Who ranks higher All time? Hopkins or Calzaghe?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Auracle21, Jun 8, 2015.


  1. AnotherFan

    AnotherFan Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,221
    2
    Dec 20, 2010
    I am. You bring up some circumstances, which is fair enough, but when you have a closer look at them they don't hold up very well.

    True, but he was an active boxer and winning during this time.

    Same thing.

    Yeah, his circumstances for preparations really sucked. I agree with that.

    But we can judge for ourselves, can't we?

    Eubank had over 40 fights as a pro behind him. I don't think he forgot how to fight because he missed out on sparing.

    Boxers fight with injuries all the time.

    If you think so that's fine. But I would like to have something more solid than a bunch of circumstances that one by one doesn't really have much weight.

    I mean, when Calzaghe fought Hopkins it was obvious age was a factor, because Hopkins was an old man. When Cotto did a number on Martinez, everyone could tell Martinez was in horrible condition. And when Ward fought Dawson, the difference the weight did for Dawson was appearant.

    When people want to downplay Calzaghes win over Eubank, it's a little bit of this and a little bit of that, but each and every of these pieces are questionable.

    Of course Eubank had some wear and tear, and he had poor preparations, but that's all you can dig up. I think you can compare Calzaghe win over Eubank with Mayweathers win over Pac in one regard: it could have been done at a time where it mattered more, but it still mattered enough.
     
  2. AnotherFan

    AnotherFan Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,221
    2
    Dec 20, 2010
    Yeah, I guess it's a question about definition. I don't consider Kessler to be great, and I wouldn't call Ward great either. Calzaghe? Maybe. But Kessler was a top operator at world level, and that is sufficient for me to see him as elite.

    The A-level thing is a bit more hazy, I suppose. Maybe it would be too much to call Kessler that. Ward is A-level, and so was Calzaghe. Eubank at his peak was clearly A-level in my book. When he fought Calzaghe? Maybe not.
     
  3. des3995

    des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,903
    126
    Oct 23, 2009
    For a rational and generally level headed poster, you seem to be irrationally dug in here.

    Simply apply the same logic you applied to Ward-Dawson to Calzaghe-Eubank and it's bingo. The weight issue alone sould speakto the fact that it wasn't anything resembling a peak Eubank in there.
    Let the facts speak for themselves. Eubank was active yes, but had fought no hopers for a while and hadn't beaten anything resembling a quality opponent for ages. He ended up fighting at CW after and never won another fight at any weight after losing to Calzaghe.

    So, other than circumstantial evidence, what do we have to go on that Dawson was drained? Of course, I think he was as well, but playing a lil devil's advocate here. The results speak for themselves.
     
  4. AnotherFan

    AnotherFan Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,221
    2
    Dec 20, 2010
    From a circumstantial point of view, you can assume that Eubank was drained because he moved down in weight fast. But from a performance point of view, you can confirm that he was in fact not, because his stamina held up. That's the difference between Calzaghe vs Eubank and Ward vs Dawson.

    I agree Eubank was not peak, but a fighters peak is limited to a few, outstanding performances, and can't be used as a standard for measurement. This is a common mistake here at ESB.

    Eubank was at the end of his career, but he fought the best in Collins, Calzaghe and Thompson, and made it close. When he fought the best years earlier, in Benn, it was also close. Truth is, Eubank was never untouchable. Going from just barely beating the best, to just barely losing to them tells us only the best were able to handle him. That's why the win shouldn't be downplayed.
     
  5. C.J.

    C.J. Boxings Living Legend revered & respected by all Full Member

    46,772
    15,889
    Apr 14, 2009
    Look let Slappy Calzaghe stay where he is Sniffin. Drinkin, Whoring & chasing & killing innocent little rabbits. He isn't wasn't & never ever will be an ATG The biggest hype job in years
     
  6. des3995

    des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,903
    126
    Oct 23, 2009
    That's part of the problem as i see it. Well, had he had better prep, perhaps he would have won the Calzaghe fight, even at that compromised stage of his career. If so, then what? Because he went the distance...... That to me isn't indicative of any great accomplishment. Eubank was a tough customer. But at that stage it was akin to many fighters who beat other fighters who are clearly on the downside or nesr the end. In most cases, it's a rite of passage, not a moment of ultimate glory as some would have us believe. Would prime Eubank have lost to that Calzaghe? If so, would we even be having this conversation about Calzaghe? Would an even marginally more prepared Eubank have won?

    The fact that his resume is thin enough that it relies so firmly on his very first step up vs any kind of quality opponent (because before that it was only weak, as is the case with most up and comers, and after that it was weak for a long time), is evidence enough to make me at least question where all the other red flags would lead when it comes to Calzaghe.(the weak resume, the "fear of flying", the RJJ quotes, the regional competition, the far too often unworthy competition, the sbo exclusivity, the finally stepping up 9 years into the wbo title reign) And that first step up is itself drawn into question by the undeniable circumstances surrounding it. Where there is smoke there is often fire. It just seems, maybe not with you, but it just seems that with the vast majority of the Calzaghe defenders always tow the line that the smoke is always someone else's doing.
     
  7. AnotherFan

    AnotherFan Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,221
    2
    Dec 20, 2010
    He he ... Well, you may be on to something here. With some boxers, there's no real questionmarks to sort out about their accomplishments. It's no coincidence that Carl Froch is more respected on ESB than Joe Calzaghe, even though Calzaghe had more success. I don't think Calzaghe was particulary fond of challenging himself, but he didn't want to miss out on big cash within his reach either. And since he could fight, he ended up with some solid accomplishments to his name.

    I think you have a point about "rite of passage", there is that feeling to it. Still, Eubank was no older than 31 and had only lost to Collins previously. Beating him can't be written off. The victory over Hopkins can't be written off either, due to Hopkins fallowing accomplishments, even though it was a bizarre affair all together.

    Thus, the legend of Calzaghe came to be. Funny world, aint it?

    Considering the fight with Eubank, I don't think the amount of preparation played a key part. How do you prepare for a weirdo like like Calslappy when he means business? What else is there to do than fighting it out? I don't think Calzaghes resume is all that thin. He needed the wins over Eubank, Kessler and Hopkins for the claim to greatness, but the thing is, you don't beat everyone that's put in front of you unless you're special. Calzaghe had several opportunities to screw up since he faced good but not great fighters like Omar Sheika, Byron Mitchell and Jeff Lacy, but it just wasn't meant to be.
     
  8. UniversalPart

    UniversalPart Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,589
    11,749
    Jul 1, 2010
    BHop

    It is not even close.


    His career spans 4 decades and has a list as long as your arm of world champion victims!

    Contrast that with Calzaghe.
     
  9. Jordan_Davies

    Jordan_Davies Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,502
    0
    Jul 28, 2011
    Calzaghe's reign at Supermiddleweight just about beats Hopkins at Middleweight

    Hopkins MW - Highlights

    Two bloated Welterweights
    Glen Johnson
    Loss to Roy Jones
    Draw/Win over Mercado
    Undisputed Champion
    Two losses to Jermain Taylor
    10 year reign

    21-3-1 in MW title fights

    Calzaghe SMW - highlights

    Past Prime Eubank (not shot)
    Robin Reid
    Sakio Bika
    Jeff Lacy
    Mikkel Kessler
    Undisputed Champion
    10 year reign

    22-0

    Hopkins light heavyweight reign and record breaking wins are the only reason id have him ahead of Calzaghe despite suffering two losses, a draw and a NC. his longevity is by far his most impressive acomplishment.
     
  10. HerolGee

    HerolGee Loyal Member banned Full Member

    41,974
    4,028
    Sep 22, 2010
    Eubank was a stand-in from the wrong division, for a vacant title. chris was good in his time, even very good, but clearly he wasn't interested in winning that wbo title again. it wasn't a great win in the slightest, simple a fair win. Though I agree its one of joes best ever wins true, given the paucity of his resume.

    one of joes best ever wins was against the stand-in replacement, taken from 2 divisions away, for a vacant minor title, sure.
     
  11. des3995

    des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,903
    126
    Oct 23, 2009
    Again, having to jump thru a series of hoops to reconcile a resume with a fighter just indicates, well, something is missing. Just take the circumstances at face value and go from there. Eubank had little prep time and was training for a fight at a higher weight. Calzaghe deserves credit for taking care of his business that night and every other fight night of his career, no doubt. But again, in order to give the proper credit for the Eubank fight these other factors need to be considered beyond just the name. And why, with Calzaghe having all these accomplishments under his belt all these years later, should his resume be so reliant on a fight like this?
     
  12. Enigmadanks

    Enigmadanks Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,744
    975
    Feb 5, 2009
    Calzaghe is a top 100 fighter of all time P4P.

    Bernard Hopkins is comfortably inside the top 50 all time.

    There's no reason writing up multiple paragraphs/essays on this matter. Anyone whose actually followed their careers knows their placement in the ATG rankings, and know that they're OCEANS apart.

    No disrespect to Joe, but everyone knows why he's not regarded in as favorable a light as Bernard.
     
  13. Enigmadanks

    Enigmadanks Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,744
    975
    Feb 5, 2009
     
  14. elmaldito

    elmaldito Skillz Full Member

    22,409
    6,209
    Jun 11, 2009
    hopkins outclassed calzaghie like lara outclassed canelo
     
  15. Loudon

    Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

    40,832
    10,205
    Mar 7, 2012
    AnotherFan,

    Why don't they hold up well?

    He had two fights at CW against lowly opposition, between losing to Collins and facing Joe.

    How? You said that Joe took out an A level fighter at SMW, who was one of the greatest SMW's of all time.

    How did Joe take out an A level SMW? He beat a past his best former great SMW, who'd recently been fighting at CW.

    Look at the career of Mike McCallum. He was a true ATG. But when Roy beat him at 27, it meant nothing. I know Mike was older than Eubank, but the point is, you rate a guys win on where their opponent was at the time, and what they'd done just prior, and what they went on to do afterwards.

    It has to be taken into account with all of the other factors.

    He was still a very good fighter, and as far as I'm concerned, it was a good win, and great for Joe personally. But I don't see how the likes of Bailey can claim it as a great win. It makes me laugh when he mentions that Kessler was rusty, unwell, and suffering from double vision etc when he faced Ward. Yet he'll turn a blind eye to Eubank's bad knees, his lack of preparation, and the fact that he was also faded. It's a joke. But we know why he does it. He plays down Ward's victory over Kessler, because he'd hate it if Ward got more credit than Joe. Now what do you think he'd have said if Ward had've fought the version of Eubank that Joe did? It would be hilarious. He'd be telling everyone about the 11 days notice and his bad knees etc.

    Of course he didn't, but it's still hugely important to a fighter, otherwise they wouldn't spar after they reached a certain level. Sparring is used for sharpness, timing, trying out tactics, and it helps fighters psychologically.

    Of course, but how many fight after they've had to have injections in both knees just prior to a bout?

    Why don't they hold weight?

    :good

    None of it is questionable, and everything I've noted is factual.

    Maybe Joe could have beaten a prime Eubank, who'd have fought to his full capabilities? I think Joe was that good, that it's more than possible that he could have beaten Eubank, Benn, Watson, and Collins. But we don't know for sure, and you have to be objective when rating a fighters win.

    Again, I've no arguments if someone labelled the win either as a very good one, or as a great one, for Joe and his fans.

    But I just don't see how it was great overall.

    Was Collins's win over Eubank great? Also, Eubank was extremely lucky to have been undefeated when he fought Collins. He'll tell you himself that he lost to Benn and Schommer, and the Ray Close fight was close. So that needs to be taken into account, when you say that Joe beat a guy, who'd only ever been defeated by one fighter prior to their bout.

    I don't know what you mean, when you say all I can dig up is his wear and tear and his lack of preparation? Are they not significant? If he was faded, and he'd left the division to fight at CW, and had hardly any time to prepare for a southpaw at a weight he hadn't hit for two years, then it was a huge ask for him.


    :good