Who ranks higher All time? Hopkins or Calzaghe?

Say no more this poll answers it all Hopkins >>>>>>>>>>> Calzaghe & its not even close. They should have forced Calzaghe to rematch Nard in Wales Nard would have beat that cowardly a$$ all up & down the Rhonnda Valley

 

I've not said this. clearly you need to lie and cheat in order to fake a win, since you must feel you cannot win otherwise.

very cowardzaghe.

 

ROFLMAO Slappy Joe beat Kovalev???? Heck you wouldn't see Joe for dust if that fight was mentioned. He even tried to back out of the Lacy fight claiming "injury" but Enzo kicked his ass & made him fight

 

When they were both in the ring together you could see a massive difference in quality.

Joe just had the youth and energy.

Hopkins.

 

:good

 

Is this a question that need to be asked? BHOP easily!

 

I don't see how you could have ranked him above Bernard, even if those two things had've happened.

 

bailey,

You don't take into consideration any other factors?

Longevity is one factor to consider, along with many others.

Joe has a poor resume, considering how talented he was.

It's nothing to do with Joe being retired. Of course taking risks and challenging yourself enhances your ranking.

Joe could have targeted Dawson at LHW, but cashed out against Roy and then said there was nothing left to achieve. You're kidding yourself if you think Joe would ever have fought him.

You're dreaming.

This was a guy who was more than content to keep defending the WBO belt against mainly subpar opposition. I'm one of the few people who think that Joe could have beaten him, but I don't think for a second that he'd have taken the fight.

We're not debating if the fight was available. But it could have been if Joe had've been in the LHW mix earlier. But I don't believe he'd have ever have fought him. Also, it doesn't make any difference if Joe beat the guy who beat the guy. It would have been a tough stylistic match up for him. We know he didn't fight any top southpaws. Was that due to circumstances, or because he stayed away from them?

Stop giving him a pass. We know what happened with Pavlik. Pavlik wanted the fight in 2008, and Joe said he'd done nothing to warrant a fight. Yet he then bizarrely admitted that he'd offered to fight Pavlik straight after Lacy in 2006, but Pavlik had turned him down. So work that one out for me? What a joke! He wanted to fight an unknown Kelly Pavlik in 2006, when he was an NABF champion, but not when it would have been a big fight in 2008 when he was well known? atsch He could have fought Pavlik, and in my opinion, he'd have beaten him easier than Hopkins did. But he swerved the fight to instead fight Roy, who he'd said was washed up on three occasions.

Frank W was his longtime promoter who thought he was the greatest fighter he ever worked with. He thought that he'd have beaten Roy. So when he says that Joe was happy to fight the likes of Freeman Barr, and he and Enzo had to talk him into going through with the Lacy fight, that speaks volumes to me.

The guy was unbelievably talented. But he was happy defending the WBO over and over, and only a handful of his title defences were actually mandatories. You've got to be living in a fantasy if you think under different circumstances, Joe would have fought the likes of Tarver, Dawson, Pavlik, and Kovalev etc.

I'm considering many factors, that include: who he fought, at what point, the manner of his victories, his achievements, his longevity etc.

Instead of looking at those three wins, look at the bigger picture.

You've got to stop this Eubank obsession. Stop giving Joe credit for all of Eubank's past glories. Joe didn't beat the Eubank who'd beaten Watson, Benn and Roch etc. He beat the version who had lost to Collins, and who hadn't won at the weight for three years, and who hadn't fought at the weight for two years. How many times have we discussed this? Eubank was preparing to fight at LHW before Collins pulled out, and Eubank had no sparring, and he had bad knees that hampered his movement. It was a great win for Joe personally, but not in the world of boxing. Eubank was at the end of a hard career. Danny Green beat Roy Jones. But he didn't beat the guy who'd fought Hopkins, Toney, and Ruiz etc. He beat the guy who'd fought Joe and Sheika etc. You rate Eubank as the second or third best SMW of all time. Which is fine. But you give way too much credit to Joe for beating him. Instead of you just believing that Joe beat the second or third best SMW of all time, you need to focus more on where Eubank was at the time of their fight.


:good

 

I think people are too fast when they write off Hopkins chances against Calzaghe closer to prime. Calzaghe took out two A-level fighters in Chris Eubank and Mikkel Kessler, but he had to work hard for it. Hopkins has a lot of heart and can be a fierce fighter. I consider Calzaghe vs Hopkins closer to prime as a 50/50 fight, and I wouldn't be particulary surprised if Hopkins took it.

Resumes can be twisted around depending on what conclusions you want to reach. Fact is, Hopkins and Calzahghe has a few things in common. Both had great longevity. If you start to compare top wins, it's not clear cut who is ahead. Hopkins has Tito and De La Hoye. Calzaghe has Eubank, Kessler and Hopkins.

I wont sit on the fence with this one, I think Hopkins is ahead because he accomplished more all together. But I don't think the difference is all that big.

 

Appearantly this has not been debated enough. The arguments for downplaying Calzaghes victory against Eubank are weak. Eubank wasn't done for as a technician, he wasn't done for as an athlete, and he wasn't done for when it came to will to win.

He wasn't drained because then he would have had **** ass stamina. He had poor circumstances when it came to preparations, but a lot of experience to make up for it.

So what are we left with? He lost twice against Collins, but Collins was a top contender and the fights were close and competitive. You can argue that Eubank was no longer peak, but lots of boxers fights lots of fights without being peak.

The essentials facts are that Eubank is one of the greatest SMW's in history, and Calzaghe took him out when he had previously only lost to ONE fighter, and was no older than 31. Of course it was a great win. Obviously better than defeating a 44 year old Hopkins in a close and ugly fight.

 

Eubank wasn't an A level fighter in 1997, if ever.

I don't think Kessler was elite either.

 

It was a great win for Joe personally.

But you've got to be realistic.

The facts speak for themselves:


Eubank hadn't fought at the weight for two years.

He hadn't won at the weight for three years.

He had 11 days to prepare for Joe, and had to change his diet to hit the weight.

He's said that had Ronnie Davies still managed him, he doesn't think he'd have let him take the fight.

He's also said that he had no southpaw sparring for the fight.

He also had to have injections in his knees.

He's also said that his bad knees hampered his movement.


Yes, he still had the desire. Yes, he had lots of experience, and yes, he was still a very good fighter. Also, it was Joe's first big fight, against a huge name, and he handled the pressure great. But that doesn't alter Eubank's circumstances and his lack of preparation. I agree with you that Eubank is one of the greatest SMW's of all time. But he wasn't in 1997 when he fought Joe.




:good

 

I have to admitt you lost me there. You don't think Eubank ever was at A-level? Sounds like a harsh standard, and I'm not sure how many A-level fighters we're left with then. Pacquiao, Mayweather and Jones Jr at their best, perhaps.

:huh

I suppose that leaves us with Jones Jr and Calzaghe as the only elite SMW's there ever was. Ward will obviosuly be out of the question.

 

Well it depends on what your definition of an elite fighter is.

I don't class the likes of Kessler as elite fighters. I think they're great fighters, but a level below.

But you can't say that Eubank was a top class SMW when he fought Joe, when he hadn't even won at the weight for three years.