Who ranks higher All time? Hopkins or Calzaghe?

Hopkins is in a division above calzaghe, they ought not to be compared.

 

Yes he was, then Zaggers moved up to that division and beat him :deal

 

division as in premier and championship, so no, flop mate.

 

Good example, I agree :good Zaggers is just like Derby County or Nottingham Forrest under Brian Clough. Both moved up a division and became champions by beating the best. :deal

 

Fixed it for ya Duckie :rofl:rofl

 

Slappy Joe aint fit to shine Bernards shoes

 

no, Nottingham forest won the biggest title against prime teams, not a magazine trinket intertoto thing against a team of 40somethings.

Brian Clough would never turn up against a team of 40somethings, it would be too cowardly.

nor did joe ever "step up"apart from when he found he had done nothing all his career.

 

And Zaggers won the biggest title from a man who sandwiched 3 of his very best wins in his entire career around a Zaggers loss, i.e. "prime".

 

no, Hopkins 3 wins were not his best, but they are all sandwiched between 3 losses and a DQ that he was looking to be losing, something that hadn't happened in the previous 15 years with Hopkins..so his form had dropped, only a fool would argue not.

However this coincided with joes fear of flying getting magically cured for him to go fight non-weakling americans. joe had the timing of it, by some bizarre stroke of "luck".

 

Winky, Tarver, Pavlik are 3 of B Hop's very best wins. And Winky and Tarver came right after the 2 Taylor robberies, so coming off of the best 4 win streak of his career B Hop lost to Zaggers. Then schooled Pavlik his very next time out. B Hop didn't lose again after Zaggers until 2012. :deal

Take out the Zaggers loss (no shame in losing to an unbeatable man) and change the sh*tty Taylor decisions to wins and find a better 5 fight streak than this for B Hop in his career...

Taylor I
Taylor II
Tarver
Winky
Pavlik

 

change the decisions? are you having a laugh. change facts to lie your way to winning an argument? why you resorting to that?

like, just as easily change the Hopkins/calzaghe decision. yup, you destroy your own argument.

 

No, because the Zaggers decision was clearly correct and the Taylor decisions were clearly wrong. Knowledgeable boxing fans know this :deal

 

I had Hopkins winning the first fight and losing the second. Very close though, in no way were either "robberies"

 

knowledgeable boxing fans don't reverse decisions.

now, either you can accept this, OR you can accept reversing close decisions and thus that Hopkins beat calzage too. an older version than taylor fought, that is.

either way, you lose.

 

Nope because Zaggers win was clear and Taylor's we're not :nod