Who has the best most impressive win over Hopkins

Jones' arrogance and the rest of his outside the ring BS is the reason people started to downgrade him after he started losing. Based purely on nothing but his fighting career he was the best fighter since Hagler's ended in '87. An absolute freak

 

Some of them. Fair enough.

By that same token, he was no longer great by the time of his last four losses. (or certainly the last two, and not even really decent by this most recent one)

 

Nonsense mate. A fighter with the defence, chin, experience and defence of Hopkins can just smother a fight until it's at walking pace. Calzaghe had 12 rounds to put him in trouble and never got close. If Hopkins hadn't stolen a breather, Calzaghe could have won a round clearly by being much more active than a tired, passive Hopkins, but obviously he possesses neither the accuracy nor the power to actually land significant punches on B-Hop and even get him anywhere near "trouble" in a boxing sense.

I don't really understand your p-o-v here.

You cite Calzaghe fighting his biggest rivals as a strength of his career, then deny that a guy who ruled concurrently for 6 years in the same division as him was a bigger rival than a guy who only ruled concurrently for 2 years.

Your reasoning is that Calzaghe beat a guy who (didn't really) beat Ottke. I mean, are we seriously doing the "A beat B so B beats C" routine here on the Classic in a serious discussion? Surely not. There were people who scored Calzaghe-Reid for Reid, so is it acceptable for them to assume Robin Reid beats Hopkins and Kessler then, so a fight between Reid and Hopkins or Reid and Kessler would have been a "moot point"?

That sort of logic is ****-weak and has no credibility on here. Didn't think you'd come out with this sort of rubbish.

You say you value achievement highly, yet you do not differentiate between a guy who defended the undisputed title, and a guy who never did. Hopkins is the only guy I can remember who held all 4 major titles and defended them numerous times. Do you really not consider that a greater achievement that someone who unified titles at different times, and never defended an undisputed championship? I don't understand how someone can place such importance on achievement, yet not bother about the specifics of different achievements. Even if Calzaghe had unified all the titles with the Kessler win, he never defended once, he moved out of the weight class. So an undisputed title reign is worth nothing in terms of achievement, even though it's barely ever been done in the modern, multi-title era? :huh Bizarre.

Kid? I'm happy enough to leave it here. Different criteria, different standards.

 

Calzaghe beat the better Hopkins IMO, but one that had a lesser gas tank, in an incredibly close and scrappy fight. Jones beat Hopkins with relative ease with pretty much one hand. It's a better win for me, regardless of the nuances in Calzaghe's awkwardness giving Hopkins fits. B-Hop also made Joe look pretty ragged as well.

That's not to detract from Joe's performance. For me, it's an incredible styles clash between two highly experienced and complete generals. The closeness of the battle does not make it any less of a win for Joe. At that time, these fighters demanded a close and tactical battle. Despite being 37 he was not an old fighter at all. I personally think Joe was at his very best in his latter years.

 

your definition of tired = my definition of trouble.

no I did't say that at all I'm saying as far as I'm concerned Mitchell beat Ottke to unify the WBA & IBf. then Joe beat Mitchell in his next match to effectively unify the WBA, IBF and WBO. the WBC was with Beyer until Kessler beat him and with Kessler until Joe beat him. so I'm saying this whole ruled concurrently thing means little to me because I consider Joe to have been a clear number 1. In my world, my cards are more important than the judges. hence I still see pac as #1, maybe you view bradley as #1 because Pac didn't "really win".

the thing you said about Robin Reid doesn't make any sense to me so I won't address other than this line.

Because the IBF stripped him for facing Manfredo instead of Berrio. that's a political decision that means sweet FA to me. All a man can do is try to unify all the title claims. I consider Joe to have done that the moment he beat Kessler. a politician stripping a belt means nothing to me, maybe it does to you, who's to know.

yeah the kid thing was my frustration at the re-itteration of a point that means very little, apologies.

 

Yet many of the things that made Hopkins a great fighter had ceased to be great by then. A great Hopkins doesn't get outworked to losses by Jermain Taylor. Hopkins of 1996/7-2001/2/3 was clearly superior to either the 1993 or 2005 or 2008 versions.

 

He hadn't yet developed the patent combination of missed right lead, headbutt and hold with hip punch or low blow acting

 

I like the straight right followed by a hard shoulder. Very effective

 

I'm in trouble right now, have just been to the gym.

A huge proportion of boxers are in "trouble" in a huge proportion of their fights then.

This conversation is becoming more and more strange... :huh

It's all very convenient this, isn't it? :think

How did you score Calzaghe vs Reid?

If you scored it to Reid, then Calzaghe lost his title in 1999. How does that square with your "concurrent" point? Fancy posting your Calzaghe-Reid card? :nut

Enjoy:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nzc2ljpHgs0[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3fQl6nPgqo&feature=relmfu[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCvqGkO0UUo&feature=relmfu[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnTH6AmyXBM&feature=relmfu[/ame]

Mitchell beat Ottke, Calzaghe beat Mitchell, so Calzaghe-Ottke was a "moot point".

If Reid beat Calzaghe, Calzaghe beat Kessler, so Reid-Kessler would have been a "moot point".

This doesn't answer this point at all:

- You value achievement highly.

- A guy defended all 4 belts numerous times while reigning as undisputed champion, something which hasn't been done in decades.

- Yet you do not differentiate between this and a guy who never done so.

How does this makes sense?

That's OK, no bother.

 

well if you're tired and heading to a boxing fight you are in trouble :good

I think I gave it Joe by 3 points or so, It's on the scorecard thread somewhere. I scored that for Robin first time I watched it as well actually. And yes, had I scored for Reid in 99 then Joe clearly wouldn't have been my pick as top SMW ahead of Reid (who I also scored a victory for over Ottke :good) Call it convenient if you want, I'm not sure what's convenient about me scoring a fight in favour of Mitchell though :huh: maybe the word is "representative".

Beating Otkke and Beyer would have been great, but the fights didn't come off and he beat the guys who beat them so I can live with it. Moot was a poor word, what I meant was like now I'd rather see Floyd v Pac as opposed to Floyd v Bradley because I feel Pac beat Bradley.

Eugh no motivation to watch that fight, I'd rather watch McCallum v Toney 2 which is next on my list.

Ofcourse defending numerous times is an achievement. I'm saying that Joe shouldn't receive any more credit if the IBF man would have decided to sanction the Manfredo fight and suddenly he has all 5 belts rather than just 4. that for me is political and not related to achievement. Had he continued fighting at SMW against Froch, Ward, Bute then yeah he'd be even greater but that's quite an obvious point which is why I didn't think it was the point you were making.

Yeah if every debate is gonna come down to achievement v resume we may as well not bother cos our battle lines are drawn there, that's why I was focusing more on the concurrent and political side of things.

 

I'll clear this argument up for you lads. If you're tired in a boxing match you might get ko'd if you can't keep your hands up or defend yourself. If you're a technical spoiler though you can easily catch a breather, while tired, but you may lose the round. IE goto the ropes and lay on them, clinch, feint etc.

In this fight, Hopkins did steal a breather by faking low blows BUT he was in no danger of being stopped. He knew he couldn't match Calzaghe's workrate but he could easily spoil. By getting a breather he managed to close the last 3 rounds much stronger than he would have been able to otherwise

If Hopkins didn't get his breather, Calzaghe likely closes those last 3 rounds much stronger and maybe wins them all. Where as despite the lull in action I actually had Hopkins winning the 10th I believe - which wouldn't have happened without his stolen rest.

To be honest though LUFC to say Hopkins was in danger of being stopped by Calzaghe is a bit noobish mate. Joe can't punch for toffee and Hopkins is 1 of the best defensive spoilers ever

 

it weren't me who said he was in danger of being stopped; I said the opposite.

It was Seamus who said he was in danger of being stopped. I said being that tired in a boxing ring can cause you trouble.

Kitt has gone on some mad crusade trying to say there's no trouble. at this stage I don't even know what his argument is :-(

 

Not necessarily. If you're fighting an opponent who can't land cleanly on you and doesn't carry much power when he does, you may lose a round clearly by being clearly outworked, but not really be in any sort of 'trouble' in a boxing sense. :good

I agree we should place importance on our own cards, but I think it's dangerous to start rewriting history on the basis of them. For example, you are choosing not to recognize Ottke as a champion from 98-04 because you scored against him during that run. Where does this approach end? If a guy wins a world title in 1997, holds it until 2008, but you score a fight against him in 1999, are you refusing to recognize his title fights 99-08? If he unifies between 99 and 08, do you refuse to recognize him as a unified champion? Do you view him as a world champion for the title he won after 99, but not as a unified champion at all? What happens if he then becomes the undisputed champion in 06 after picking up the other 2 belts? The boxing world would recognize him as the undisputed champion, but you would keep considering him as only a unified champion because of a fight that happened 7 years ago? And do you then devise a 'Lufcrazy' parallel universe where the guy that beat him in 99 is a reigning champion then? If he loses in 02, do you then consider his conqueror the world champion? Does that title then have a new, different history to the reality in your mind/personal records?

:nut Even my brain is numb considering the possibilities of this approach!

I go along with my own cards in terms of wins and losses for each fighters, but to refuse to recognize Ottke's title fights after the Mitchell fight is an approach fraught with so many problems and impracticalities, as shown above.

I remember you saying you scored the 2nd Pac-Marquez fight for Marquez... so I guess then, in accordance with the Ottke-Mitchell logic, that if I went back to the forum in summer 2009 after Pacquiao had obliterated Hatton and De La Hoya, you'd be the sole voice of dissent on ESB, wanting to see Marquez vs Mayweather instead of Pacquiao vs Mayweather? :think:think:think

You see mate, if you have a policy like that, the problems are innumerable.

It's not a great fight, nowhere near as good as McCallum-Toney 2, but if you watched it, it really would change your opinion of Lacy and of Calzaghe-Lacy. Completely torpedo-destroys this horrendous myth about Lacy being the Tyson of the 168 class before Calzaghe slayed the dragon. The guy was a plodding mediocrity, irrespective of any silly, ill-informed US media hyperbole.

It's not political at all that Calzaghe never reigned as undisputed champion, never defended all 4 belts. If you value achievement highly, you'd have to measure degrees of achievement, no? Winning each belt, but never defending them, is a lesser achievement than holding all 4, and defending all of them numerous times. No?

I think you can see from my previous paragraph that I examine achievement quite carefully. Because (for me) beating tough opposition in the ring is substantially more important in boxing than the paper achievement of actually holding one of the titles on offer doesn't mean that I don't bother examining achievements at all. It's one of the factors I always consider, just not the main one.

 

Speaking a lot of sense PP. :good