Originally Posted by IntentionalButt
1) Why are people treating old Hopkins like Calzaghe's best win? Have we forgotten prime unbeaten Kessler?
2) Why does Watson automatically become the top win? I can see one making an argument for him being a more effective h2h super middle than Kessler had he actually done a prolonged campaign there...but we're mythicizing just a bit to say he's head-and-shoulders above anything that actually stands on Joe's resume.
Easy, watch Watson, then watch Kessler, he's just a better boxer
Kessler was undefeated, but against who, Mundine and Beyer? Watson beat Eubank first time and was robbed, he was on his way to beating Eubank a second time before being knocked out in Castillo-Corrales style
Originally Posted by McGrain
Hopkins had both Pavlik and Pacal in his future. These were two very good performances. I don't think either of these guys was as good as Watson, but I don't think those fights were that close, either. Certainly Pavlik was a one-sided thrashing.
Which makes it look good on paper for Joe, in the ring Joe looked foolish constantly punching air, in the first 4 rounds he was shut out pretty much. Personally I had Hopkins winning, I even had him winning the 10th or whatever round Joe humped him in because he landed the cleaner punches, although morally Calzaghe obviously won that around and obviously got the ring generalship marks for his man humping. In a way it's a Whitaker-Delahoya scenario
It should be noted Joe was past his physical best in this fight at 37, although maybe more canny as a boxer though