is and was a decent enough fighter without having to pad his record with the Sobots, Staries and Pudwills of this world.

[Redondo5]

Good posts Beatbox...

I still think Hopkins-Calzaghe should've been drawn or Hopkins win.... but either way, it was a close fight. One thing against JC, he was calling out Pavlik all over the place before his fight with Hopkins (see youTube videos of his interviews in US) but later decided Pavlik was not worth a fight and seemed to be avoiding what many would've said at the time was a dangerous Pavlik. ...Hopkins on the other hand jumped at the opportunity to fight Pavlik. For me There last two fights say it all..... Calzaghe wins a very debatable split decision and choose Jones.... Hopkins (at 43) loses very debatable decision and then schools what many experts thought would be the final nail in the coffin.... If a rematch with Calzaghe was offered to Hopkins to fight in Wales... I would put money on a Hopkins win...

[GazOC]

From that Jones interview on Bunces Boxing Hour I think a major force in JC-Jones getting made and not JC-Pavlik was that both Calzaghe and RJJ were both free agents and that way money had to be spread around less people rather than Calzaghe worrying about how good Pavlik was.

[TFFP]

Hopkins is probably ahead now. And not because he beat Kelly Pavlik in itself, but because of the level he's competing at still and immense longevity. The fight opened my eyes to this. I still had doubts over how good he was with the styles mess and cheating against Calzaghe, and the win over another old guy in Tarver. But he's put that to bed.

[Redondo5]

Also, Calzaghe has categorically said in many interview post Kessler fight.... he will not fight Kessler again....and he rates Kessler as a future great..... Best interviews to see confirmation of this....is post fight conferance with Kessler and the Calzaghe Interview on the Jonathan Ross show.

Mentally, I don't think Calzaghe is as strong as BHop. Once JC panicked when cut and he is too concerned about protecting his undefeated record for my liking. Calzaghe is a smart fighter especially in the ring, he learns and adapts like a true champ....but I think he would struggle if he fought a more intelligent Kessler. And I think he knows this, that's why he would never rematch Kessler or BHop.

[GazOC]

Ignoring the money, from Calzaghes point of view rematches are pointless at this point in his career. He's already beat the guys, winning again doesn't prove anything new and a loss just means he has to go begging for a rubber match at age 38 and loses control of his own career.

The bottom line is he's beat Kessler and Hopkins and some people are still insisting he does it again because Kessler might get more intelligent or Hopkins might improve his punch output, how about a rematch with Lacy because Lacy might learn some basic boxing skills?

[Redondo5]

Well done to him for beating Kessler but surely Hopkins should be given a rematch considering he's said he's willing to fight in "England"... I know it won't be a very good fight for Calzaghe to end on.... but for his legacy it would be great to convincingly beat Hopkins - but then again I don't think that's possible...SO that will never happen.

[GazOC]

I'm no Calzaghe fan but he DID beat Hopkins convincingly in my book (as convincingly as you can beat Hopkins). IMHO a rematch is an entirely optional fight to take as far as his legacy is concerned.

[JonOli]

Ignoring the money, from Calzaghes point of view rematches are pointless at this point in his career. He's already beat the guys, winning again doesn't prove anything new and a loss just means he has to go begging for a rubber match at age 38 and loses control of his own career.

The bottom line is he's beat Kessler and Hopkins and some people are still insisting he does it again because Kessler might get more intelligent or Hopkins might improve his punch output, how about a rematch with Lacy because Lacy might learn some basic boxing skills?

Isnt that the case with all rematches? If the fight is close or disputable you rematch it? How is joe some how different?

If it's a close decision you rematch... the one who won often has something to lose by rematching.

Lewis not rematching Vit... is still debated, as is Buchanan not getting a rematch.. if Hopkins moans enough (after his invigorated display last night) - he deserves that rematch! imho

[GazOC]

I'm not saying Joe is different just that neither the Hopkins fight, or especially, the Kessler fight was that close or disputed and people are still asking for rematches. If people still want a Kessler rematch to prove that Calzaghe is the better fighter what hope has he got of changing their minds after the way he beat Kessler in the first fight? He could rematch Hopkins, win another clear decision and the same people who thought he'd lost the first fight would just convince themselves he'd lost again.

Is the historical view of Durans career at all affected by him not giving Buchanon a rematch? Is Lewis'?

These are just guys they beat and didn't give rematches to, just footnotes to their career. It happens.

[JonOli]

There is no way Kessler deserves a rematch - imo, personally I think Hopkins has more then a case - it is only his, and Joes age that has stopped it.

I think Joe beat Kessler more then convincingly - I certainly don't feel the same about the Hopkins fight.

Sure, Joe probably did enough technically to win it on points - but there are a lot of questions from that fight.

If they both retire - then fine fair enough - but if they both fight again, and Hopkins wants it, a rematch is fair I feel.

But then again Dawson would be great... ahh their both about to retire anyway..

[JonOli]

Is the historical view of Durans career at all affected by him not giving Buchanon a rematch? Is Lewis'?


Not rematching Vit' has left a slight mark I think.

[GazOC]

To me, its up to Calzaghe. He has the win over Hopkins, from a legacy point of view he can take or leave the rematch. I don't see Hopkins calling for it matters one way or the other?

Having said that, if Joe beats Jones then Hopkins would be a good sign off fight now Pavlik is off the radar.

[GazOC]

Not rematching Vit' has left a slight mark I think.

:lol: I nearly went further into this and thought you might pick up on it!! :good

Its a very sight mark, the nature of the win (behind on points and on a cut), the fact it was Lewis' last fight and that people could claim Klit "retired" Lewis played a part. Calzaghe beat Hopkins on points and continues to fight, not really comparable IMO.

[JonOli]

I see your point - it makes little sense for Joe to get into another messy scrap with Hopkins. It would add little to his legacy.

From my own perspective it is a fight I would perhaps like to see - I think popkins did enough to deserve a rematch, and as I said after his performance last night he still holds a little intrigue.

[Dunky McCafferty]

I see your point - it makes little sense for Joe to get into another messy scrap with Hopkins. It would add little to his legacy.

From my own perspective it is a fight I would perhaps like to see - I think popkins did enough to deserve a rematch, and as I said after his performance last night he still holds a few cards.

Pops did enough to earn a remtch with Mighty Joe???

Hopkins beat Joe first time out. Calzaghe got a gift, & now the vast majority on here are proclaiming Joe as some sort of elite monster cos Pavlik fought like an idiot against an old old school fighter. You couldnt make it up.
This Calzaghe loving is really getting on my tits, especially as I remember not so long ago you could count Calzaghes fans on ESB on one hand. & I aint kidding.
Ever since Ricky got his L against Floyd, the bandwagon jumping onto the welsh dragons wagon has been utterly cringeworthy.

Its like it wasnt Hopkins that beat Pavlik, it was Joe!!! This place has gone Calzaghe crazy, & im pretty stunned by it all. People should remember Joe talked himself out of a fight with Pavlik, before giving Joe all the credit for Hopkins win.
Its brit fanboyism gone out of control...

[GazOC]

Be fair Dunky mate. All people are saying is that Hopkins beating Pavlik makes Calzaghes win over Hopkins look more impressive, or at least removes the main question mark against it (ie. that Hopkins was shot).

Don't confuse arguing a particular side of an issue with "fanboyism" or "jumping the bandwagon". People don't always fall neatly into huggers and haters, some just like to discuss the issues of the day. I can take or leave Calzaghe as a fighter (in terms of entertainment, not skill) and as a character, me taking his side on certain things just means that I think he has a case, not that I've jumped ship from the ESB Hatton fanclub (who I do like as a fighter and character) since the Mayweather KO.

[Dunky McCafferty]

Be fair Dunky mate. All people are saying is that Hopkins beating Pavlik makes Calzaghes win over Hopkins look more impressive, or at least removes the main question mark against it (ie. that Hopkins was shot).

Don't confuse arguing a particular side of an issue with "fanboyism" or "jumping the bandwagon". People don't always fall neatly into huggers and haters, some just like to discuss the issues of the day. I can take or leave Calzaghe as a fighter (in terms of entertainment, not skill) and as a character, me taking his side on certain things just means that I think he has a case, not that I've jumped ship from the ESB Hatton fanclub (who I do like as a fighter and character) since the Mayweather KO.

Gaz, you are talking to me the way a father talks to his petulant son.

Listen. I dont confuse anything. I just state my opinion. & my opinion is... what is stated above.
I never once accused you of 'jumping ship' or anyone else for that matter. I was just generalising. Its a well known fact that you couldnt find a Calzaghe fan apart from a couple of regular taffs & Max Molyneux here not so long ago. Now that I hve to read thread upon thread, post after post about how great Calzaghe is cos he beat Pavlik(oops sorry, I meant Bernard;) )
Yup, thats how it reads to me. We got fanboys wanting to talk up Calzaghe for ducking Pavlik, & letting Hopkins beat him & then proclaiming it was Calzaghes win really.
ITS PATHETIC.

Im not confusing shit. I know what Im reading, & its a rewriting of history on this forum. I reserve my right to question the newfound legions of Calzaghe fans claiming hes the shit cos Calzaghe decisioned Hopkins, especially as Calzaghe got dropped & scored a highly contoversial points win over BHop.

& now I am just supposed to hang back & bite my lip cos everyone is climing Calzaghe is the new king of kings...

Give me some slack for a change Gaz, Im sick of everyone here moaning at me just cos I dont agree with whats cool to agree with on brit ESB at any given moment.

After all, Im a cynical SOB with a memory like an elephant here...

[Beatboxer]

Gaz, you are talking to me the way a father talks to his petulant son.

Listen. I dont confuse anything. I just state my opinion. & my opinion is... what is stated above.
I never once accused you of 'jumping ship' or anyone else for that matter. I was just generalising. Its a well known fact that you couldnt find a Calzaghe fan apart from a couple of regular taffs & Max Molyneux here not so long ago. Now that I hve to read thread upon thread, post after post about how great Calzaghe is cos he beat Pavlik(oops sorry, I meant Bernard;) )
Yup, thats how it reads to me. We got fanboys wanting to talk up Calzaghe for ducking Pavlik, & letting Hopkins beat him & then proclaiming it was Calzaghes win really.
ITS PATHETIC.

Im not confusing shit. I know what Im reading, & its a rewriting of history on this forum. I reserve my right to question the newfound legions of Calzaghe fans claiming hes the shit cos Calzaghe decisioned Hopkins, especially as Calzaghe got dropped & scored a highly contoversial points win over BHop.

& now I am just supposed to hang back & bite my lip cos everyone is climing Calzaghe is the new king of kings...

Give me some slack for a change Gaz, Im sick of everyone here moaning at me just cos I dont agree with whats cool to agree with on brit ESB at any given moment.

After all, Im a cynical SOB with a memory like an elephant here...

It is true that Calzaghe did lack fans back in the day...I actually first joined this forum under a different user name in late 2004 and there was hardly a Calzaghe fan to be seen! He was regarded as a bit of a joke because he was fighting Karaby Salem at that point...I didn't post much at that point but rest assured, it was a bad period for Calzaghe fans (and British fight fans in general really).

However Dunky, I think the legions of Calzaghe fans that you see now really came to the fore after Lacy (I came back with my current user name to post my prediction on that fight actually). I think after that people recognised his huge talents and even reflected on the earlier part of his career (1997 - 2002 period) and realised it wasn't all that bad at all really.

I do agree though, that Hopkins and Hopkins alone deserves his time in the limelight following this win...nonetheless Gaz is right in saying that it does reflect well on Joe as it proves that B-Hop is most certainly not finished as many made out.

[Boro chris]

Hopkins deserves a rematch with Joe as I believe he only lost by the slimmest of margins.
However do people remember that it was actually a bit of shit fight?
Do we really want to sit through that again?

[Benjiabc]

nice one beat boxer, enjoyed the read and i think your right its very close, but hopkins jsut edges it for me despite his loses.

[Benjiabc]

deleted

[Benjiabc]

nice one beat boxer, enjoyed the read and i think your right its very close, but hopkins jsut edges it for me despite his loses.

[Max Molyneux]

Can't believe people actually scored Calzaghe/Hopkins to Hopkins, he basically quit In that fight after the 1st round. Even the compubox had Calaghe scoring more.

Plus he dry humped him In front of Joe Cortez who's an American biased cunt.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Max Molyneux]

Gaz, you are talking to me the way a father talks to his petulant son.

Listen. I dont confuse anything. I just state my opinion. & my opinion is... what is stated above.
I never once accused you of 'jumping ship' or anyone else for that matter. I was just generalising. Its a well known fact that you couldnt find a Calzaghe fan apart from a couple of regular taffs & Max Molyneux here not so long ago. Now that I hve to read thread upon thread, post after post about how great Calzaghe is cos he beat Pavlik(oops sorry, I meant Bernard;) )
Yup, thats how it reads to me. We got fanboys wanting to talk up Calzaghe for ducking Pavlik, & letting Hopkins beat him & then proclaiming it was Calzaghes win really.
ITS PATHETIC.

Im not confusing shit. I know what Im reading, & its a rewriting of history on this forum. I reserve my right to question the newfound legions of Calzaghe fans claiming hes the shit cos Calzaghe decisioned Hopkins, especially as Calzaghe got dropped & scored a highly contoversial points win over BHop.

& now I am just supposed to hang back & bite my lip cos everyone is climing Calzaghe is the new king of kings...

Give me some slack for a change Gaz, Im sick of everyone here moaning at me just cos I dont agree with whats cool to agree with on brit ESB at any given moment.

After all, Im a cynical SOB with a memory like an elephant here...

Dunky, Pavlik was way over hyped.

Joe beat the guy who beat Pavlik, Pavlik could of fought Abraham but you could say he avoided him for Hopkins too though.

Joe would of Lacy'ed Pavlik, Pavlik has no defense or that much skill at all. He's made for Joe.

[GazOC]

Dunky,

Calzaghe has more people willing to argue his case over issues these days simply because he has started fighting better opposition (generally) these days and so usually has a better case to argue than he used to have.

That doesn't always make the people doing the arguing "fans" or mean they've somehow changed affiliations, just that circumstances have changed and they've altered their opinion accordingly. It would be foolish to come to opinions about a fighter at a certain point in his career and then just stick with those opinions no matter how the guys career progressed and changed over time. You don't have post up a list of fighters you are for or against when you start posting here and stick with those lists no matter what.

Gaz

[Fat Joe]

It is true that Calzaghe did lack fans back in the day...I actually first joined this forum under a different user name in late 2004 and there was hardly a Calzaghe fan to be seen! He was regarded as a bit of a joke because he was fighting Karaby Salem at that point

I was at the ice rink for his fight with Mkrtchian (boring) which was the fight before Salem.

Anyway, if Calzaghe rematched Hopkins I think he would stop him. He came in far too relaxed, I remember Buncey saying that Enzo and Joe were underestimating Hopkins. He wouldn't make that mistake again now he knows what an awkward fighter Hopkins is.

[Redondo5]

Can't believe people actually scored Calzaghe/Hopkins to Hopkins, he basically quit In that fight after the 1st round. Even the compubox had Calaghe scoring more.

Plus he dry humped him In front of Joe Cortez who's an American biased cunt.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

If you watch the fight again, you'll see Calzaghe is still sort of in a daze/bewilderment until around round 4.... he does get his act together until round 5/6. The first 3 rounds all go to Hopkins, rounds 4/5 are closer but again Hopkins would wins them. 6 onwards joe gets his act together... and old Hopkins tires (for whatever reason).

I certainly don't buy into the crap that Hopkins win over Pavlik makes his "victory" over Hopkins any better. All that could be said is that Hopkins is not shot.... all the other stuff that he gassed out etc.... still stands..... Did he gas out because Calzaghe was outworking him? I mean, Pavlik didn't throw many punches, whenever he did, he got countered and a lot of the time BHop beat him to the punch and got off first. Whereas Calzaghe did make BHop work.... Alsodid BHop Gas out because he didn't train his under his usual regime?

I think the BHop-Pavlik fight says more about Pavlik than it does about Calzaghe..... We learn that BHop is still a very good fighter and far from finished. We learn that Pavlik is over hyped and is terrible above 160, and we learnt that Calzaghe fought a fighter who was not shot (in Hopkins).

[PowerPuncher]

Exactly.

Where does this myth come from...spun by the legions of idiots that Calzaghe spent 10 years squandering his potential whilst Hopkins fought a whos who at that time?.

Probably because Calazage was facing old past prime ex-champions when Hopkins was beating young prime contenders and other belt holders. Hopkins beat the best rival belt holders from 160 and 154 aswell as mandatories and young contenders. Calazage had 1 mandatory in 8years and avoided young prime contenders until Lacy popped up

What happened to Calazage facing Prime Jones, Glen Johnson, Pavlik, Mundine, Echols, Vanderpool, Reid Rematch. The Otke and Beyer fights he did nothing to make except for when Otke was visably done. Calazage faced lesser opposition pre 2006 when those fights were offered to him so don't pretend Joe fought a who's who because he didnt. He beat mean who beat them but it doesn't mean he wins them all either.

[Beatboxer]

nice one beat boxer, enjoyed the read and i think your right its very close, but hopkins jsut edges it for me despite his loses.

Cheers. I wrote this months ago in the lead up to the Hopkins - Calzaghe fight, interesting to see it bumped in the aftermath of Hopkins great victory over Pavlik.

[Beatboxer]

Probably because Calazage was facing old past prime ex-champions when Hopkins was beating young prime contenders and other belt holders. Hopkins beat the best rival belt holders from 160 and 154 aswell as mandatories and young contenders. Calazage had 1 mandatory in 8years and avoided young prime contenders until Lacy popped up

What happened to Calazage facing Prime Jones, Glen Johnson, Pavlik, Mundine, Echols, Vanderpool, Reid Rematch. The Otke and Beyer fights he did nothing to make except for when Otke was visably done. Calazage faced lesser opposition pre 2006 when those fights were offered to him so don't pretend Joe fought a who's who because he didnt. He beat mean who beat them but it doesn't mean he wins them all either.

I've already addressed this stuff many times and I did not 'pretend' that Joe fought a whos who of fighters from 1997 till 2006 so please, get your facts straight.

I suggest you read the 'record comparison part 1' before you start Calzaghe bashing and hyper Hopkins humping...Echols and Vanderpool...hmmm good fighters but I don't think they would have added anything to Calzaghes legacy that a win over the then touted Sheika or someone like Woodhall or even Mitchell didn't already. Calzaghe can't really be criticised for not fighting those guys. Also, many of those fights weren't offered to him as you assert and I won't believe you until I see evidence to the contrary...there is however, evidence of Ottke blatantly refusing to fight Calzaghe and of course, a certain Bernard Hopkins in 2002.

[Cobbler]

Probably because Calazage was facing old past prime ex-champions when Hopkins was beating young prime contenders and other belt holders. Hopkins beat the best rival belt holders from 160 and 154 aswell as mandatories and young contenders. Calazage had 1 mandatory in 8years and avoided young prime contenders until Lacy popped up

What happened to Calazage facing Prime Jones, Glen Johnson, Pavlik, Mundine, Echols, Vanderpool, Reid Rematch. The Otke and Beyer fights he did nothing to make except for when Otke was visably done. Calazage faced lesser opposition pre 2006 when those fights were offered to him so don't pretend Joe fought a who's who because he didnt. He beat men who beat them but it doesn't mean he wins them all either.

It doesn't mean that he wins them all automatically, but it does beg the question of why you don't ratethose wins that Calzaghe does have.

Why are you questioning Calzaghe's lack of wins over 'young prime contenders' and mentioning Johnson, but somehow Calzaghe's win over Sheika, who had just beaten Johnson a couple of months earlier doesn't count.

Echols and Vanderpool are the kind of names that, were they on Calzaghe's resume rather than Hopkins' would be dismissed the same way.

Why question him not facing 'prime Pavlik' or 'prime Mundine' when instead he was fighting and beating the guys who had shut out each of those?

No-one can fight everyone out there.

[Beatboxer]

It doesn't mean that he wins them all automatically, but it does beg the question of why you don't ratethose wins that Calzaghe does have.

Why are you questioning Calzaghe's lack of wins over 'young prime contenders' and mentioning Johnson, but somehow Calzaghe's win over Sheika, who had just beaten Johnson a couple of months earlier doesn't count.

Echols and Vanderpool are the kind of names that, were they on Calzaghe's resume rather than Hopkins' would be dismissed the same way.

Why question him not facing 'prime Pavlik' or 'prime Mundine' when instead he was fighting and beating the guys who had shut out each of those?

No-one can fight everyone out there.

Yup. Simply an agenda filled post, clearly from a Calzaghe hater.

A bunch of names who fought around the same time as Calzaghe, around the same weight, thrown together as a stick to beat JC with because they aren't on his record....some of them as you say, wouldn't even be worth it due to the credit JC would not have recieved...

Furthermore, he doesn't even consider the circumstances that prevented certain fights from happening and instantly lays all the blame at Calzaghes door...exemplified best by his wild assertion that 'these fights were offered to Calzaghe and he refused'.

Utter codswallop.

[Redondo5]

It doesn't mean that he wins them all automatically, but it does beg the question of why you don't ratethose wins that Calzaghe does have.

Why are you questioning Calzaghe's lack of wins over 'young prime contenders' and mentioning Johnson, but somehow Calzaghe's win over Sheika, who had just beaten Johnson a couple of months earlier doesn't count.

Echols and Vanderpool are the kind of names that, were they on Calzaghe's resume rather than Hopkins' would be dismissed the same way.

Why question him not facing 'prime Pavlik' or 'prime Mundine' when instead he was fighting and beating the guys who had shut out each of those?

No-one can fight everyone out there.

good point... you could easily say to these people.... why did Hopkins "refuse" or avoid fighting guys like McCallum, Benn, Watson, Toney, Eubank and the list can go on.... Now, I'm not saying Hopkins avoided these guys or ducked them..... but the arguments used against JC are along those lines.... pick some fighters from around the same time, then make out as if they've not fought the fighter you want to discredit because he avoided them or feared them.... there's no proof for much of these.... and a lot of fights just weren't made because they didn't make economic sense.... and it came down to Risk and Reward as it does with most fighters

[Beatboxer]

good point... you could easily say to these people.... why did Hopkins "refuse" or avoid fighting guys like McCallum, Benn, Watson, Toney, Eubank and the list can go on.... Now, I'm not saying Hopkins avoided these guys or ducked them..... but the arguments used against JC are along those lines.... pick some fighters from around the same time, then make out as if they've not fought the fighter you want to discredit because he avoided them or feared them.... there's no proof for much of these.... and a lot of fights just weren't made because they didn't make economic sense.... and it came down to Risk and Reward as it does with most fighters

Exactly. :good

[PowerPuncher]

I've already addressed this stuff many times and I did not 'pretend' that Joe fought a whos who of fighters from 1997 till 2006 so please, get your facts straight.

I suggest you read the 'record comparison part 1' before you start Calzaghe bashing and hyper Hopkins humping...Echols and Vanderpool...hmmm good fighters but I don't think they would have added anything to Calzaghes legacy that a win over the then touted Sheika or someone like Woodhall or even Mitchell didn't already. Calzaghe can't really be criticised for not fighting those guys. Also, many of those fights weren't offered to him as you assert and I won't believe you until I see evidence to the contrary...there is however, evidence of Ottke blatantly refusing to fight Calzaghe and of course, a certain Bernard Hopkins in 2002.

The point is Calazage was fighting men who were coming off losses until Lacy and fighting some real dross

Echols - ko'd Brewer in 2 yet Calazage fights
Mundine - faster than Calazage
Vanderpool - better jab and move merchant than Joe had ever faced

These were good fights and tough stylistic matches that were avoided

[PowerPuncher]

1. It doesn't mean that he wins them all automatically, but it does beg the question of why you don't ratethose wins that Calzaghe does have.

2. Why are you questioning Calzaghe's lack of wins over 'young prime contenders' and mentioning Johnson, but somehow Calzaghe's win over Sheika, who had just beaten Johnson a couple of months earlier doesn't count.

3. Echols and Vanderpool are the kind of names that, were they on Calzaghe's resume rather than Hopkins' would be dismissed the same way.

4. Why question him not facing 'prime Pavlik' or 'prime Mundine' when instead he was fighting and beating the guys who had shut out each of those?

No-one can fight everyone out there.

1. OK recently Pavlik has been avoided by Calazage like the plague and Joe even made up a bullshit lie about offering Kelly a fight before Lacy when Pavlik was a no one in need of a big fight. Just because BHOPs shuts Pavlik out doesn't mean Pavliks straight right and jab don't put Calazage in trouble

2. You do realise Johnson got robbed agaisnt Sheika the fight before Calazage fought him don't you? See the patern - bad performance, they lose, or they seem old, Joe signs to fight them.

3. Echols beat Brewer in 2, yet Calazage fights Brewer and takes him 12.

4. Kessler and Hopkins are great names to fight, but Calazage is a cherry picker of the highest order

[Cobbler]

The point is Calazage was fighting men who were coming off losses until Lacy and fighting some real dross

Echols - ko'd Brewer in 2 yet Calazage fights
Mundine - faster than Calazage
Vanderpool - better jab and move merchant than Joe had ever faced

These were good fights and tough stylistic matches that were avoided

Putting aside, the debates of who Calzaghe did fight v who he didn't, I don't think we've yet seen any actual evidence that these fights were on offer and turned down. Can you give specific details, time periods, etc?

[PowerPuncher]

Putting aside, the debates of who Calzaghe did fight v who he didn't, I don't think we've yet seen any actual evidence that these fights were on offer and turned down. Can you give specific details, time periods, etc?

If you followed the boxing news at the time you'd know Mundine and Vanderpool were calling out Calazage and would have come to Wales for reasonable money. Echols could have been brought in easily enough too.

Glen Johnson had 2 fights set with Calazage that Joe pulled out on, with spurious excuses

I actually defend Calazage on the General board against ignorant Americans, because his record is very good, but calculated pre2006, but its just not as good as Hopkins. And pretending he didn't avoid a heap of fights is also ignorant

[Cobbler]

If you followed the boxing news at the time you'd know Mundine and Vanderpool were calling out Calazage and would have come to Wales for reasonable money. Echols could have been brought in easily enough too.


Oh, they were 'calling him out'? Presumably you balance your criticism of Calzaghe for not fighting Mundine and Vanderpool, with praise for him 'calling out' Roy Jones?

[GazOC]

"Calling out" a champion doesn't mean anything, all boxers do it. I'm not just saying that because it Calzaghe I just think its one of the lamest lines going. A fighter gets accused of ducking someone because the guy "called him out", that may work in the playground but not pro boxing.

[Redondo5]

If you followed the boxing news at the time you'd know Mundine and Vanderpool were calling out Calazage and would have come to Wales for reasonable money. Echols could have been brought in easily enough too.

Glen Johnson had 2 fights set with Calazage that Joe pulled out on, with spurious excuses

I actually defend Calazage on the General board against ignorant Americans, because his record is very good, but calculated pre2006, but its just not as good as Hopkins. And pretending he didn't avoid a heap of fights is also ignorant

In your opinion, which BHops best wins against?
Tito? DLH? Pavlik?

Making out Calzaghe dodged guys like Echols is silly... For Calzaghe that fight didn't make sense even if it was offered... what did Echols have? You know 99% of boxers who have reached the top "cherry pick" based on risk vs reward mentality.

The same could be said about Hopkins... why doesn't he have Eubank on his resume?

Hopkins overall probably has the better standard of opposition but only slightly as was well summarized in the first post of this thread. And that was mainly due to him fighting in America (where there is better /tougher opposition generally) and Calzaghe satying at home.

Hopkins "best" wins or ones he is most noted for are against the smaller guys (Tito/DLH/Wright). Pavlik is a good name to have on your resume but Kessler will easily beat Pavlik IMO and is a tougher fight with a bonified 168'er. Styles makes fights, and MAYBE Pavlik would give Calzaghe a hard time.... but judging by what I've seen recently I would say not....He's one dimensional, slow, lumbering, hyped up and terrible above 168... Calzaghe would maul him like he did Lacy but maybe not as bad... perhaps he would beat him like he beat Kessler but with more ease.

Having (overhyped) Pavlik on your resume and Tarver is good.... but to have (overhyped) Lacy and Kessler IMO is better. Not to mention Calzaghe did officially beat Hopkins... although I admit it was very close and could've gone either way.

[Beatboxer]

The point is Calazage was fighting men who were coming off losses until Lacy and fighting some real dross

Echols - ko'd Brewer in 2 yet Calazage fights
Mundine - faster than Calazage
Vanderpool - better jab and move merchant than Joe had ever faced

These were good fights and tough stylistic matches that were avoided


:rofl :rofl :rofl

Fucking hell the haters are getting desperate. Do I even need to bother refuting this shite?

Are you telling me that Calzaghe would have goten more respect if he took on Echols and Vanderpool :nut

Yes, they would have added to his legacy substantially they would have :lol:

[Beatboxer]

If you followed the boxing news at the time you'd know Mundine and Vanderpool were calling out Calazage and would have come to Wales for reasonable money. Echols could have been brought in easily enough too.

Glen Johnson had 2 fights set with Calazage that Joe pulled out on, with spurious excuses

I actually defend Calazage on the General board against ignorant Americans, because his record is very good, but calculated pre2006, but its just not as good as Hopkins. And pretending he didn't avoid a heap of fights is also ignorant


That's it, I'm taking DLH to task for ducking Takaloo :twisted:

I mean he called out Oscar! Clearly he was ducked!

[PowerPuncher]

:rofl :rofl :rofl

Fucking hell the haters are getting desperate. Do I even need to bother refuting this shite?

Are you telling me that Calzaghe would have goten more respect if he took on Echols and Vanderpool :nut

Yes, they would have added to his legacy substantially they would have :lol:

He didn't even fight a ranked 168lber from July 2003- March 2006, thats nearly 3 years not facing a top 10 opponent. In that time Glen Johnson, Mundine, Vanderpool, Echols, Reid and Mitchell (rematches) were all available to fight. Thats if he couldn't get unification or champs from other divisions

He fought Brewer who was ko'd in 2 by Echols and lost to Otke. This was the only ranked 168lber he faced from
December 2000-June 2003.

The only decent win Calazage has from December2000-March2006, is Mitchell and it was stopped when Mitchell wasn't hurt throwing a punch as he was stopped after Joe had been down. Mitchell deserved a rematch.

Theres a good reason Calazage was a running joke in boxing at the time. If you don't realise this you clearly weren't following boxing from 2000-2006, he was hardly considered a champion in that time

Every single major win pre-Lacy is coming off a loss without exception. Its interesting no one wants to address that point

[Cobbler]

Every single major win pre-Lacy is coming off a loss without exception. Its interesting no one wants to address that point

Perhaps people don't address it because they don't understand the point you're making? By the common defintion of 'coming off a loss' the only fighters Calzaghe fought who match that were Mitchell and Salem.

Do you mean that none of them were undefeated?

But, then none of the other potential opponents you suggest were undefeated. In 2003, Johnson had lost six of his last eight fights.

[hitman_hatton1]

hops has the better record.

simple as really.

tito, oscar, tarver, pavlik, winky.

even the b level wins are better than joe's.

johnson (future champ), echols (beat brewer), joppy, eastman, holmes.

[pne buz]

I have been of the opinion over the years that Calzaghe was a bit of a false world champion,padded record etc and have argued that point in various drinking establishments over the years.But ive run out of bullets to fire im afraid.I was wrong,he has proved me wrong and the man is a true great.Good post by the way!

[hitman_hatton1]

especially as Calzaghe got dropped & scored a highly contoversial points win over BHop

it wasn't highly controversial dunk. :yep

mildly at best.

british and american tv both had calzaghe winning.

so did a lot of ringside press (the majority in fact)

oh yeah and 2 judges. :yep

[DON1]

All respect to Joe, Top Top fighter. His record is nowhere near Hopkins. Joe was still in his nappies in the amatuers when Hopkins was destroying Glen Johnson over 15 rounds!
Fair dues he won a close decision against Hopkins(which could have gone either way) but comon there level of competition doesnt compare.
Joe has Eubank(washed up version), Lacy (overrated), Kessler (solid),Hopkins and I forgot Peter Manfredo (yeah right).
Hows does that compare to Johnson, Trinidad, Wright,Tarver,De La Hoya, Pavlik? To name a few Comon now. There is no comparision, Hopkins is a legend who at 43 is still P4P facing young lions. Joe is a top fighter but no way is he a legend, so what if he has an 0. I sure I Hopkins faced his level of competition he would have an 0 as well.
Joe made himself look like a chump by saying in his book he would never fight a washed up Jones Jnr, and now he is doing so! Hopkins fought a peak Jones about bloody 15 years ago! Real boxing heads know what I'm talking about.

[jodan]

Hi everyone never posted here before but been a frequent viewer of esb for a long time. Just wanted to ask after the Hopkins Pavlik fight when Hopkins went up to the press and more or less just stood staring at them full of emotion did anyone else find that moving because I did.

Although Hopkins has came out with a lot of jargon down the years its gonna be a sad day when he packs it in. I can't think of anyone in sport who is his age that has the same level of fitness he has, talk about dedication.

[DON1]

I agree jodan. You could tell that the win meant everything to the man. To prove the doubters wrong and rolling back the years to the days of the old Executioner. Living Legend.

[PowerPuncher]

Perhaps people don't address it because they don't understand the point you're making? By the common defintion of 'coming off a loss' the only fighters Calzaghe fought who match that were Mitchell and Salem.

Do you mean that none of them were undefeated?

But, then none of the other potential opponents you suggest were undefeated. In 2003, Johnson had lost six of his last eight fights.

No the last meaningful fight all the best Calazage opponents had were loses, and all were left overs, look:

Reid - lost against Mallinger, beat a bum, had a year out fought Joe to a disputed SD

Mitchell - lost against Otke then fought Joe to a disputed stoppage

Brewer - lost against Otke and Echols, fights Joe

Eubank - loses twice to Collins, fought some bums, takes a fight with Joe at 2weeks notice struggling to make weight

Sheika - gets gift against Johnson, fights Joe

Woodhall - loses to Beyer, fights a bum, then fights Joe

Notice a patern there?

[Beatboxer]

He didn't even fight a ranked 168lber from July 2003- March 2006, thats nearly 3 years not facing a top 10 opponent. In that time Glen Johnson, Mundine, Vanderpool, Echols, Reid and Mitchell (rematches) were all available to fight. Thats if he couldn't get unification or champs from other divisions

He fought Brewer who was ko'd in 2 by Echols and lost to Otke. This was the only ranked 168lber he faced from
December 2000-June 2003.

The only decent win Calazage has from December2000-March2006, is Mitchell and it was stopped when Mitchell wasn't hurt throwing a punch as he was stopped after Joe had been down. Mitchell deserved a rematch.

Theres a good reason Calazage was a running joke in boxing at the time. If you don't realise this you clearly weren't following boxing from 2000-2006, he was hardly considered a champion in that time

Every single major win pre-Lacy is coming off a loss without exception. Its interesting no one wants to address that point

Oh I remember alright, and I also remember people on here (I posted under a different name back then) that Calzaghe was 'fleeing the division' in the face of the rising crop of new generation SMW's namely Kessler and of course Lacy....

You convieniently place the blame for Calzaghe not fighting certain opponents all on his shoulders....yet the reality is that Calzaghe tried to fight Bernard Hopkins and Sven Ottke in 2002 and 2003 respectively. Unlike you, I actually have sources for this and both would have added to his legacy far more than fucking Vanderpool and Echols.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Ottke was offered the fight, of course he was once pretended not to know who Calzaghe was so that sums him up.

Here are the words of Jay Larkin also:

..."A teleconference was set up in my office in New York for July 30th, 2002, and on the call was myself, Don King who was in the room, Frank ****** and Bernard Hopkins' lawyer, Arnold Joseph. Along with Arnold was a woman named Linda Carter, who was there on behalf of Bernard. We asked Arnold if Bernard wanted to fight Joe Calzaghe and we asked him how much money would he want if he did. The response we got was $3million and the fight would have to take place in the United States. After a little scratching of the head, we said 'Okay, done.' Frank ****** agreed on the spot, Don King agreed and we agreed so as far as we were concerned all parties were singing off the one hymm sheet. Arnold excused himself with Linda and I can only assume it was to call Bernard. Either that day or the next day, they came with a new demand: $6million, dobule the sum that had been agreed, the deal blew up.....he had then and still has no desire to fight Joe Calzaghe, that much is pretty clear."

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

There is a source that expands on that.

Calzaghe has tried in the past to make huge relevant fights, it is not all his fault that his career didn't take off in the manner that it has sooner.

[Cobbler]

No the last meaningful fight all the best Calazage opponents had were loses, and all were left overs, look:

Reid - lost against Mallinger, beat a bum, had a year out fought Joe to a disputed SD

Mitchell - lost against Otke then fought Joe to a disputed stoppage

Brewer - lost against Otke and Echols, fights Joe

Eubank - loses twice to Collins, fought some bums, takes a fight with Joe at 2weeks notice struggling to make weight

Sheika - gets gift against Johnson, fights Joe

Woodhall - loses to Beyer, fights a bum, then fights Joe

Notice a patern there?

But you suggest instead:

Johnson - loses four fights, fight two bums, then loses two more fights.

Echols - lost to Hopkins twice, beats Brewer, kills some time until Mundine beats him.

Vanderpool - lost to Hopkins, fights bums until losing to Lacy.

Mundine - loses to Ottke, fights bums in Australia.

The only difference between those fighters and the ones that Joe did fight is that Joe didn't fight them, so you try to use them to prop up your failing agenda.

If Calzaghe had fought Vanderpool, Echols and Mundine instead of Sheika, Reid and Woodhall, all you would have is three different names on your 'leftovers' list and you'd be telling us how he could have fought Sheika, who'd just beaten Johnson, or how he ducked Reid.

To highlight the point, you laughably then have 'rematches against Reid and Mitchell' on your 'could have fought' list. Are these the same Reid and Mitchell that you refer to as leftovers and criticise Calzaghe for fighting the first time?!

[HOF]

If you followed the boxing news at the time you'd know Mundine and Vanderpool were calling out Calazage and would have come to Wales for reasonable money.
That'd be the Mundine dominated by Kessler who Calzaghe then beat. And wow what a beast of a fight Vanderpool would've been ..........brilliant stuff

[PowerPuncher]

In your opinion, which BHops best wins against?
Tito? DLH? Pavlik? .

I'd prefer to give a resume overview, to show how Hopkins matches up against the best

FIRST TIER

Tito Trinidad - many people had him P4P no1, he just KO'd another MW champ in Joppy proving himself at 160 and Vargas at 154, the domination was very impressive

Tarver - fresh of beating Jones twice and Johnson, the man at 175 and on most P4P lists. Hopkins was 40. Completely dominated and kd'ed

Pavlik - won every round against the undisputed unbeaten MW champ, twice victorious against Taylor, P4P top 10, 4months from his 44th birthday

Winky Wright - P4P top5 at the time, I had him beating Taylor in their draw. Hopkins was 42

Johnson - another domination job on unbeaten future Jones conquerer

DLH - considered the best at 154, most thought he beat Mosley, beat Vargas, beat Trinidad for many but yes probably lost to Sturm when not looking his best. Made to fight at 156, 4lbs below the MW limit and Hopkins crushed him

Calazage - at 43, Hopkins was way past his prime and don't tell me these shots were landing and this is what happened all night[Only registered and activated users can see links]*************.com/download/file.php?id=180

Second Tier

Keith Holmes - WBC Champ

John Jackson - LMW and MW ex-champ

Simon Brown - 2 weight champ executed

Echols - massive puncher, went on to beat Brewer in 2 after Hopkins and Salem, 2 future Calzage opponents

Vanderpool - beat Glen Johnson, impressive stick and mover in his prime

Joppy - ex champ

Now compare those to:

Hopkins - 43yo and semi-retired, SD, I obviously had Hopkins winning

Kessler - huge win, but how good is he? Better than Pavlik?

Lacy - largely unproven at the top, a come forward fighter with wide slow punches, was he really any better than belt holders Joppy? Holmes? or a banger like Echols? Those are second tier Hopkins wins

Eubank (past prime) - quality win, but Eubank was coming off 2 losses and never scored a big win again after these losses, obviously past prime and was preparing for a fight at 175lbs before fighting Joe at a few weeks notice.

Reid - SD Reid was coming off a loss and this 1 is debatable if Calazage won

Hopkins resume is far deeper, more fighters in their prime and has better elite names.

[Cobbler]

I'm not sure what the point of putting up a half-arsed, selective and biased 'resume comparison' in a thread where Beatboxer has already done such a fair, balanced and detailed job to start the thread off.

[PowerPuncher]

I'm not sure what the point of putting up a half-arsed, selective and biased 'resume comparison' in a thread where Beatboxer has already done such a fair, balanced and detailed job to start the thread off.

Pinpoint anything I said thats wrong, because you won't be able to because your talking cobblers

[Cobbler]

Pinpoint anything I said thats wrong, because you won't be able to because your talking cobblers

It's selective, biased and unbalanced (especially, as I said, as you choose to post it in a thread where Beatboxer has already posted a substantially more balanced and knowledgeble version). Your only concern is to shore up your own agenda. Lets look at some examples.

Wright is described as 'top five P4P' when Hopkins beat him, but Hopkins described as 'semi retired' when losing to Calzaghe.

Johnson is a 'first tier' win for Hopkins and Vanderpool mentioned because he 'beat Johnson', but Sheika (fresh off beating Johnson) doesn't rate a mention.

What would you have next to Simon Brown instead of '2 weight champ executed' if he happened to be on Calzaghe's resume rather than Hopkins? '35 year old ex-welterweight who had lost 4 of his last 10'? Most probably you wouldn't have mentioned him at all.

Reid is 'coming off a loss' and Jackson is 'LMW and MW ex-champ'? Maybe if they were the other way round you might have mentioned Reid's status as ex-WBC Champion and you almost certainly would have seen fit to note that Jackson was 34 and coming off a loss (in the actually true sense) and not to anyone good.

[DON1]

Stop trying to pick out Hopkins worst opponents. Sticck to picking out the best Opponents Joe and Bernard have fought. There you will realise there is no comparision. Comon lets get real for crying out loud! Calzaghe held that shitty WBO belt for how long?? How many times did he fight in Wales?? He could have come out his comfort shell a long time ago against great fighters who had the real titles. Joe is talented but his resume it is a joke, you cant call a fighter a ATG because he has a perfect record.

[TheH1tMan]

2005 - Present Legacy Back on Track

Howard Eastman - Decent win. Perennial contender, one of the few viable ones at 160 in the aftermath of 2001. Eastman had regained his creditbility following the Joppy farce in which he should have became WBA champ. A good win for Hopkins this. 2005.

Jermain Taylor: Hot up and comer. Not unlike Jeff Lacy in the 160 division, Taylor was being touted for great things. Hopkins to his credit gave the young heir apparent his shot but stated he would execute him just as Trinidad had David Reid. He was wrong: A close fight but a clear win to Taylor in my eyes and Hopkins 10 year reign at 160 was over. A rematch was set for later that year with the result being the exact same. Unlike Calzaghe, he just couldn't comprehensively beat the new up and comer. Many began to speculate that Hopkins was finished. 2005.

A fight against RJJ was announced but cancelled when it was discovered no1 really wanted to see a couple of old guys who had lost their last few fights have a rematch(Take heed Holy and Tyson!)

Antonio Tarver: This fight was to take place at LHW with ring magazine champ Tarver, conquerer of RJJ. Tarver was a heavy favourite with the view being that Hopkins was past it. Hopkins bucked those assertions with a boxing clinic to become the new kingpin of 175! This was hugely impressive and a real shock to many. Tarver is erratic as shown by his losses to Johnson, Jones and Harding but he avenged all of those. Great win for Hopkins and champ in his second division. 2006

Winky Wright: This fight could have happened in 2005 when before were undisputed in their divisions. That it didn't isn't a big deal: Hopkins fought a very worthy contender in Taylor instead. Nonetheless, this fight at 170 for Hopkins gave him a major advantage given that he was always a very big MW to start with whilst Wrights best division was 154. Hopkins wins this fight against the man no1 wanted to face. I give him some credit but its not as big as it would have been at 160..Wright was clearly a little pudgy too.



The Final Comparison:

In terms of competiton, Hopkins HAS fought the superior competition. Not by much at all but by a little. RJJ and Tarver separate this for me. However, merely fighting the best competition does not make for a better legacy or else George Chuvalo would be an all time great. The fact is Hopkins lost not only to Jones but also to his heir apparent Jermain Taylor. Worst of all, there were the two best fighters that Hopkins ever faced at the weight. Not good.

Nonetheless, Hopkins proved himself over the years. Like Calzaghe he beat a number of contenders: Vanderpool and Echols. Hot prospects: Johnson and Lipsey. And fellow champions: Holmes and Trinidad. Truly impressive stuff. He also did something Joe has yet to do: become a champ in another division. However, unlike Calzaghe he has lost to some of his competition, most notably to Taylor the heir apparent. Please explain to me Hopkins fans the difference between beating Taylor at that point and Lacy? They were both hugely regarded prospects who had looked very good to that point. If anything, Lacy had beaten the better competition of the two till then. So exactly why are the Taylor losses glossed over for Hopkins and the Lacy victory dismissed for Calzaghe? It doesn't make sense!

Overall, however my opinion is this: Hopkins and Calzaghe are on a par legacy wise. Hopkins for me has beaten the slightly better competition on the merit of his win against Tarver. But he also lost to Jermain Taylor his heir apparent whilst Calzaghe disposed of Lacy which evens the scores a little bit.

Conclusion: One will edge ahead of the other on the basis of the up coming fight.

Your thoughts would be appreciated on all of this btw.

I agree with everything excepot this: "Hopkins for me has beaten the slightly better competition on the merit of his win against Tarver.".

Tarver came straight from making Rocky and was clearly not back in boxing yet. Furthermore, Tarver was always a very unstable fighter. It is a good win, but Hopkins at LHW is clearly a better opponent than Tarver at LHW!!!. This was for the Americans. In reality Kessler is also a better opponent than the tarver Hopkins beat, but some Americans will find it easier to see that Hopkins is. Whichever way you turn it Tarver is NOT a better opponent than Calzaghe's best opponents.

If, however, you close your eyes and only look at names and have no idea of what divisions they fought in then Hopkins would have the best resume based on names such as Oscar and Trinidad, Tarver and Pavlik. However, for anyone knowledgable Trinidad and Oscar were way too small and the wins were discounted lot for this of course. Hopkins himself says the Pavlik win was his best ever win. I actually tend to agree. In tarver he met an aging guy coming straight from Rocky 6, whereas in Pavlik he met a young upcoming good champion.

[DON1]

I can see your point about Tarver, he seemed a bit weight drained. However Im sure Hopkins would have dealt with the one-dimensional Kessler. I mean who the hell had Kessler fought before Calzaghe? Nobody. He is a tough European fighter and thats about it. Also lets face it we all know that Taylor was lucky to get the decision in both fights against Hopkins. Taylor is a better fighter than Lacy anyway, he will prove this when the two face each other later on in the year. Hopkins resume is superior to Calzaghe's. He is a legend, Calzaghe isnt. Simple.

[Beatboxer]

I agree with everything excepot this: "Hopkins for me has beaten the slightly better competition on the merit of his win against Tarver.".

Tarver came straight from making Rocky and was clearly not back in boxing yet. Furthermore, Tarver was always a very unstable fighter. It is a good win, but Hopkins at LHW is clearly a better opponent than Tarver at LHW!!!. This was for the Americans. In reality Kessler is also a better opponent than the tarver Hopkins beat, but some Americans will find it easier to see that Hopkins is. Whichever way you turn it Tarver is NOT a better opponent than Calzaghe's best opponents.

If, however, you close your eyes and only look at names and have no idea of what divisions they fought in then Hopkins would have the best resume based on names such as Oscar and Trinidad, Tarver and Pavlik. However, for anyone knowledgable Trinidad and Oscar were way too small and the wins were discounted lot for this of course. Hopkins himself says the Pavlik win was his best ever win. I actually tend to agree. In tarver he met an aging guy coming straight from Rocky 6, whereas in Pavlik he met a young upcoming good champion.

I hear ya, but I still think that Tarver was a good win. I think that if we scrutinise any single win too much we can find a whole host of things wrong with it: Lacy hadn't fought great competition, was young naive, looked poor against Sheika etc etc.

Then one could say in response that Tarver had looked old since RJJ 3, had split wins with Johnson, was just out of making Rocky, lost to a weight drained RJJ and Harding...stuff along those lines.

The truth is somewhere in the middle most often I think: Tarver was a good fighter and at the point Hopkins beat him, was the man in the LHW division due to the competition he had beaten in recent years (Johnson, Griffin, RJJ)...OK he perhaps didn't take the fight as seriously as he could have but nonetheless, Hopkins performance that night against the best the division had to offer, whatever the circumstances, was masterful and for that, he deserves huge credit.

I do understand what you're saying though.

[Cobbler]

Tarver came straight from making Rocky and was clearly not back in boxing yet. Furthermore, Tarver was always a very unstable fighter. It is a good win, but Hopkins at LHW is clearly a better opponent than Tarver at LHW!!!. This was for the Americans. In reality Kessler is also a better opponent than the tarver Hopkins beat, but some Americans will find it easier to see that Hopkins is. Whichever way you turn it Tarver is NOT a better opponent than Calzaghe's best opponents.


I could be wrong, but you seem like you're arguing the point from now, whereas the start of this thread was written prior to Calzaghe v Hopkins.

Hopkins at LHW is a better opponent than Tarver at LHW, but Calzaghe had not defeated Hopkins at that point.

[Redondo5]

B-Hop winning against Pavlik boosts his resume.

Also Calzaghes win over RJJ makes his resume better.... although i'm not sure if RJJ was past it completly or not. Because before the cut, he was definately in the fight, had Calzaghe in trouble in the 1st and could have does some more damge late on. He was way past his best, although he could've beaten many other LHW out there today.

[JonOli]

Hopkins win over Pavlik at very least is equivalent to Calzaghes over Lacy. Given the time in Hopkins career he fought him as well it has to be better.

Joe did what he had to do over Jones (impressively - if that's possible) but that win really can't equate to anymore then beating a low ranked contender at very best.

Well that's my 2ps worth.:D

[JonOli]

he could've beaten many other LHW out there today.

Who like? He hasn't beaten anyone semi decent for half a decade.

[Redondo5]

Who like? He hasn't beaten anyone semi decent for half a decade.

IMO and we will never know... he could've beaten Glen Johnson and Tarver... the only others out there who could beat him convincingly are probably Chad Dawson (not sure) and B-Hop.

[JonOli]

IMO and we will never know... he could've beaten Glen Johnson and Tarver... the only others out there who could beat him convincingly are probably Chad Dawson (not sure) and B-Hop.

To be honest I think he had more then a fair crack at Tarver, and he came out worse. Johnson sent him to sleep.

[Redondo5]

To be honest I think he had more then a fair crack at Tarver, and he came out worse. Johnson sent him to sleep.

We're talking about the RJJ of last night, not RJJ of 4-5 years ago... he didn't come back down from the weight properly as has been well documented.

Over the last few years his body has recovered from that period and his muscle ration is closer to what it should've been at that time. So last nights RJJ along with his training this time.... was better than (weight drained) RJJ of 4-5 years ago.... but obviosly not as good as RJJ of 10 years ago.

[JonOli]

We're talking about the RJJ of last night, not RJJ of 4-5 years ago... he didn't come back down from the weight properly as has been well documented.

Over the last few years his body has recovered from that period and his muscle ration is closer to what it should've been at that time. So last nights RJJ along with his training this time.... was better than (weight drained) RJJ of 4-5 years ago.... but obviosly not as good as RJJ of 10 years ago.


Please don't...

[JonOli]

There is zero evidence he has improved. The Tito fight was hard to gauge as it was a freak show (he wasn't impressive in that though), and he looked hopeless against Hanshaw.

He lost to Tarver over 2 and a half years after fighting at heavy weight. That is the worst excuse ever! He was shot back then, and can only have got worse in the last 4 years as he reaches 40 - that is fact.

I've given Joe credit for dispatching with him accordingly but to suggest Jones is better then a shot version of himself of over 4 years ago is pure folly.

[Beatboxer]

Hopkins win over Pavlik at very least is equivalent to Calzaghes over Lacy. Given the time in Hopkins career he fought him as well it has to be better.

Joe did what he had to do over Jones (impressively - if that's possible) but that win really can't equate to anymore then beating a low ranked contender at very best.

Well that's my 2ps worth.:D


I agree fully. I thought Jones even now might pose Calzaghe some problems, and in the early rounds I do think he asked some questions...but even as I was happy that JC was winning the fight as a fan, part of me felt sad when I seen a once great fighter getting his head punched in without offering much in the way of resistance...even when JC was in his face with his guard down....seeing the man once known as 'Superman' getting cut and hit repeatedly was akin to seeing Lewis tee off on Mike Tyson with utter ease back in 2002...

This is a win that has some merit, but not much. He simply beat a lower top 10 opponent in the division: though the name on paper suggests much more that's the reality. It does not add substantially to his legacy in the manner that a win over say Pavlik would have....which is why I was disappointed he took this fight in the first place. Still, it makes financial sense and as I've said all along, he's had a great career even if this is his final farewell(which I doubt).