So what does Bhop's win mean for Calzaghe?

[alba]

this is something that is going to be going around the boxing media over the next few weeks.

I think depending who wins hopkins will try and 'call them out' for a fight.

Calzaghe must be laughing his head off with last night's victory.hes always said that about pavlick.

[brown bomber]

Yey! another oppertunity for a half decent legacy missed. Well done.

[doug.ie]

last night adds to joe's legacy...he beat a great bernard hopkins..that was shown last night

[alba]

last night adds to joe's legacy...he beat a great bernard hopkins..that was shown last night

iwould agree ,but i dont think most would.i think formthe network's point of view they want RJJ/Hopkins 2.

[TFFP]

This boosts Calzaghe immeasurably. Sensible posters have been proved 100% correct and justified at last. It's been a tough few months to support Calzaghe, but life is great now :happy

Calzaghe is a great fighter. A smart fighter that ALWAYS gets the job done no matter what.

[D-MAC]

It raises Joe's profile even more.

I know we can't do the ABC argument, which was disproved last night (Pavlik beats Taylor, Taylor Beats Hopkins, therefore Pavlik beats Hopkins??? NO!), but it has to be said that you cannot see Joe losing a fight to the Pavlik that fought last night. No one knows their way around the ring as well as Bernard or is possessed of so much "smarts", but Calzaghe is a great ring general himself, if not as defensively adept, and should be able to dictate the tempo of the fight in a similar way. Joe also has a much higher workrate.

Joe fights Roy next, and if he takes care of him were does he go from there:

Retire, Hopkins II or maybe Bad Chad????:think

[alba]

the thing is .when calzaghe said he was fighting going to fight rjj as opposed to pavlick ,this board was full of threads saying he was ducking pav.last night showed pav for what he is.and i would still see him agains rjj as opposed to Pav.

[toffeejack]

Well it just means he gets more credit which he deserves and a Pavlik fight is totally meaningless now as he would school him exactly like Hopkins did last night. Him and his father have been saying for a while how overhyped he is and doesn't deserved a shot and they have been proved right.

After Jones there is only one potential matchup that would make any sense and that's Dawson and I'm not even sure on that one as I can't see it generating enough interest in the general public.

I would imagine he will retire after Jones now.

[Diablo]

Its a great result for Calzaghe. All the haters who dismissed his win over 'old man' 43 yo Hopkins have been put in their place.

Hopkins was p4p top 5 after beating Winky and Tarver going into the Calzaghe fight, and hes proved hes still at that level after.

[stuey]

All credit to B Hop, he looked excellent last night, this adds plenty to joes stock and perhaps means he has not slipped when jones jnr thought he might.

for the record now, i think joe might do a proper number on RJJ

[FLINT ISLAND]

my reasoning for Hopkins to beat Pavlik was because of Hopkins performance against Calzaghe - anyone who can hold they own and make life tough for Calzaghe has got to be top class fighter - he took Pavlik to school

[stuey]

my reasoning for Hopkins to beat Pavlik was because of Hopkins performance against Calzaghe - anyone who can hold they own and make life tough for Calzaghe has got to be top class fighter - he took Pavlik to school


you picked this fight well son. i will credit you for that

[alba]

my reasoning for Hopkins to beat Pavlik was because of Hopkins performance against Calzaghe - anyone who can hold they own and make life tough for Calzaghe has got to be top class fighter - he took Pavlik to school

wernt you one of the posters who was demanding calzaghe fight pav,adn calling him whatever for choosing to fight rJJ?

[Boro chris]

Yey! another oppertunity for a half decent legacy missed. Well done.


Do you imagine for a moment that Calaghe would get any credit for a win over Pavlik?
Look how much he gets for the Lacy win.

[ishy]

This just shows how class Joe is. All the haters on the general will now need to find another way of discrediting Joe. I bet after the RJJ fight people will say Joe is ducking Dawson :lol:. I picked Hopkins to win but I thought it'd be more like an 8-4 UD-not a complete shutout.

[toffeejack]

This just shows how class Joe is. All the haters on the general will now need to find another way of discrediting Joe. I bet after the RJJ fight people will say Joe is ducking Dawson :lol:

That's exactly what will happen its ridiculous.

[Olu G. Rotimi]

Personally I feel BHOP win over Pavlik does nothing for Calzaghe as the victory Calzaghe was given over BHOP was clearly a robbery. Yesterday's win enhances BHOP not Calzaghe. Calzaghe will have his hands full again with an older Roy Jones. Calzaghe fans fail to realise that the quality of his performances have been dipping since the Lacy win as performances against Bika, Kessler and Hopkins have shown.

[Max Molyneux]

It would of been a robbery If Hopkins got the decision In the Calzaghe fight, he was doing nothing but cheating.

The Kessler performance wasn't that bad.

As for Bika he had bad nights like that before Lacy.

[TFFP]

Personally I feel BHOP win over Pavlik does nothing for Calzaghe as the victory Calzaghe was given over BHOP was clearly a robbery. Yesterday's win enhances BHOP not Calzaghe. Calzaghe will have his hands full again with an older Roy Jones. Calzaghe fans fail to realise that the quality of his performances have been dipping since the Lacy win as performances against Bika, Kessler and Hopkins have shown.
They havn't been dipping. Kessler and Hopkins are just quite a bit better than Lacy, that has to be factored in. So even if Calzaghe fought to the same performance level he won't look as good as he did in that fight.

[D-MAC]

It can't all be good for Calzaghe.

There is a thread over on the main forum, were the thread starter states that he now has Hopkins moving above Joe in the P-4-P rankings.:D

[kayjay]

Unfortunatly Joe will still not get any respect from the haters.

They will quickly jump off the Pavlik bandwagon and replace him with Dawson as the one who will finally expose Calzaghe.

Then they'll denigh that Joe didn't even beat B'hop anyway.

Edit - Whoops sorry had to make a call of nature and by the time I've come back,the board ninjas had already said what I was going to say before I'd chance to hit the submit button.

[Redondo5]

Personally I feel BHOP win over Pavlik does nothing for Calzaghe as the victory Calzaghe was given over BHOP was clearly a robbery. Yesterday's win enhances BHOP not Calzaghe. Calzaghe will have his hands full again with an older Roy Jones. Calzaghe fans fail to realise that the quality of his performances have been dipping since the Lacy win as performances against Bika, Kessler and Hopkins have shown.

I agree with most of what you said. I think this victory does a lot for BHOP and also shows Pavlik to be quite one dimensional and bad at the higher weight class.

As for Calzaghe-BHop, it doesn't really show that much except that Calzaghe fought a very good BHop (not past it) and made him run out of steam due to his workrate and class. Even though, in my opinion the fight was a draw or Hopkins just nicked by a point.

I don't beleive the theory if A beats B then A also beat C because B beat C... however, I do subscribe to "Styles makes fights" and although Pavlik-Calzaghe would be a differant fight to Bhop-Pavlik... I still think Calzaghe would beat a one dimensional Pavlik who isn't as good at the higher weights. We can say that Bhop has shown Pavliks weaknesses at 170.

[mike464]

Joe has made a stupid mistake. It could have been him beating Pavlik and it would have really helped his legacy but instead he avoided the fight because he didn't want to risk losing and Hopkins took it and gets all the credit.

What a performance by Hopkins!

[Diablo]

Joe has made a stupid mistake. It could have been him beating Pavlik and it would have really helped his legacy but instead he avoided the fight because he didn't want to risk losing and Hopkins took it and gets all the credit.

What a performance by Hopkins!

Hopkins gets alot of glory for this win

Also good for Calzaghe, people can no longer say he beat an old man in Hopkins.

[Boro chris]

Joe has made a stupid mistake. It could have been him beating Pavlik and it would have really helped his legacy but instead he avoided the fight because he didn't want to risk losing and Hopkins took it and gets all the credit.

What a performance by Hopkins!


No. People would've just compared Pavlik to Lacy. Somthing they don't seem to be doing that much of at the moment considering it was an american who beat Pavlik. Pretty hypocritical really.

[Beatboxer]

Like Calzaghe fans have always said, Hopkins was still the 'man' at 175 (Dawson beating Adamek didn't cut it) and was a necessary fight to make all things considered....

I, for one, always insisted that the haters and spinsters would try and pervert Calzaghes very good win over Hopkins to suit their own biased agenda...and so it has proved in recent months with many asserting that Hopkins was 'past it' or even 'shot'...

This fight proved definitively that he was not. This win has enhanced Calzaghes legacy make no mistake about that.

It will amuse me still more if Lacy does Taylor (unlikely).

[mike464]

No. People would've just compared Pavlik to Lacy. Somthing they don't seem to be doing that much of at the moment considering it was an american who beat Pavlik. Pretty hypocritical really.Pavlik is no Lacy.

Wouldn't you agree that Pavlik has been a missed oppurtunity for Joe? It's like Hatton-Witter. After Witter lost Hatton may well have been laughing but it was he who missed out on a big pay day and a possible win that would look great on his record, and all because he didn't want to take a chance.

[Cobbler]

Pavlik is no Lacy.

Wouldn't you agree that Pavlik has been a missed oppurtunity for Joe? It's like Hatton-Witter. After Witter lost Hatton may well have been laughing but it was he who missed out on a big pay day and a possible win that would look great on his record, and all because he didn't want to take a chance.

Witter didn't get embarrassed by someone that Hatton had beaten a few months previously....

[mike464]

Witter didn't get embarrassed by someone that Hatton had beaten a few months previously....Good observation. I hadn't noticed that Hatton hadn't beaten Bradley a few months previous to the Witter fight. Thanks for informing me!

["TKO"]

Personally I feel BHOP win over Pavlik does nothing for Calzaghe as the victory Calzaghe was given over BHOP was clearly a robbery. Yesterday's win enhances BHOP not Calzaghe. Calzaghe will have his hands full again with an older Roy Jones. Calzaghe fans fail to realise that the quality of his performances have been dipping since the Lacy win as performances against Bika, Kessler and Hopkins have shown.

Well to be fair he couldn't really have gotten much better than that night! I feel in the case of Kessler and Hopkins this is mainly testimony to the quality of the opponent. I don't think Calzaghe's quite what he was in his physical prime, his fcuked hands have seen to that. However, rather like Hopkins, his adaptability is such that he can still pput up a great show even at his relatively advanced age.

As for Calzaghe-Hopkins, come on, you know better than that, JC landed twice as many blows and Hopkins did nothing for the last half of the fight. If you felt he nicked it fair enough (as did I on first viewing) but a clear robbery it was not - especially on Hopkins' home turf.

["TKO"]

Pavlik is no Lacy.

Wouldn't you agree that Pavlik has been a missed oppurtunity for Joe? It's like Hatton-Witter. After Witter lost Hatton may well have been laughing but it was he who missed out on a big pay day and a possible win that would look great on his record, and all because he didn't want to take a chance.

Hatton could fight my grandmother and earn a big payday! IMHO Witter wouldn't have done much for his legacy, outside of the UK he's still thought of as the fighter who staged a track meet with Judah. For Witter, it would have been by far his biggest payday and, whatever the result, the fight that made his name. Hatton quite simply didn't want to do that for someone so disrespectful. And I agree, I'm sure he was laughing his arse off about Bradley.

[yesihavearm2]

Good observation. I hadn't noticed that Hatton hadn't beaten Bradley a few months previous to the Witter fight. Thanks for informing me!

haha

[mike464]

As for Calzaghe-Hopkins, come on, you know better than that, JC landed twice as many blows and Hopkins did nothing for the last half of the fight. If you felt he nicked it fair enough (as did I on first viewing) but a clear robbery it was not - especially on Hopkins' home turf.I thought Hopkins won but I've seen much worse robberies. Calzaghe may have out-landed Hopkins but most of his shots were slaps or glancing blows and Hopkins definitly landed the cleaner, harder punches.

Which ever way you scored the fight it's clear we need a rematch!

[mike464]

Hatton could fight my grandmother and earn a big payday! IMHO Witter wouldn't have done much for his legacy, outside of the UK he's still thought of as the fighter who staged a track meet with Judah. For Witter, it would have been by far his biggest payday and, whatever the result, the fight that made his name. Hatton quite simply didn't want to do that for someone so disrespectful. And I agree, I'm sure he was laughing his arse off about Bradley.Witter was no more disrespectful to Hatton than Hatton was to Mayweather. Anyway, you know full well that that's not why Hatton didn't fight him. It was one of several excuses. Witter's not world class... don't want to give him a pay-day... he is boring... HBO aren't interested... It's ironic because if Hatton had fought the Witter that fought Bradley he could well have won and it would have been a much bigger fight than the Lazcano, Maussa, Collazo and Urango fights.

Sorry to draw the attention away from Hopkins's great win!

[Boro chris]

Pavlik is no Lacy.

Wouldn't you agree that Pavlik has been a missed oppurtunity for Joe? It's like Hatton-Witter. After Witter lost Hatton may well have been laughing but it was he who missed out on a big pay day and a possible win that would look great on his record, and all because he didn't want to take a chance.

Pavlik is a slightly better fighter than Lacy was.But I'm not sur there's a massive deal in it.

Yes, Pavlik is a missed oportunity for Joe in the sense he'd have won easy and looked good doing it.
My argument is that he'd get fuck all credit for it.
How do many people refer to Kessler(a better fighter than Pavlik imo)?

Eurobum and Robo Dane!

As for the financial side of it I'm assuming that Roy Jones is bigger box office than Pavlik although I could be wrong.

[Predicto]

Looks to me like Joe would have almost certainly stopped that 170lb version of Pavlik that showed up last night.

[GazOC]

Last nights result kind of takes the shine off Gary Locketts brave challenge as well IMHO.

[JonOli]

Is Taylors legacy now far greater?

[Boro chris]

Is Taylors legacy now far greater?

Good point. I thought he beat Pavlik in the rematch as well, although I'm aware I'm in the minority there.

[Claypole]

Last nights result kind of takes the shine off Gary Locketts brave challenge as well IMHO.Yeah, I thought at the time Lockett's challenge was one of the most inspired, valiant, battling efforts from a British boxer I had seen in a while.

Now it seems as if he simply went through the motions, taking voluntary knees until his corner saved him the indignity of quitting.

It's funny how Hopkins can do that to people.....

[mike464]

Yeah, I thought at the time Lockett's challenge was one of the most inspired, valiant, battling efforts from a British boxer I had seen in a while.

Now it seems as if he simply went through the motions, taking voluntary knees until his corner saved him the indignity of quitting.

It's funny how Hopkins can do that to people..... :lol:

[john b]

Well hopkins was right he took the right hand away, and he looked more of a devastating puncher, with his combinations. Anyway as for JC against hopkins I can't see it happening I wreckon this will be JC's last fight. OH I feel pavlik should stay at 160 because is power will always be their.

[Sir James]

Calzaghe's stock is now amplified, after the destruction, one sided of Pavlik.

Surely even the most biased of USA fans must now realise what a great fighter that Calzaghe is!!!!

The US fans will still try to discredit Calzaghe's resume but they cannot doubt the result he has had against their legend.

And also Lacy and Kessler.

[Boro chris]

Calzaghe's stock is now amplified, after the destruction, one sided of Pavlik.

Surely even the most biased of USA fans must now realise what a great fighter that Calzaghe is!!!!

The US fans will still try to discredit Calzaghe's resume but they cannot doubt the result he has had against their legend.

And also Lacy and Kessler.


I wouldn't count on it.

[scurlaruntings]

The reasoning on this thread is so skewed its not even funny. Such poor and pathetic maths. Hopkins schools Pav and now that means Joe`s extremely debateable win goes up a notch? Based on what exactly? STYLES MAKE FIGHTS people. That is abundantly clear in regards to Hops loss to Taylor twice. Hopkins win over Pavlik has no bearing or relation in the slightest to Joes sloppy performance and questionable win. One thing is apparent. If Pavlik and Joe were to fight the fight is an even money 50/50 fight. Both men like to slug both have KO power.

[john b]

The reasoning on this thread is so skewed its not even funny. Such poor and pathetic maths. Hopkins schools Pav and now that means Joe`s extremely debateable win goes up a notch? Based on what exactly? STYLES MAKE FIGHTS people. That is abundantly clear in regards to Hops loss to Taylor twice. Hopkins win over Pavlik has no bearing or relation in the slightest to Joes sloppy performance and questionable win. One thing is apparent. If Pavlik and Joe were to fight the fight is an even money 50/50 fight. Both men like to slug both have KO power.

:good spot on, lets not take away a great plan by hopkins last night.

[Max Molyneux]

Don't see how Joe's win Is debatable, after the 1st round, I couldn't give Hopkins a round till the 8th. All he did was hold, fowl and fake low blows through out the fight.

Hopkins fought a cleaner fight against Pavlik but against Winky and Joe he was so negative.

Joe does slug but he also has skills and can adapt and change gameplan. Theres also his handspeed, footwork and workrate.

[AlFrancis]

The reasoning on this thread is so skewed its not even funny. Such poor and pathetic maths. Hopkins schools Pav and now that means Joe`s extremely debateable win goes up a notch? Based on what exactly? STYLES MAKE FIGHTS people. That is abundantly clear in regards to Hops loss to Taylor twice. Hopkins win over Pavlik has no bearing or relation in the slightest to Joes sloppy performance and questionable win. One thing is apparent. If Pavlik and Joe were to fight the fight is an even money 50/50 fight. Both men like to slug both have KO power.

I think what it does show is that the Hopkins that Calzaghe beat still had something in the tank so he deserves a bit of credit for that.

[mike464]

Don't see how Joe's win Is debatable, after the 1st round, I couldn't give Hopkins a round till the 8th. All he did was hold, fowl and fake low blows through out the fight.You thought Joe won clearly, others thought Hopkins won clearly and other thought it was a close fight. That's why it's debatable. surely you can see that!

[Sir James]

I wouldn't count on it.

Nor would I. Because many do not count Calzaghe's win over Hopkins as legit, despite the fact he clearly won by 4 points.

[Sir James]

Posters on this board seriously need to rewatch Calzaghe vs. Hopkins again and do a new scorecard, because I had no doubts over the winner on first watch and second watch, its just the agenda hunters who seem to.

[TFFP]

The reasoning on this thread is so skewed its not even funny. Such poor and pathetic maths. Hopkins schools Pav and now that means Joe`s extremely debateable win goes up a notch? Based on what exactly? STYLES MAKE FIGHTS people. That is abundantly clear in regards to Hops loss to Taylor twice. Hopkins win over Pavlik has no bearing or relation in the slightest to Joes sloppy performance and questionable win. One thing is apparent. If Pavlik and Joe were to fight the fight is an even money 50/50 fight. Both men like to slug both have KO power.
There is no maths involved. It is very simple logic. People criticized Calzaghe's effort against Hopkins, whether you thought it was debatable is largely irrelevant. Most people thought he won, some don't, but overall its been made abundantly clear Calzaghe is FAR better than Pavlik after months of people talking shit about him.

Styles are one thing, but the guy lost 12-0. Twelve zero. Come on now.

[john b]

I thought it was a close fight and yes a gave it to joe, but hopkins is the master spoilmen and thats what he did against calazghe and i thought for the first 6 rounds hopkins was winning. So if JC does beat Jones then i honestly want to see a re match and finally settle it once and for all.

[Cobbler]

One thing is apparent. If Pavlik and Joe were to fight the fight is an even money 50/50 fight. Both men like to slug both have KO power.

Where did that become apparant?

[scurlaruntings]

There is no maths involved. It is very simple logic. People criticized Calzaghe's effort against Hopkins, whether you thought it was debatable is largely irrelevant. Most people thought he won, some don't, but overall its been made abundantly clear Calzaghe is FAR better than Pavlik after months of people talking shit about him.

Styles are one thing, but the guy lost 12-0. Twelve zero. Come on now.Im not questioning who is the better fighter thats not important. ( Pavlik or Joe ) But if Joe had the cojones of a throw back like Hopkins he would have been in the ring with Pavlik and the Dawsons of this world NOT old men like Hopkins and RJJ who are still fighting on fumes. For Pavlik to loose in such a fashion to a fighter who`s prime was back in the 90`s is embarassing and just goes to show how overrated he was by some on these boards. Joe is equally the same as his a classic right time right place guy.

[Cobbler]

But if Joe had the cojones of a throw back like Hopkins he would have been in the ring with Pavlik and the Dawsons of this world NOT old men like Hopkins and RJJ who are still fighting on fumes.


If Joe had cojones he would have fought someone who just got destroyed by Hopkins, instead of fighting Hopkins himself?

Are you actually drunk?

Since when did taking on lower class, less proven, less able fighters indicate courage?

[TFFP]

Im not questioning who is the better fighter thats not important. ( Pavlik or Joe ) But if Joe had the cojones of a throw back like Hopkins he would have been in the ring with Pavlik and the Dawsons of this world NOT old men like Hopkins and RJJ who are still fighting on fumes. For Pavlik to loose in such a fashion to a fighter who`s prime was back in the 90`s is embarassing and just goes to show how overrated he was by some on these boards. Joe is equally the same as his a classic right time right place guy.
That doesn't make any sense to me, you are contradicting yourself.

Why should Joe be fighting Pavlik, when he is in your own words a hypejob, especially one that just got humbled so emphatically by the guy you are criticizing him for fighting? Hopkins is a better fighter regardless of age, period.

[Benjiabc]

This boosts Calzaghe immeasurably. Sensible posters have been proved 100% correct and justified at last. It's been a tough few months to support Calzaghe, but life is great now :happy

Calzaghe is a great fighter. A smart fighter that ALWAYS gets the job done no matter what.


TFFP you should join my party in the general forum, for some reason the pavlik fans seem to never be around at the moment in the general forum?


but the general forum is a great place to be hehehe:lol: :lol:

[ishy]

I've started a Pavlik-Froch thread on the general :lol:. Let's see what they have to say.

[Benjiabc]

Im not questioning who is the better fighter thats not important. ( Pavlik or Joe ) But if Joe had the cojones of a throw back like Hopkins he would have been in the ring with Pavlik and the Dawsons of this world NOT old men like Hopkins and RJJ who are still fighting on fumes. For Pavlik to loose in such a fashion to a fighter who`s prime was back in the 90`s is embarassing and just goes to show how overrated he was by some on these boards. Joe is equally the same as his a classic right time right place guy.


so let me get this straight, joe should have been in the ring with pavlik, yet pavlik is overated and hopkins is the superior fighter, yet joe thought hopkins you basically said all them things? your going round in circles mate yet another example of your feelings and negative attitudes towrards british fighters

[El Cepillo]

The reasoning on this thread is so skewed its not even funny. Such poor and pathetic maths. Hopkins schools Pav and now that means Joe`s extremely debateable win goes up a notch? Based on what exactly? STYLES MAKE FIGHTS people. That is abundantly clear in regards to Hops loss to Taylor twice. Hopkins win over Pavlik has no bearing or relation in the slightest to Joes sloppy performance and questionable win. One thing is apparent. If Pavlik and Joe were to fight the fight is an even money 50/50 fight. Both men like to slug both have KO power.

Isn't the reasoning obvious and perfectly logical?
Joe wasn't given any credit (by some) for beating Hopkins, because Hopkins was said to be "old and shot". Hopkins last night proved what a fucking legend he is and that he is nowhere near shot. So Calzaghe's win changes from a win over an old and shot legend, to a victory over a legend still fighting and winning at the highest level.
Its not rocket science is it.

[Benjiabc]

Isn't the reasoning obvious and perfectly logical?
Joe wasn't given any credit (by some) for beating Hopkins, because Hopkins was said to be "old and shot". Hopkins last night proved what a fucking legend he is and that he is nowhere near shot. So Calzaghe's win changes from a win over an old and shot legend, to a victory of a legend still fighting and winning at the highest level.
Its not rocket science is it.

spot on

[GazOC]

spot on

Yep!:good

[mike464]

Posters on this board seriously need to rewatch Calzaghe vs. Hopkins again and do a new scorecard, because I had no doubts over the winner on first watch and second watch, its just the agenda hunters who seem to.Me too.

[Broxi]

The reasoning on this thread is so skewed its not even funny. Such poor and pathetic maths. Hopkins schools Pav and now that means Joe`s extremely debateable win goes up a notch? Based on what exactly? STYLES MAKE FIGHTS people. That is abundantly clear in regards to Hops loss to Taylor twice. Hopkins win over Pavlik has no bearing or relation in the slightest to Joes sloppy performance and questionable win. One thing is apparent. If Pavlik and Joe were to fight the fight is an even money 50/50 fight. Both men like to slug both have KO power.

Joe would beat Pavlik to the punch all night long.

Is it just me or is this fallacy that Hopkins won the fight against Calzaghe gaining momentum, maybe time dulls peoples memory but I've watched the fight a number of times.

To me the win wasn't even debatable. I had it 115-112 Calzaghe, even taking the KD into consideration.

[Broxi]

You thought Joe won clearly, others thought Hopkins won clearly and other thought it was a close fight. That's why it's debatable. surely you can see that!

So if we get anough people to say that DLH clearly beat FMJ, then that would that fight debatable?

I don't think so.

[GazOC]

Joe would beat Pavlik to the punch all night long.

Is it just me or is this fallacy that Hopkins won the fight against Calzaghe gaining momentum, maybe time dulls peoples memory but I've watched the fight a number of times.

To me the win wasn't even debatable. I had it 115-112 Calzaghe, even taking the KD into consideration.

I had Calzaghe winning it clearly and can;t even see how people can say it was close. I suppose if the minority who "thought" Hopkins won are vocal enough they may convince a few people who did n't watch the fight or don't know any better. I'm sure a lot of these people are driven by nationalism, a dislike of JC, making the wrong pick before the fight etc. as I can't understand how anyone can watch it and believe Hopkins won.

[TFFP]

Hopkins didn't win. If you look at the polls, 75% of people thought Calzaghe won, a small percentage a draw, and the rest Hopkins. That is unanimous enough for me, considering you are never going to beat Hopkins 12-0, or look fantastic doing it. There will always be close rounds to debate.

If you look at the people that make up that percentage, a lot of them either picked Hopkins or have a history of hating Calzaghe. There is no coincidence there.

What Hopkins did do is put up another very good display in that fight.

[Benjiabc]

people can say that hopkins was a different fighter against pavlik?

yes that may be correct but thats because joe worked hard and managed to grind out a victory against a tactical nightmare for anyone in bernard hopkins.

Pavlik made hopkins look good, he barely used the jab all night, his corner constantly asked him to use the double jab, but he barely threw a single jab never mind two. i was extremely impressed with hopkins he is a true ATG thats undoubtable but the fact remains calzaghe worked harder and threw more then pavlik, calzaghe learnt to deal with hopkins and outworked him. Pavlik could not do that and that was the difference

[1stcontact]

Its random how it went from Hopkins being old and shot against Calzaghe to..... Hopkins got robbed, dodgy judges and and all the rest
Why cant people just give credit where credit is due.....

[icemax]

The reasoning on this thread is so skewed its not even funny. Such poor and pathetic maths. Hopkins schools Pav and now that means Joe`s extremely debateable win goes up a notch? Based on what exactly? STYLES MAKE FIGHTS people. That is abundantly clear in regards to Hops loss to Taylor twice. Hopkins win over Pavlik has no bearing or relation in the slightest to Joes sloppy performance and questionable win. One thing is apparent. If Pavlik and Joe were to fight the fight is an even money 50/50 fight. Both men like to slug both have KO power.

Thank God we have some sanity in the place.

I am slighty perturbed that the general good posting sense of the members of the British section of this forum has gone askew. How the fuck can you compare Pavlik with Calzaghe? One is a 26 year old 160Llb champ who jumped up nearly two weights to take on a P4P top ten ATG whilst the other is an established 168 Llb fighter who probably climbed into the ring at LH on many occasions. Some of the Calzaghe nuthuggery on this thread is a bit fresh and fairly embarrassing if the truth be told. How a MW loss against a LH champ can be compared against a SMW win against a LHW champ I don't know. For fucks sake don't get dragged into the hype!!

[icemax]

If Joe had cojones he would have fought someone who just got destroyed by Hopkins, instead of fighting Hopkins himself?

Are you actually drunk?

Since when did taking on lower class, less proven, less able fighters indicate courage?

FFS :-( n Definite general forum standard

[GazOC]

All most people seem to be saying is that Calzaghes win over Hopkins was being put down because Hopkins was supposed to be old and finished. The Pavlik win at the very least proves there is life in the old dog yet and helps remove a common criticism about JCs win over Hopkins.

Hops beating Pavlik def. makes JCs resume look quite a bit better IMHO.

[icemax]

Hops beating Pavlik def. makes JCs resume look quite a bit better IMHO.
How can a natural MW loss against a LH, and ATG enhance Calzaghes CV?

[Diablo]

How can a natural MW loss against a LH, and ATG enhance Calzaghes CV?

You mean a huge MW who fought and won in the Taylor rematch at 168...2 lbs less than for the Hopkins beat down.

[GazOC]

How can a natural MW loss against a LH, and ATG enhance Calzaghes CV?

Because if the ATG was "finished" or "shot" when Calzaghe beat him the win is lessened. The fact the ATG still had enough left to give the #1 middleweight in the world a one-sided boxing lesson proves that even if the ATG is past his prime, he was still far from "shot" when Calzaghe beat him and a criticsim of that win proved incorrect.

[TFFP]

Why so concerned about weight? Calzaghe was a super middle, and Hopkins was a career middleweight until his old age. Weight is a red herring, it don't matter shit to top class fighters really. In the old days most of these guys would all be light heavyweights under the same banner.

If you get your ass beat down 12 nil it ain't gonna matter if you fight at 160lbs or a few lbs more.

[JonOli]

At the end of the day Joes resume should be able to stand up on it's own without relying on 43 year old men to beat up young newcomers to make it look better. If it doesn't well...

[icemax]

Because if the ATG was "finished" or "shot" when Calzaghe beat him the win is lessened. The fact the ATG still had enough left to give the #1 middleweight in the world a one-sided boxing lesson proves that even if the ATG is past his prime, he was still far from "shot" when Calzaghe beat him and a criticsim of that win proved incorrect.

I'm sorry but I still can't see how Bernards vistory over a middleweight enhances Calzaghes victory over Bernard....maybe i'm just being stupid.

[JonOli]

You mean a huge MW who fought and won in the Taylor rematch at 168...2 lbs less than for the Hopkins beat down.

There are real questions about his power (his main asset) past 160 - that is indisputable.

[icemax]

At the end of the day Joes resume should be able to stand up on it's own without relying on 43 year old men to beat up young newcomers to make it look better. If it doesn't well...
TFFT :good

[TFFP]

He isn't relying on anything. It's just common sense that Joe's win has been proven as legit, not just a win over an old shot man. He's only an old man if you make him an old man.

[icemax]

You mean a huge MW who fought and won in the Taylor rematch at 168...2 lbs less than for the Hopkins beat down.

164

[scurlaruntings]

so let me get this straight, joe should have been in the ring with pavlik, yet pavlik is overated and hopkins is the superior fighter, yet joe thought hopkins you basically said all them things? your going round in circles mate yet another example of your feelings and negative attitudes towrards british fightersThen by this same glib reasoning Jermain Taylor MUST have the beating of Joe as he beat Hopkins twice. And he did it a darn sight better than Joe did with that sloppy performance and disputable win.:roll:

[GazOC]

At the end of the day Joes resume should be able to stand up on it's own without relying on 43 year old men to beat up young newcomers to make it look better. If it doesn't well...
Who mentioned "need"? I'm just saying it does remove a potential criticism of the Hopkins win, thats go to be good for how Calzaghes record will be viewed in years to come.

[TFFP]

Then by this same glib reasoning Jermain Taylor MUST have the beating of Joe as he beat Hopkins twice. And he did it a darn sight better than Joe did with that sloppy performance and disputable win.:roll:
And Taylor's wasn't disputable? :lol:

That was debated a hell of a lot more than Calzaghe's.

[GazOC]

Come one FFS!!! No matter what your biases this is a pretty obvious point surely?

[Diablo]

At the end of the day Joes resume should be able to stand up on it's own without relying on 43 year old men to beat up young newcomers to make it look better. If it doesn't well...

This result is proof Hopkins is not an "old man" so can the haters please stop using that term. Thankyou.

[scurlaruntings]

And Taylor's wasn't disputable? :lol:

That was debated a hell of a lot more than Calzaghe's.And your point is? Doesnt Taylors stock now rise as a result too? Surely Taylor must be THE man to beat seeing as he beat Hopkins twice? Or doesnt he get any kudos?

[icemax]

Why so concerned about weight? Calzaghe was a super middle, and Hopkins was a career middleweight until his old age. Weight is a red herring, it don't matter shit to top class fighters really.

Of course weight matters FFS. Who is your money on Pacman or DLH?

[JonOli]

He isn't relying on anything. It's just common sense that Joe's win has been proven as legit, not just a win over an old shot man. He's only an old man if you make him an old man.

I've honestly never seen anyone state that Hopkins was shot. Most people have always credited it as a decent win but the fact that he is 43 must always be taken into account. Sure it was probably Joe who made the old man gas (credit to him for having the skills to do that), but it was still an old man gassing. Pavlik simply didn't have the skills to exploit that.

Hopkins is old, and past his best - but simply had the style to capitalise on Pavliks limited style - who had his power neutralised by the change in weight.

[scurlaruntings]

This result is proof Hopkins is not an "old man" so can the haters please stop using that term. Thankyou.Yeah at 43 he has years ahead of him.:roll:

[JonOli]

This result is proof Hopkins is not an "old man" so can the haters please stop using that term. Thankyou.

He is an old man - Hopkins is very OLD (in boxing terms) please accept the fact. Thankyou.

[TFFP]

And your point is? Doesnt Taylors stock now rise as a result too? Surely Taylor must be THE man to beat seeing as he beat Hopkins twice? Or doesnt he get any kudos?
He can have some if its offended you in some way.

People are bringing this up because months were spent criticising Calzaghe's win (or at least performance if you don't think he did) over Hopkins. Calzaghe against Hopkins was directly before this remember, with the whole Pavlik/Calzaghe theme running beside it.

[Diablo]

He is an old man - Hopkins is very OLD (in boxing terms) please accept the fact. Thankyou.

Yeah he looked ready for collecting his pension last night

[icemax]

This result is proof Hopkins is not an "old man" so can the haters please stop using that term. Thankyou.

Of course he is an old man in boxing terms. I am 47, have fought in my teens and twenties and still spar, and to be honest I am absolutely fucked physically. Hopkins is a physical freak and last nights superb performance against a much younger man proved it (and also gave us oldies some hope :hey )

[TFFP]

I've honestly never seen anyone state that Hopkins was shot. Most people have always credited it as a decent win but the fact that he is 43 must always be taken into account. Sure it was probably Joe who made the old man gas (credit to him for having the skills to do that), but it was still an old man gassing. Pavlik simply didn't have the skills to exploit that.

Hopkins is old, and past his best - but simply had the style to capitalise on Pavliks limited style - who had his power neutralised by the change in weight.
I'm sorry, but that little discrediting game won't hold up. You were one of many that was bleating Calzaghe MUST face a top 10 p4p in his prime.

Now Hopkins has whooped his ass, he's limited, and presumably never deserved to be in the top 10. This is quite right, but you were too shortsighted to recognise what was going on in the first place.

You can't turn around and whine about Hopkins being old now. Hopkins is a marvel, its proven. Calzaghe beat him. It's a great win.

[JonOli]

Personally I've always credited it as a decent win anyway - so little has changed with me.

I'm certainly not going to start classing joes win over a 43 year old as a win over a prime ATG fighter. Sorry.

[scurlaruntings]

He can have some if its offended you in some way.

People are bringing this up because months were spent criticising Calzaghe's win (or at least performance if you don't think he did) over Hopkins. Calzaghe against Hopkins was directly before this remember, with the whole Pavlik/Calzaghe theme running beside it.If you take Hopkins age out of the equasion the win was shockingly bad. Joe looked like nothing more than a rank amateur.

[GazOC]

Personally I've always credited it as a decent win anyway - so little has changed with me.

I'm certainly not going to start classing joes win over a 43 year old as a win over a prime ATG fighter. Sorry.

No ones saying he's "prime" just that the charge that he was "shot" when Calzaghe beat him has been laid to rest.

[scurlaruntings]

I'm sorry, but that little discrediting game won't hold up. You were one of many that was bleating Calzaghe MUST face a top 10 p4p in his prime.

Now Hopkins has whooped his ass, he's limited, and presumably never deserved to be in the top 10. This is quite right, but you were too shortsighted to recognise what was going on in the first place.

You can't turn around and whine about Hopkins being old now. Hopkins is a marvel, its proven. Calzaghe beat him. It's a great win.Go back and watch that fight and tell me HOW Joe won. Bearing in mind he fought a man who has no peers in the history of boxing at 43 but IS PAST his physical peak and you explain Joes "win" further for me and what it means to you.

[toffeejack]

It's quite simple really.

Hopkins proved last night that he is certainly capable of still fighting at world level and is certainly not shot. He just totally dominated an overrated but still very dangerous and prime Kelly Pavlik at 43. The guy is a freak of nature.

But it's only common sense now that Calzaghe's victory in April should go up in stock because he beat a Bernard Hopkins who is still world class even though Joe was 36 and past his prime himself.

Some called it a good win but many didn't as they assumed Hopkins was way past it when it should be clear now that it seemed that way because Calzaghe took Hopkins right out of his comfort zone.

[TFFP]

If you take Hopkins age out of the equasion the win was shockingly bad. Joe looked like nothing more than a rank amateur.
That's to Hopkins credit though isn't it? He may have looked sloppy, but it worked for him in the end. He shortened up his punches, call it slapping if you want, but he did have success and hence Hopkins tired.

Pavlik's supposedly great straight punching didn't land anything, didn't close distance, didn't pressure Hopkins at all. And he looks as fresh as a daisy.

Joe got the job done.

[GazOC]

It's quite simple really.

Hopkins proved last night that he is certainly capable of still fighting at world level and is certainly not shot. He just totally dominated an overrated but still very dangerous and prime Kelly Pavlik at 43. The guy is a freak of nature.

But it's only common sense now that Calzaghe's victory in April should go up in stock because he beat a Bernard Hopkins who is still world class even though Joe was 36 and past his prime himself.

Some called it a good win but many didn't as they assumed Hopkins was way past it when it should be clear now that it seemed that way because Calzaghe took Hopkins right out of his comfort zone.

Jeez, its not hard to understand is it???:patsch;)

[JonOli]

I'm sorry, but that little discrediting game won't hold up. You were one of many that was bleating Calzaghe MUST face a top 10 p4p in his prime.

Now Hopkins has whooped his ass, he's limited, and presumably never deserved to be in the top 10. This is quite right, but you were too shortsighted to recognise what was going on in the first place.

You can't turn around and whine about Hopkins being old now. Hopkins is a marvel, its proven. Calzaghe beat him. It's a great win.

Err check my posts, I have always stated that I think Calzaghe will beat Pavlik. My point has always been that it was a competitive match that should have be made - and it was more poor from that Joe for not making it - and fighting a totally shot Roy Jones instead! I have never said that Pavlik is that great (he was/is potentialy great). Check my Vcash (I bet against him) - I have also argued that he didn't deserve to be top ten off the back of the Lockett win (I winged because he kicked Hatton out for that win).

Having said that he was rated p4p top ten, he was prime - and Joe missed a real opportunity to add a prime p4p top ten guy to his resume there.

[Diablo]

Personally I've always credited it as a decent win anyway - so little has changed with me.

I'm certainly not going to start classing joes win over a 43 year old as a win over a prime ATG fighter. Sorry.

People have long accepted the fact that Hopkins is a physical exception when it comes to age.

[TheChamp1000]

Like Calzaghe fans have always said, Hopkins was still the 'man' at 175 (Dawson beating Adamek didn't cut it) and was a necessary fight to make all things considered....

I, for one, always insisted that the haters and spinsters would try and pervert Calzaghes very good win over Hopkins to suit their own biased agenda...and so it has proved in recent months with many asserting that Hopkins was 'past it' or even 'shot'...

This fight proved definitively that he was not. This win has enhanced Calzaghes legacy make no mistake about that.

It will amuse me still more if Lacy does Taylor (unlikely).

They would shut the board down here due to the high suidcide rates amoung the calzaghe haters.
I think the internet will explode if Calzaghe beats Jones then Dawson.

[icemax]

Now Hopkins has whooped his ass, he's limited, and presumably never deserved to be in the top 10. This is quite right, but you were too shortsighted to recognise what was going on in the first place.


TFFP, you aren't that daft. Hopkins beat a middleweight world champ, middleweight!! . For the performance to mean what you say it means then either Hopkins has to boil down and beat the man at 160, he would love to I am sure but he can't...the same way that Pavlik can't step up and take Hopkins at 170.

[toffeejack]

Jeez, its not hard to understand is it???:patsch;)

No it's not it's basic common fucking sense.

[TFFP]

Go back and watch that fight and tell me HOW Joe won. Bearing in mind he fought a man who has no peers in the history of boxing at 43 but IS PAST his physical peak and you explain Joes "win" further for me and what it means to you.
I think you should be explaining that to us...

To me its a great win over a marvel, an unexplainable anomaly in Hopkins.

As evidenced by his 12 round demolition of Pavlik, the guy you say Calzaghe should have fought along with Dawson. So how then should I not award Calzaghe credit for beating the guy that whooped the guy you want him to face? Your logic is fucked.

[JonOli]

People have long accepted the fact that Hopkins is a physical exception when it comes to age.

He is, I agree, but at that age he will still be limited in some departments for being 43. Even Hopkins, superman that he is...

[icemax]

..........then Dawson.
Calzaghe would be in his late forties before he concluded that Dawson was ripe for the picking

[GazOC]

Calzaghe would be in his late forties before he concluded that Dawson was ripe for the picking

Irrelevant to this issue.

[icemax]

Irrelevant to this issue.
Correct, but it wasn't me who brought Dawson up.

[GazOC]

..or Taylor.....;O)

[TFFP]

The easiest way to look at this, is when historians look back at Hopkins LHW tenure they will see ass whoopings over Tarver and Wright before losing to Calzaghe, and then a destruction of Pavlik directly after who was top 10 p4p and lineal middleweight champion. This quite clearly reflects on Calzaghe better than simply a retirement.

People will ask "What sort of condition was Bernard Hopkins in?", and the evidence will be quite clear.

[GazOC]

I don't know how many different ways this can be spelt out before some people get it...;)

[robpalmer135]

i think its fair to say that if calzaghe had fought hopkins when in there primes, hopkins would have won.

[icemax]

People will ask "What sort of condition was Bernard Hopkins in?", and the evidence will be quite clear.

All I can say is nice avatar:thumbsup

[Broxi]

TFFP, you aren't that daft. Hopkins beat a middleweight world champ, middleweight!! . For the performance to mean what you say it means then either Hopkins has to boil down and beat the man at 160, he would love to I am sure but he can't...the same way that Pavlik can't step up and take Hopkins at 170.

Kelly Pavlik is 6'2" tall with 75" reach!!!

He is as much a MW as I am, you're talking as if Hopkins just beat up some little guy. Let's not forget that this is the same fighter that Calzaghe has been accused of ducking and that this fight was set up as a pre-cursor to a Calzaghe challenge next year.

[TFFP]

TFFP, you aren't that daft. Hopkins beat a middleweight world champ, middleweight!! . For the performance to mean what you say it means then either Hopkins has to boil down and beat the man at 160, he would love to I am sure but he can't...the same way that Pavlik can't step up and take Hopkins at 170.
And what do you think Hopkins was for the majority of his career?

You do realise that in the good old days of same day weigh ins these guys could not safely rehydrate and would all be fighting at light heavyweight most likely?

They are all the same god damn size. Skills pay the bills.

[icemax]

And what do you think Hopkins was for the majority of his career?

You do realise that in the good old days of same day weigh ins these guys could not safely rehydrate and would all be fighting at light heavyweight most likely?

They are all the same god damn size. Skills pay the bills.

Sorry but you are just plum wrong. Do you think that Hagler for instance could have dived up to LH on a whim and taken a shot at a p4p ATG?...no, I don't either. If they are all the same size why didn't Nard slip down to the more acclaimed weight (160) and take the titles off of Pavlik? :D

[GazOC]

Sorry but you are just plum wrong. Do you think that Hagler for instance could have dived up to LH on a whim and taken a shot at a p4p ATG?...no, I don't either. If they are all the same size why didn't Nard slip down to the more aclaimed weight (160) and take the titles off of Pavlik? :D
1) Hagler was 5' 8", he made middle easy and stayed there. Pavlik is 6' 2" and fought at catchweight against Taylor.

2) A prime Hagler didn't have a 43 year guy who'd lost his last fight and was a natural middleweight at 175 to tempt him. He had Micheal Spinks who was natural light heavyweight and in his prime.

FWIW I think theres every chance a prime Hagler would beat last nights Hopkins at 170.

[TFFP]

Sorry but you are just plum wrong. Do you think that Hagler for instance could have dived up to LH on a whim and taken a shot at a p4p ATG?...no, I don't either. If they are all the same size why didn't Nard slip down to the more acclaimed weight (160) and take the titles off of Pavlik? :D
Hagler could have moved up and been successful, but he didn't need to. He was also much shorter than Pavlik.

Come on, the guy is 6'2 and skinny as hell. Do you look at Hopkins/Calzaghe/Pavlik and seriously conclude any is much bigger than the other? Even the commentators thought Pavlik looked bigger.

Complete red herring. The guy lost 12-0 and it ain't shit to do with weight. Pavlik could have put on 30lbs and got his ass whooped.

By your logic Calzaghe might as well not have fought Pavlik, since he'd just be fighting a middleweight. Also, presumably Calzaghe's win over Hopkins is magnificent since he stepped up and beat a much bigger man.

I don't know when people will learn all this weight bullshit is a non issue the majority of the time except for extreme cases.

Only fighters that rely on physical strength come unhinged completely because they put on a few lbs (or rather didn't sit in the sauna for 10 weeks).

[icemax]

Come on, the guy is 6'2 and skinny as hell. Do you look at Hopkins/Calzaghe/Pavlik and seriously conclude any is much bigger than the other? Even the commentators thought Pavlik looked bigger.

Before friday I thought that Pavlik would be a monster at LH. Having seen him at the weigh in he just looked like a MW with a gut, no conditioning, no fuck all....its no excuse but I am afraid he just didn't look the part....hell I would look better at 175 (dim and distant memory) and I would be half starved. I don't agree about Hagler, if he could have stepped up, he would have if only for the kudos of beating Spinks.

[TFFP]

It's nothing to do with conditioning or size if you can't throw a punch. Pavlik didn't throw a punch all night. He wasn't even tired.

That is just distance management, Hopkins breaking down his rhythm by keeping himself unpredictable, keeping him gunshy with counters. It's intelligence and superior skill.

Hopkins jumped up 15 lbs to face Tarver and outboxed his sorry looking Hollywood ass. Calzaghe jumped up 7 to beat Hopkins himself. Mayweather has titles at 5 weights. De La Hoya has more belts than I've had girlfriends. James Toney is a fat lump of lard and can still compete with heavyweights and cruisers.

Weight means SHIT, please!

[GazOC]

Thats just how Pavlik looks, at 160 he looks like a middleweight with a gut. He's just not a "cut" guy.

Hagler was making good money at middle (better than Spinks was making at 175) why would he step up given the physical disadvantages? Pavik stepped to 170 against a man who was a natural middleweight and who he was of a similar size to. The 5' 8" Hagler had a prime 6'2" Michael Spinks who was a natural 175lber, a totally different proposition.

[Benjiabc]

And your point is? Doesnt Taylors stock now rise as a result too? Surely Taylor must be THE man to beat seeing as he beat Hopkins twice? Or doesnt he get any kudos?

The difference is that when taylor beat hopkins, hopkins was not considered to be as much past it as he was when he fought joe, and taylor didnt take half as much stick for his victory as joe has, when taylor beat hopkins, despite it being close it was considered more of a legit fight then calzaghe hopkins, which was considered to be calzaghe fighting a past it legend to boost up his CV, surely its perfectly logical now that calzaghes win is worth alot more now given hopkins performance over pavlik, its just common sense surely?

[Benjiabc]

It's nothing to do with conditioning or size if you can't throw a punch. Pavlik didn't throw a punch all night. He wasn't even tired.

That is just distance management, Hopkins breaking down his rhythm by keeping himself unpredictable, keeping him gunshy with counters. It's intelligence and superior skill.

Hopkins jumped up 15 lbs to face Tarver and outboxed his sorry looking Hollywood ass. Calzaghe jumped up 7 to beat Hopkins himself. Mayweather has titles at 5 weights. De La Hoya has more belts than I've had girlfriends. James Toney is a fat lump of lard and can still compete with heavyweights and cruisers.

Weight means SHIT, please!


exactly, you will notice to these people that moving up a weight doesnt matter when its someone they dont like e.g calzaghe moving up to fight bernard, but if pavlik moves up and loses, its all about weight then.:good

[icemax]

Weight means SHIT, please!

Lets get one thing clear, Hopkins schooled Pavlik on saturday without a shadow of a doubt, it was a complete masterclass from a virtually complete master. Despite what the wrestling fans on the general forum think I also consider that Calzaghe, although tight, beat Nard fair and square.

Having said that...... You say that weight isn't an issue, you may be right, but I have had a quick trawl through and other than Dick Tiger and Hopkins himself I cannot find one decent middleweight since the war who has jumped directly from 160 to take on someone of Hopkins class at essentially LH and who has won. There has to be a reason for this.

[icemax]

exactly, you will notice to these people that moving up a weight doesnt matter when its someone they dont like e.g calzaghe moving up to fight bernard, but if pavlik moves up and loses, its all about weight then.:good
Calzaghe jumped from SMW not MW, a different kettle of fish altogether

[Beeston Brawler]

I simply think that Pavlik got completely bamboozled by everything that Hopkins did, and showed him to be the one-dimensional banger I thought he always was.

Once the power was taken out of the equation by an iron chinned opponent, the 0 was on it's way.

The right hand lead gave him fits.

Bunce made a point quoting Calzaghe, that Hopkins takes something away from you - he took everything away from Pavlik, totally disarmed him.

[TFFP]

Lets get one thing clear, Hopkins schooled Pavlik on saturday without a shadow of a doubt, it was a complete masterclass from a virtually complete master. Despite what the wrestling fans on the general forum think I also consider that Calzaghe, although tight, beat Nard fair and square.

Having said that...... You say that weight isn't an issue, you may be right, but I have had a quick trawl through and other than Dick Tiger and Hopkins himself I cannot find one decent middleweight since the war who has jumped directly from 160 to take on someone of Hopkins class at essentially LH and who has won. There has to be a reason for this.
But Hopkins was a middleweight himself. I don't know whats so hard to understand about that. He fought at middleweight for over a decade, and came in as much as 4lbs under the 160lb limit. This reminds me of the bullshit I heard on here when Hatton lost to Mayweather the "bigger man", despite Mayweather starting off at junior lightweight. I've already given you an example of how Hopkins himself jumped up 15lbs to beat Tarver.

They have both spent most of their career at middleweight, one is 43 years old and one is 17 years his junior, one was a massive favourite and unbeaten one was coming off a loss, you better not get your ass kicked and think weight is a valid reason.

[Beeston Brawler]

No - especially bearing in mind how much we have heard from the Pavlik camp about how difficult it is for him to make 160. Having said that so often, you can't just to a complete U turn and blame the weight.

Different to Hatton in many ways, who has always made 140 no problem.

[icemax]

But Hopkins was a middleweight himself. I don't know whats so hard to understand about that. He fought at middleweight for over a decade, and came in as much as 4lbs under the 160lb limit..

You are arguing on your own...I am fully aware of what Hopkins was, and what he did against Tarver, thats why I wrote:

...other than Dick Tiger and Hopkins himself I cannot find one decent middleweight since the war who has jumped directly from 160 to take on someone of Hopkins class at essentially LH and who has won. There has to be a reason for this.

Just because an exceptional fighter like Hopkins can step up two weights doesn't mean that lesser athletes can do the same, in fact if you check you will find that history backs up my argument.

[TFFP]

You are arguing on your own...I am fully aware of what Hopkins was, and what he did against Tarver, thats why I wrote:



Just because an exceptional fighter like Hopkins can step up two weights doesn't mean that lesser athletes can do the same, in fact if you check you will find that history backs up my argument.
I definitely am arguing on my own because you just went and proved my point. Good fighters can do it, average ones can't, especially ones that rely on physical advantages and I would put Pavlik in that category.

Pavlik is an inferior fighter, that is the top and bottom of it.

[icemax]

Good fighters can do it, average ones can't,.

:happy :happy thank fuck for that.....thats precisely what I do mean. Hopkins is an exceptional athlete , Pavlik is not, and probably never will be.

[TFFP]

Rephrase that, he most certainly won't ever be :yep

But then I'm not sure where weight comes into that.

[icemax]

But then I'm not sure where weight comes into that.

Me neither anymore, i'm old, confused and losing the will to live :lol:

Back to the original question posed in the thread title "what does Bhops win mean for Calzaghe"-- it means that JC sneaked an SD past a significantly below par Hopkins, and in the rematch he would have his arse handed to him on a plate by Bernard :yep :deal :hey

[Fat Joe]

Having said that he was rated p4p top ten, he was prime - and Joe missed a real opportunity to add a prime p4p top ten guy to his resume there.

You are too hung up on age - Hopkins rated higher P4P, proven at the higher weight and a proven world class operator. Pavlik's "prime" has nothing to do with it if Hopkins past prime is still superior.

[Boro chris]

Back to the original question posed in the thread title "what does Bhops win mean for Calzaghe"-- it means that JC sneaked an SD past a significantly below par Hopkins, and in the rematch he would have his arse handed to him on a plate by Bernard :yep :deal :hey

So Hopkins was below par because otherwise Joe would've never beaten him?
Hopkins beat Pavlik because of advantages in hand/footspeed.
Advantages he didn't hold over Calzaghe.
I know Joe isn't easy to like but come on!:lol:

[icemax]

So Hopkins was below par because otherwise Joe would've never beaten him?
Hopkins beat Pavlik because of advantages in hand/footspeed.
Advantages he didn't hold over Calzaghe.
I know Joe isn't easy to like but come on!:lol:

You will be happy to know that I was mostly joking :good

[Boro chris]

You will be happy to know that I was mostly joking :good

Sorry. I had my sense of humor and irony chips removed for maintenace work earlier this morning!:D

[Cobbler]

Having said that he was rated p4p top ten, he was prime - and Joe missed a real opportunity to add a prime p4p top ten guy to his resume there.

What on Earth does 'prime' have to do with it?

A guy who is number four P4P but a decade past his prime is still a better fighter, and a more impressive win than a guy who is number ten P4P and in his prime.

Hopkins isn't top four P4P after taking his age into account. He's just top four P4P. The only possible black mark against Calzaghe's win was that maybe Hopkins was no longer performing at that level due to his age. And that's the question mark that was conclusively removed this weekend.

[Fat Joe]

What on Earth does 'prime' have to do with it?

A guy who is number four P4P but a decade past his prime is still a better fighter, and a more impressive win than a guy who is number ten P4P and in his prime.

Hopkins isn't top four P4P after taking his age into account. He's just top four P4P.

:lol: JonOli really struggles with this.

[JonOli]

What on Earth does 'prime' have to do with it?

A guy who is number four P4P but a decade past his prime is still a better fighter, and a more impressive win than a guy who is number ten P4P and in his prime.

Hopkins isn't top four P4P after taking his age into account. He's just top four P4P. The only possible black mark against Calzaghe's win was that maybe Hopkins was no longer performing at that level due to his age. And that's the question mark that was conclusively removed this weekend.

If you read my original post (which was cut), I state that I don't think Pavlik is that good, but had the potential to be good (I actually bet on Hopkins because I thought he would win). He may yet go on to do great things. Joe did not beat Pavlik, 43 year old ATG Bernard Hopkins in his twilight boxing years pulled something out of the bag and beat Pavlik! He himself had already picked up two losses to Taylor, and a SD to Calzaghe - he is not what he was in some departments. Bernard beat Pavlik, Joe wouldn't take the dangerous fight against the young contender - remember!

Joe beat Hopkins in a contentions split decision - a good win non the less, but a 43 year old version who had already picked up two recent losses to Taylor. It was a good/great win nothing more, nothing less.

Tarver totally shut out Clinton Woods after losing to Hopkins - did that make Hopkins win over Tarver that much greater (no not really). Against Dawson it was clear Tarver was gone. Hopkins is going to fight another fight - he could well lose that one.

As I have always said Joe's win over Hopkins was a very good one, but personally I wouldn't go too over board about it (even if you remove the age factor it was still far from a convincing win, imo) - just as I have never said Hopkins was shot - Roy Jones is shot - Hopkins is not, and this win just goes to prove it.

At the end of the day it was Hopkins who took the risk, and pulled something out the bag for an amazing victory - well done to him.

[Words]

It works out well for Calzaghe, it shows that Hopkins struggled not only because he was old but because of the pressure Calzaghe put on him. Pavlik didn't apply pressure, he stalked forward and couldn't even get the jab going. Calzaghe may have been sloppy, but he didn't let Hopkins close down his offense for a second.

Calzaghe also made Hopkins work incredibly hard, something Pavlik wasn't prepared to do. Hopkins usually makes opponents stop throwing shots by landind crisp and sharp counters every time the other guy gets aggressive. Thus he nullifies their offense, and using his defensive acumen, gets the rounds under his belt. He couldn't do this with Calzaghe, coz even though he's a more skilled fighter, he didn't count on Calzaghe pure heart and determination. Even when he got knocked down in the first round, Calzaghe just kept on coming, and that was something that Hopkins found really hard to deal with.

Hopkins age didn't help him against Calzaghe, but only because Calzaghe forced Hopkins to fight for every minute of every round. Pavlik didn't do that the other night, Pavlik didn't even put Hopkins under pressure with the jab! let alone any real power-shots. Very dissappointed in Pavlik, I think he was always a bit overrated but I didn't expect him to be schooled like that.

[JonOli]

It works out well for Calzaghe, it shows that Hopkins struggled not only because he was old but because of the pressure Calzaghe put on him. Pavlik didn't apply pressure, he stalked forward and couldn't even get the jab going. Calzaghe may have been sloppy, but he didn't let Hopkins close down his offense for a second.

Calzaghe also made Hopkins work incredibly hard, something Pavlik wasn't prepared to do. Hopkins usually makes opponents stop throwing shots by landind crisp and sharp counters every time the other guy gets aggressive. Thus he nullifies their offense, and using his defensive acumen, gets the rounds under his belt. He couldn't do this with Calzaghe, coz even though he's a more skilled fighter, he didn't count on Calzaghe pure heart and determination. Even when he got knocked down in the first round, Calzaghe just kept on coming, and that was something that Hopkins found really hard to deal with.

Hopkins age didn't help him against Calzaghe, but only because Calzaghe forced Hopkins to fight for every minute of every round. Pavlik didn't do that the other night, Pavlik didn't even put Hopkins under pressure with the jab! let alone any real power-shots. Very dissappointed in Pavlik, I think he was always a bit overrated but I didn't expect him to be schooled like that.

That's a fair summery - personally I agree with that.

[TFFP]

If you read my original post (which was cut), I state that I don't think Pavlik is that good, but had the potential to be good (I actually bet on Hopkins because I thought he would win). He may yet go on to do great things. Joe did not beat Pavlik, 43 year old ATG Bernard Hopkins in his twilight boxing years pulled something out of the bag and beat Pavlik! He himself had already picked up two losses to Taylor, and a SD to Calzaghe - he is not what he was in some departments. Bernard beat Pavlik, Joe wouldn't take the dangerous fight against the young contender - remember!

Joe beat Hopkins in a contentions split decision - a good win non the less, but a 43 year old version who had already picked up two recent losses to Taylor. It was a good/great win nothing more, nothing less.

Tarver totally shut out Clinton Woods after losing to Hopkins - did that make Hopkins win over Tarver that much greater (no not really). Against Dawson it was clear Tarver was gone. Hopkins is going to fight another fight - he could well lose that one.

As I have always said Joe's win over Hopkins was a very good one, but personally I wouldn't go too over board about it (even if you remove the age factor it was still far from a convincing win, imo) - just as I have never said Hopkins was shot - Roy Jones is shot - Hopkins is not, and this win just goes to prove it.

At the end of the day it was Hopkins who took the risk, and pulled something out the bag for an amazing victory - well done to him.
You aren't digging yourself out of the hole that well, even after Cobbler explained it to you in the simplest terms.

Your comparison with Tarver/Woods is awful. Clinton Woods is not Bernard Hopkins, period. He's never had that capability, he's just a solid fighter, so it wouldn't be likely to add anything to anybodys win.

Of course it is well done to Hopkins, he comes out with the most credit since he did the fighting. However, it also served to prove Hopkins is in great condition, is still a great fighter, and is still a top 10 p4p fighter easily. Hence the lingering doubts over Calzaghe's win should have been put to bed...but apparently not.

You are one of the people Hopkins was looking to when he faced the press row after the fight as if to say "how many times do I have to prove myself?". Age means nothing to this man. He's not prime, but he's still great.

[JonOli]

Aye, I pretty much say the same things as you just stated there - if I'm in a hole you must be in too.

I have always said it was a good win for Joe, and Hopkins was not shot.

[JonOli]

You are one of the people Hopkins was looking to when he faced the press row after the fight as if to say "how many times do I have to prove myself?".

:lol:

Hold on, I backed Hopkins (vCash:deal ) - you're the man who went on Pavlik. Hopkins beadie eyes were looking out at you... :hey

[TFFP]

:lol:

Hold on, I backed Hopkins (vCash:deal ) - you're the man who went on Pavlik. Hopkins beadie eyes were looking out at you...
Yep.

Unlike you I learnt from my mistake. I'm not talking about his damn age anymore because its clear as day it don't mean shit and he's elite anyway. He's a cyborg.

[Fat Joe]

[quote=JonOli]It was a good/great win nothing more, nothing less.
quote]

Ridiculous comment which proves that Calzaghe could never impress you no matter what he did.

[JonOli]

I do think his contentious scrappy split decision over Hopkins was a good/Great win - that's the way I feel.

[Fat Joe]

As I have always said Joe's win over Hopkins was a very good one, but personally I wouldn't go too over board about it (even if you remove the age factor it was still far from a convincing win, imo) -

So we remove your usual criticism of Hopkin's age. That means Calzaghe defeats a fighter who is going straight to the Hall of Fame and will be remembered as an ATG but you are still not impressed.

[JonOli]

I do think his contentious scrappy split decision over Hopkins was a good/Great win - that's the way I feel.

[JonOli]

OK, if Hopkins gets beaten in his next fight (like Taylor beat him twice prior to Joe) does Joes win suddenly mean nothing - of cause not.

[Fat Joe]

I do think his contentious scrappy split decision over Hopkins was a good/Great win - that's the way I feel.

OK the penny has dropped, you think it was a great win but you're not impressed at the same time.

[JonOli]

I'm saying the same things I have said since the Hopkins/Calzaghe fight - no "penny has dropped".

I wonder who Hopkins will face next?

Dawson, Taylor 3, Kessler... ?

[Fat Joe]

no "penny has dropped".


I meant in my mind.

Hatton's scrappy foul filled win over an aging great obviously impressed you a lot so I was just wondering why you don't "go overboard" about Calzaghe's win.

As for BHOP's next opponent Calzaghe has stated again that he will never have a rematch. So I'm thinking maybe Dawson or RJJ (can't see RJJ getting past Calzaghe, I agree with you that he is shot to bits).

[JonOli]

As for BHOP's next opponent Calzaghe has stated again that he will never have a rematch. So I'm thinking maybe Dawson or RJJ (can't see RJJ getting past Calzaghe, I agree with you that he is shot to bits).

If Roy loses I do hope that he doesn't still fight Bernard - Hopkins obviously still has a bit left in the tank, and something to offer.

[Benjiabc]

I do think his contentious scrappy split decision over Hopkins was a good/Great win - that's the way I feel.


joe beat hopkins in the only way he can be beaten, pavlik couldnt do it, its not rocket science is it really?

whether it was scrappuy or not joe got the job done and pavlik wasnt even close, thats the difference

[JonOli]

joe beat hopkins in the only way he can be beaten, pavlik couldnt do it, its not rocket science is it really?

whether it was scrappuy or not joe got the job done and pavlik wasnt even close, thats the difference


...and Pavlik beat Taylor twice, the same Taylor who on record beat Hopkins twice. The same Hopkins who beat Pavlik. Styles make fights.

[Cobbler]

...and Pavlik beat Taylor twice, the same Taylor who on record beat Hopkins twice. The same Hopkins who beat Pavlik. Styles make fights.

What's that got to do with the value of Calzaghe's win over Hopkins?

[JonOli]

What's that got to do with the value of Calzaghe's win over Hopkins?

It was a direct reply to a reply to my original statement of...

"I do think his contentious scrappy split decision over Hopkins was a good/Great win - that's the way I feel."

If you want me to fit my reply directly into the thread though...

Styles make fights. One could argue that the fact that Bernard beat Pavlik, has little bearing on Joes win over Bernard. They are two separate fights. Hopkins simply always had the answer to Pavliks style - which would counter any physical decline.

*Pavlik beat Taylor twice, the same Taylor who on record beat Hopkins twice. The same Hopkins who beat Pavlik. Same fighters, differnt style match ups, all beating each other*

As I have said though I do think that Joes win over Hopkins was a good/Great win - that's the way I feel.

[Cobbler]

It was a direct reply to a reply to my original statement of...

"I do think his contentious scrappy split decision over Hopkins was a good/Great win - that's the way I feel."

If you want me to fit the point into the thread though...

Styles make fights. One could argue that the fact that Bernard beat Pavlik, has little bearing on Joes win over Bernard. They are two separate fights. Hopkins simply always had the answer to Pavliks style - which would counter any physical decline.

*Pavlik beat Taylor twice, the same Taylor who on record beat Hopkins twice. The same Hopkins who beat Pavlik. Same fighters, differnt style match ups, all beating each other*

So then you can never judge any fighters except in the context of individual fights?

Sorry, but 'styles make fights' is becoming the cop out phrase de jour recently. "I don't have a coherent argument, so I'll just say 'styles make fights' or 'just because a beats b and b beats c doesn't mean a beats c' and hope they go away.

So, are you saying that you really don't make any judgements on boxers based on their form through a range of fights? Or, if you do, how do you rate Hopkins right now?

[JonOli]

If you notice I do not say it is the be all, and end all. There are many factors but different styles plays a large part - especially when you have someone who is good but fairly one dimensional stylewise like Pavlik, and can't adapt.

Look I've stated how I view the Hopkins win, how do you view it? It must be exceptionally highly if your ripping into my stated high opinion of it.

[Cobbler]

If you notice I do not say it is the be all, and end all. There are many factors but different styles plays a large part - especially when you have someone who is good but fairly one dimensional stylewise like Pavlik, and can't adapt.

Look I've stated how I view the Hopkins win, how do you view it? It must be exceptionally highly if your ripping into my stated high opinion of it.

It's a win over someone who is one of the four best P4P boxers in the World at the moment.

That's the bottom line. It's doesn't matter how old anyone was, we're not handicapping for age, it doesn't matter who had what style. It is what it is.

[icemax]

Hopkins victory over Pavlik at the weekend in no way highlights or detracts from Calzaghes win over Nard in april, and I am pretty surprised that some really intelligent posters on here are stating otherwise.

Attempting to determine the actual quality of one fighters performance by extrapolating information from another fight is just pure folly, there are far too many intangibles involved for any proper conclusion to be reached.The exercise would never be attempted in any other sport as it would become rapidly apparent that there could be no validity in the end result. How stupid does this sound? Wigan Athletic beat Hull City 5-0, Hull City beat Arsenal
2-1 , therefore Wigan Athletic by dedfinition would beat Arsenal easily and further, because of the nature of their victory over Hull they do not have to play the Gunners to prove it as the end result is so obvious and self evident. We would never stand for this over simplified level of analysis in this situation but we are trying to apply the same basic rules to the fight game.

Whether people like it or not, or accept it or not, styles do make fights and as such a comparrison of the type that some on here are trying to make between the two fights is essentially moot.

[Cobbler]

Hopkins victory over Pavlik at the weekend in no way highlights or detracts from Calzaghes win over Nard in april, and I am pretty surprised that some really intelligent posters on here are stating otherwise.

Attempting to determine the actual quality of one fighters performance by extrapolating information from another fight is just pure folly

Disagree completely in one sense. That's exactly what we do all the time. If we just look at fights as individual entities without considering any of the other fights they have had then all we are left with is one unknown entity fighting another. Why would a win over Manny Pacquiao be considered better than a win over Graham Earl? The answer is because we look at all the other people Pacquiao has beaten and we judge him on that, and judge how good those wins of his were on the people they had beaten.

In another sense, I agree with you. When fighters are as well known and well established as Hopkins and Calzaghe, that information should already be available. That's why my opinion of Calzaghe's win has not changed due to Hopkins win over Pavlik, because I appraised it honestly in the first place. What has been seen though is that a large number of people, seeking to follow their own agenda, tried to discredit that Calzaghe's win by denigrating Hopkins' standing at this point in his career. Those people have had the ground taken out from under their feet by Hopkins' later performance.

The exercise would never be attempted in any other sport as it would become rapidly apparent that there could be no validity in the end result. How stupid does this sound? Wigan Athletic beat Hull City 5-0, Hull City beat Arsenal
2-1 , therefore Wigan Athletic by dedfinition would beat Arsenal easily and further, because of the nature of their victory over Hull they do not have to play the Gunners to prove it as the end result is so obvious and self evident.

Actually the exercise is used in all sports. If you are trying to analyise a match up of anykind, then performances against common opponents is one of the best benchmarks you can use. In the example above, absent any other information, who would appear to be the favourite to win? Obviously it is Wigan. Clearly, in reality, we have far more information than just those results, but that is a strong formline that would come into consideration.

Look at horseracing, where you probably see more analytical use of formlines than any other sport. Common opponents are one of the strongest factors you would consider. The judgements in horseracing can be stronger than in boxing, because there is less effect on each participants performance from what their opponents are doing (though there is some), but the general principle remains.

[dwilson]

I think the history books will make Calzaghes win over B-Hop a pretty heavy factor in Joes eternal greatness.

[icemax]

Thanks Cobbler, thats a fair response

["TKO"]

Disagree completely in one sense. That's exactly what we do all the time. If we just look at fights as individual entities without considering any of the other fights they have had then all we are left with is one unknown entity fighting another. Why would a win over Manny Pacquiao be considered better than a win over Graham Earl? The answer is because we look at all the other people Pacquiao has beaten and we judge him on that, and judge how good those wins of his were on the people they had beaten.

In another sense, I agree with you. When fighters are as well known and well established as Hopkins and Calzaghe, that information should already be available. That's why my opinion of Calzaghe's win has not changed due to Hopkins win over Pavlik, because I appraised it honestly in the first place. What has been seen though is that a large number of people, seeking to follow their own agenda, tried to discredit that Calzaghe's win by denigrating Hopkins' standing at this point in his career. Those people have had the ground taken out from under their feet by Hopkins' later performance.



Actually the exercise is used in all sports. If you are trying to analyise a match up of anykind, then performances against common opponents is one of the best benchmarks you can use. In the example above, absent any other information, who would appear to be the favourite to win? Obviously it is Wigan. Clearly, in reality, we have far more information than just those results, but that is a strong formline that would come into consideration.

Look at horseracing, where you probably see more analytical use of formlines than any other sport. Common opponents are one of the strongest factors you would consider. The judgements in horseracing can be stronger than in boxing, because there is less effect on each participants performance from what their opponents are doing (though there is some), but the general principle remains.

I think that's a pretty fair appraisal, though we have to factor in that anomalous results (such as the 0-5) and "off nights" are likely to play much more of a part in football. Simply due to the fact that football teams play twice a week and train for a couple of days for each match, whilst top fighters these days fight maybe twice a year and spend 12 weeks preparing for each bout.

Sometimes styles do play a part, hence Hopkins who lost twice to Taylor schooling Pavlik who beat him twice. However, at other times it's just obvious that one fighter is not in the other's league, styles or not.

Hopkins' win over Pavlik adds far more to his legacy than to Calzaghe's obviously. However, as per the above, the fact that it pulls the rug from this silly argument that Hopkins was somehow shot when they fought (despite his whoopings of Tarver and Winky) means it indirectly boosts Calzaghe's standing as well.

[Cobbler]

I think that's a pretty fair appraisal, though we have to factor in that anomalous results (such as the 0-5) and "off nights" are likely to play much more of a part in football. Simply due to the fact that football teams play twice a week and train for a couple of days for each match, whilst top fighters these days fight maybe twice a year and spend 12 weeks preparing for each bout.



Thanks. I actually think you have this the wrong way round in terms of anomalous results though in terms of how they affect people's perceptions.

Clearly in terms of numbers, one would expect a football team to have 'more' anomalous results than a boxer over a certain period of time.

The fact that football teams play so many more games and play against all of their opposing teams in a league system make it easier for us to naturally spot and filter out the 'off days' and kooky results. Afterall, if Manchester United win the league and Stoke get relegated, we're not really going to debate who is the best team just because Stoke won a match against Manchester United sometime in February. Such a result in a boxing match is so much harder to spot, because the participants may only take part in two other events during the course of the year, against opponents who are not necessarily so easily comparable.

["TKO"]

Thanks. I actually think you have this the wrong way round in terms of anomalous results though in terms of how they affect people's perceptions.

Clearly in terms of numbers, one would expect a football team to have 'more' anomalous results than a boxer over a certain period of time.

The fact that football teams play so many more games and play against all of their opposing teams in a league system make it easier for us to naturally spot and filter out the 'off days' and kooky results. Afterall, if Manchester United win the league and Stoke get relegated, we're not really going to debate who is the best team just because Stoke won a match against Manchester United sometime in February. Such a result in a boxing match is so much harder to spot, because the participants may only take part in two other events during the course of the year, against opponents who are not necessarily so easily comparable.

That's what I was getting at, just didn;t word it very well. :patsch