Who ranks higher All time? Hopkins or Calzaghe?

it was a split decision versus a 40something.

so either you accept your truth, or you accept the truth of others.

Either way, you lose. but you should choose.

 

I thought the first was 8-4 and the second was 7-5. I'd consider the first a robbery and the second a controversial decision.

 

And Floyd's 12-0 shutout of Canelo was a MD. It should have been a clear UD over a unique 40 something who was in the best stretch of his career :nod

 

calzaghe bragging about versing 40somethings shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as money canelo. its more like canelo facing 40something ray leonard - which he would never do of course. hes just not that cowardzaghe.

but more to the point - have you chosen yet? hurry up.

 

Yep already chose a few posts back. Hopkins 0-1 against Zaggers and 2-0 against Taylor. :deal

 

If you really believe this bull feces then you REALLY DKSAB do ya. How do you choose the winner of a fight? Who has the nicest shorts?? Hopkins won all 3 EASY!!!!atsch

 

:nono

 

u choose to reverse to very close decisions therefore you can accept Hopkins beat calzaghe, you must choose one or the other. you cannot lie, especially to yourself.

choose again.

 

:nono

Applying universal laws like that is silly. Each fight is it's own case and should be ****yzed as such. Calzaghe beat Hopkins, Hopkins beat Taylor twice. That is my choice and I'm sticking with it. :good

 

:good I agree 100%

 

no this is about your integrity.


you cant chop and choose - if you allow a set of rules to be bent for one fight, you must allow the rules to be bent for other fights, since others have views different from yours.... or else you lie only to yourself for all to see.

You are not a dictator - you don't have the luxury to pretend things are right.

if you choose Hopkins beat taylor, then you MUST allow for Hopkins beating calzaghe .... so by aiming to prove calzaghe>Hopkins you are thwarted by your own argument, you are at best trapped between unfavourable choices. Like the Lewis Carroll crocodile.

At worst you proved the opposite of what you wanted to.

 

Nope. I am simply saying what I believe. I scored that 5 fight stretch thusly...

Taylor I W
Taylor II W
Tarver W
Winky W
Calzaghe L
Pavlik W

And if he hadn't fought Zaggers and lost after Winky it would have been the greatest 5 win fight streak of his career based off of who I thought won the fights. I'm not saying everyone has to agree with my scorecards. But I had Hopkins winning all 5 of those fights and losing clearly to Joe. I am well aware that some people think B Hop beat Joe. I disagree and think those people are not very good at scoring fights. That's all. You're the one trying to make it about absolutes. This is not a matter of integrity. It is a matter of opinion.

If you think that same 6 fight stretch looks like this...

Taylor I L
Taylor II L
Tarver W
Winky W
Calzaghe W
Pavlik W

Then you would probably not rate Calzaghe's performance as highly as I do. That's your right and it is mine to rate it according to the form I saw from Hopkins at the time. :good

 

and others score Hopkins calzaghe how they believe.

if you want people to take on board your view because fight results don't tell the whole story, you must accept there is credence to the views of others about other fight results. You must accept that Hopkins can be scored to have beaten calzaghe, if others are to accept that Hopkins beat taylor.

I personally score the fight to post prime joe by a whisker over 40something bernard, but would have no problem with the fight going to bern, since his aggression and defence was a lot more effective than joes massively amounted but largely ineffective aggression - theres definitely a case for Bernard to have drawn or whiskered it.

 

why should you chop and change your rules depending on whether you like a fighter or not? the way you judge fights should be consistent, else you devalue your appraisal.

 

Did you not read my comment? I said exactly this. That I respect anyone's right to score the fights the way they saw them. I said I accept someone thinking that Hopkins lost twice to Taylor and beat Zaggers. I would not think that person was a very good judge of boxing matches but I would accept their right to the opinion and I would understand that someone who thought Hopkins lost once or twice to Taylor would not consider B Hop to be in the same run of form going into the Joe fight that I do and, as a result, would not rate Joe's performance whether they thought Joe won or lost.

As you are aware, in my opinion the correct results were wins over Taylor and a loss to Calzaghe and that impacts what I think of Hopkins form at the time and, accordingly, the quality of Joe's performance. I'm not enforcing this opinion on anyone and I'm respecting yours. It's you who doesn't want to acknowledge that I am entitled to interpret the situation as I do.