Calzaghe SMW reighn vs. Hopkins MW reighn

We're all entitled to our opinions.

Obviously ours differ on this subject.

 

Same about Calzaghes for key opponents. Eubank was preparing for another division, Hopkins and Jones were naturally best at MW. Apart from two of them being fortysomethings.

Adding to that Hopkins was undisputed, anytmie any man, Joe Cal was just fighting a small selection of the SMW contigent at any time.

 

sure they were his best accomplishments on a personal level, of course.

but no, noone rates acheivements of a fortysomething as their highest operating ability, unless they are being disingenious. I am sure you arent being that and instead your message is unintentionally implying that you think its so.

Sure old Hop had it in the tank and the brains to keep a title, but the 'for how long can he eke this out?' question was on peoples minds, not 'what new height will he scale now?'


Whereas young Hopkins, when facing persona from other division, was facing them prime or near prime - thats my point. This old hop v new hop argument is subsidiary to what I am arguing, not central.

 

Best thing about Hopkins was the money made from betting on him.

Damn he was given some long odds sometimes.

 

How can that be? Pavlik was 1 dimensional but had a significant size advantage at mw, move him up 2 divisions and he just becomes a 1d boxer.

Wright also had no business moving up to lhw were he was way to slow.

 

i think its fair to say that the middleweight era hopkins fought in is the weakest ever, and still he lost 3 times, drew once, and embarrassingly jumped out of the ring another time.

 

Both of them fought in very weak divisions and both should of moved up sooner

 

yeah and one of em lost 3 times, had one draw, and threw himself outta the ring and the other won every fight.

everytime hopkins has stepped up to fight elite fighters at a fair weight, he has always come undone.

 

Former chsmps isn't the only criteria. Hopkins unified earlier therefore there were less opportunities for there even to BE other champs. Is easy to see how guys like Echols and Vanderpool etc could have been champs in a weaker era or division. Or how the opposite might apply to guys like Woodhall or Brewer or Mitchell. So, to me, the amount of former champs isn't the best indicator of which was a better run. In truth both were sort of weak.