Who has the greater legacy, Joe Calzaghe or Bernard Hopkins?

Hopkins needs to fight Kessler if he ever wants a rematch with Joe Calzghe it's obvious.He needs to prove that he can take him like Joe did otherwise ,he can forget it.

 

Saying Trinidad was a "blown-up ww" smacks of agenda to me.

I don't recall you or anyone else (that isn't a moron) degrading Monzon's wins over Griffith, Napoles and Benvenuti (the cornerstone of the resume of one of the best mw's in history) or Hagler's wins over Hearns, Duran and Mugabi by the same token.

Trinidad was a very big, very strong ww who easily made the transition to lmw and mw. If you look at his physical stats, he was huge for a ww, big for a lmw, and a perfectly standard sized mw - he was giving away only very slight size advantages to Hopkins on the night, no bigger than the average size disparity between any two fighters who are naturals in the same weight division, and considerably less than the size advantages often enjoyed by guys who are naturally big for their own weight division like Pavlik, Margarito, Williams etc.

In Trinidad's last 2 fights before Hopkins, he demolished unbeaten lmw champion Fernando Vargas (a big guy for a lmw, a powerpuncher, and also someone who may have been benefitting from performance-enhancing substances for all we know) and then dominated and KO'd natural mw and mw world champion William Joppy (a man who split his career between mw and smw, and who natural mw's Hopkins and Jermain Taylor failed to stop).

On the evidence, labelling him a "blown-up ww" is unfair and inaccurate IMO. He was a guy who started off as a huge ww, moved up the weight easily because of his size, and had already proved to be a powerpuncher and a quality operator at both lmw and mw.

It does a little, but not catastrophically so. Trinidad was never the same after the beating he took by Hopkins, and Wright was one of the best fighters of his era and crucially one of the best defensive fighters of his generation. He was beaten by Wright, but this was not the catastrophe that losing to a merely decent fighter or looking terrible against shite opposition would have been. Tito was still putting away decent big guys like Mayorga and Cherifi in style at the higher weight - natural lmw's Vernon Forrest, Fernando Vargas and Cory Spinks as well as Shane Mosley all failed to beat Mayorga so comprehensively.

Hopkins's resume was better than Calzaghe's up till that point, but only slightly. I don't think Calzaghe's can be said to be equal when you consider that:

- Antwun Echols knocked out Charles Brewer in 3

- Antwun Echols had UD'd Kabary Salem

- Keith Holmes had stopped Richie Woodhall

- Howard Eastman UD'd Evans Ashira (though I think this may have been later than '04)

The general standard of Hopkins's opposition was slightly stronger - and since then it has been a no-brainer I'm sure you will agree, thus proving (to me at least) that Hopkins's resume is significantly stronger.

Gives him the edge on what? Resume? Legacy? Both?

That's odd as I'm sure you said after Hopkins's win over Pavlik that Hopkins had the better resume/legacy.

Are you saying that you think Calzaghe has a better resume? Seriously? Even for a Calzaghe fan I find that difficult to believe.

Hopkins Top 5 Wins:
- TRINIDAD (win & performance of the decade IMO, against WBA mw champ, 3 weight world champ, 40-0 record, world p4p#3)
- TARVER (age 40+ coming off losses jumps 2 weight divisions and dominates linear lhw champ)
- PAVLIK (stunning win & performance against undefeated p4p#5 KO artist, 34-0)
- WRIGHT (becomes 1st man in 8 years to beat the 'best defence in boxing' who was also p4p#5)
- G.JOHNSON/DE LA HOYA/HOLMES, pick one of those three

Calzaghe Top 5 Wins:
- KESSLER (superb win in unification fight, Kessler has not proven to be anything yet other than a very good short-term alphabet champ at his own weight - a bit like Pavlik in that respect - but he does look an excellent smw)
- HOPKINS (the crux of my problem with Calzaghe's resume. I cannot see how he deserved the decision over Hopkins who rendered him ineffective to the point of impotent all night. Calzaghe hardly landed a clean punch the entire night and won purely on workrate against a more skilled opponent who had obvious stamina issues at age 43. HOWEVER, even if you think Calzaghe did deserve the decision as many do in this workrate-oriented age, no-one can say this was a great performance, or even a good one. Calzaghe was outskilled and relied purely on workrate/activity/volume to rack up the points he did win, he did not score with any clean or effective work. I viewed him as a less skilled operator after this fight on this evidence)
- LACY (wonderful performance against an overhyped and severely limited fighter. In all fairness, a win over Lacy would be one of the fights in contention for Hopkins's 5th best win)
- EUBANK (the most overrated win in recent boxing history. Eubank had fought twice in 2 years before his fight with Calzaghe, two exhibition fights in Asia and Africa, and this was after losing to Collins twice. He was no longer ranked in the smw top 10 by The Ring. He was rustier than the Titanic, basically in semi-retirement before he got an offer to fight for the title at short notice because of his name)
- MITCHELL/JONES, pick the last one from those two (I see Mitchell as a vastly superior win to the shameful farce of the Jones fight, but I realize many do not)


Hopkins's best wins are clearly superior, and that's not bias, they are to any knowledgable boxing fan. I can only assume that a belief that Calzaghe's resume is superior is that while Hopkins has had better wins and has beaten more quality fighters, his losses drag him down. Fair enough, but like Ali's resume is better than Marciano's, I still feel Hopkins's is far stronger. His only losses have been to peak RJJ (who would have demolished anyone 1993-2003, he would certainly have defeated Calzaghe handily at any point 1997-2003 if Calzaghe had even had the balls to take the risk for a big fight and face prime RJJ), to Taylor (I think Hopkins won one and lost one of the two - would Calzaghe at age 40 have done better against Kessler??) and to Calzaghe (which enhanced many peoples' views of Hopkins's ability as he outskilled the younger fresher man but lost as he couldn't hack the pace anymore at his age).



In addition to all of these points regarding resume, Hopkins was the first man to unify all 4 major titles in one division, and he reigned as undisputed champion while also reigning as world p4p#1 - two things Calzaghe never achieved. He was also a superior fighter in terms of h2h/ability (2001-4 Hopkins beats any version of Calzaghe, as that Hopkins had the skill of the version that Calzaghe fought but was free from the stamina issues that plagued him at age 43).

In addition to Calzaghe's feeble resume which he constructed almost exclusively in Wales for 9 years from 1997-2006, he only unified in his 9th year as champion (a 9-year WBO reign severely damages his legacy surely), and he NEVER held all 4 belts at one time - he was never undisputed champion.

Also, Hopkins must surely be credited for his special achievements over the age of 40. Many many great fighters have achieved great things between their mid-20s and mid-30s, but how many fighters have had the skill and the drive to be still competing at world class level and confounding the critics at over 40 years of age?

Hopkins will be remembered in the history of this sport as a legend in the mould of Archie Moore for this 40+ achievements. Once he no longer had the physical gifts of speed and stamina (physical tools which the comparatively unskilled artisan Calzaghe relies so so heavily on), he has relied a lot more on just pure boxing skills. And what a historic and supreme job he is doing of it.


Joe Calzaghe has only really truly impressed me for one half of one fight in his underwhelming career (I am impressed by quality performances against quality opposition) - the second half of the Kessler fight. He was ineffective and unconvincing v Hopkins and great against Lacy, but Lacy was not top opposition (anyone who saw Lacy's fight with Omar Sheika would agree).

For the objective fan of boxing, there really is no contest here.


IMO :bbb

 

Hopkins...by a lot

 

Hopkins by a street. I'd put Winky and Trinidad ahead of Calslappy too, he has 2 wins over 'decent' comp in Lacy and Kessler and the rest of his resume is bums and old men - one of which he lost to, Bernard Hopkins :yep

 

:yikes DINAMITA!

:rofl

On topic: Not to say Calzaghe won't have a good legacy, but I think Hopkins takes this.

 

Co-Sign

Look at the records of the two boxers being compared; for ****s sake Bernard's is far superior; I can't believe Joe has so many votes; just goes to show how many deluded huggers there are on this forum.:twisted:

 

Hopkins!

 

Hopkins.. but the fact TS has named Joe 'Calslappy' is so pathetic. I mean.. come on mate get a ****ing grip. Seriously you sound like a little child.

 

I guarantee NO AMERICAN voted for Joe. If someone has to even think about this question, somethings wrong.

 

Bhop

 

[FONT=&quot]:good [/FONT]I think rolling around on the deck holding his nuts for 5 minutes cause that was his least embarrassing option at the time helped him to survive.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

DINAMITA,

While Trinidad was very good indeed, where is the evidence to suggest that he was never truely the same after Hopkins?

He had his farewell fight in Puerto Rico, brutalized the guy (as he did all limited opponents) and retired.

When he came back, he destroyed Mayorga looking great in doing so. Granted, the opponent was hugely limited and fighting well above his natural weight but there it is. He was still destroying mediocre opposition in much the same way as he was before.

When he got in the ring with WW, he was utterly befuddled and looked awful, granted. However, it could be argued and it was argued that Tito had issues with slick boxers...ODLH for instance before he got on his bike, Hopkins of course, and WW. It is my opinion that Winky would have beaten him at any time. Still a great win for Hopkins with all this being said, but I think it's more the case that slick elite boxers always gave Trinidad hassle...rather than Hopkins ruining him.

Lacy is the same. I'm not for 1 minute saying that win is equal to Tito btw, but if you mark down Calzaghes win signficantly against Lacy for losing to Taylor surely you have to apply the same criteria to Trinidad?

To your next point: I'm glad you acknowledge that their resumes are close up until 2004, very close indeed (and infamously, Hopkins blatantly ducked Calzaghe during this time). Now, if your going to play the discrediting game opposition wise, in this respect Hopkins best win arguably up until 2004 was his awesome performance versus Johnson. Who did he lose to? Omar Sheika whom Joe Calzaghe beat of course.

I also feel that you do not acknowledge fully enough the impact of going up in weight, take the Winky Wright example. Winky was a great fighter at Jnr Middle and a skilled operator at 160....but anyone watching that fight had to note he clearly didn't carry the weight well up at the 170 catchweight wasn't it?. It was a bridge to far, and for me that win, whilst decent, lacks legitimacy was Wright was fighting well above his natural weight class. Hopkins, of course began his career at the weight and its been acknowledged for many years that he boiled down to the weight.

Furthermore, I think your picking at certain things. Never undisputed Champion? Ok. He did hold all 4 belts and one could argue with merit that he was unjustly stripped of that IBF belt, with Robert what's his face being offered a fight and not taking it.

I don't see why age comes into it either....different fighters, different styles one who relies more on physical gifts than the other. Do we laud the achievements of Lennox Lewis more than Mike Tyson because he say defeated Vitali Klitschko at an advanced age whereas Tyson destroyed Mike Spinks in his early 20s? I don't think it matters. Age should not be a factor IMO, it's the strength of the achievement in beating a certain foe that counts.

Now, Calzaghes best wins.

1. Bernard Hopkins: Landed the most punches on him than other fighter against the defensive master, this version was IMO far more skilled than the still green version that Roy Jones Junior defeated in the early 1990s. His subsequent performance versus Pavlik proved what a great fighter he still is, and Joe deserves great credit for beating a man whom nobody ever looks good against. (And yes he did beat him).

2. Mikkel Kessler: Young, undefeated, unified Champion. The heir apparent and a man who had barely lost a round in his career. Calzaghe had trouble early on, then adapted to outbox a guy who had looked near invincible in defeating guys such as Mundine, Beyer and Andrade. A great win for JC and it must not be forgotten that Joe was accused of ducking him for the longest of times.

3. Jeff Lacy: Awespiring performance against a guy regarded as Americas next big star. A knockout machine, he was the favourite coming into this fight and has never been the same since, toiling against opposition he would have previously decimated.

4. Chris Eubank: Inactive yes, but he was in training for a fight when he was drafted in at late notice to replace retiring champ Steve Collins(who ducked Calzaghe). A legend, he fought well that night and I don't think anyone who has ever watched the tape could deny that. One might argue that he was more fresh following the lay off too: he had fought some crazy amount of times like 13 in the space of 2 years or something before that.

5. Robin Reid/Byron Mitchell: Both Champions at SMW, and both very capable operators. The former really should've won an additional two belts but was blatantly robbed by the ducking machine Sven Ottke.

Add this to wins over former belt holders like Woodhall, Sheika hell even guys like Bika and you have a very decent resume.

Hopkins

1. Felix Trinidad: Rated very highly P4P and officially undefeated to that point, using ODLH's blue print, Hopkins executed a near flawless game plan to beat the young star.

2. Antonio Tarver: Very good win over the man at LHW. Big underdog, Hopkins rubbished those odds to emphatically beat the man who defeated RJJ twice.

3. Kelly Pavlik: A good win over the undefeated MW Champion. Dangerous knockout artist, Hopkins took those weapons away to comprehensively beat him.

4. Glen Johnson: Very good win over a man who would establish himself as a very real threat to anyone 160 and above. Former LHW Champion.

5. Keith Holmes: Very good MW belt holder.

Add that to wins over Vanderpool, Echols, DLH (though he was blown up and he did lose to Sturm IMO, so not good form at the weight) and Winky Wright and your left with a very strong resume.

Now, you talk about Hopkins and his amazing achievements of being P4P#1 and going up divisions etc well in the same vain, let me point out that...

1. Joe has never lost. Hopkins has faced the best competition, whether he's beaten the better competition is highly debatable. What was true, at least until he defeated Pavlik, was that he had lost to the best fighters he had ever faced in terms of their effectiveness at that weight. For instance, I would deem Jermain Taylor to be a better fighter at MW than Felix Trinidad, RJJ and Joe Calzaghe are better than any win that Hopkins has. Some might argue Tarver, but then Tarver has been beaten in the past by others and I do not believe him to be a better fighter than Taylor at MW. He certainly isn't in the league of Joe Calzaghe or Roy Jones Junior. Pavlik on the other hand, is better than Taylor so that does help, but it's still a point to consider.

2. Joe Calzaghe has the unique achievement of holding both Ring Magazine belts at 168 and 175.

3. Joe Calzaghe's best win is for me, superior to any of Hopkins wins: his victory over the old man himself.

Overall, I believe their opposition is hugely similar up until 2004 and Hopkins had a few lost years just like Calzaghe did (namely 2002 and 2003 while Calzaghe lost 2003, 2004 and 2005). It is their work since 2006 that largely defines them as greats: Hopkins has recorded huge wins over Tarver and Pavlik while Calzaghe has big wins over Kessler and Hopkins himself in addition to the great performance against Lacy.

What tips it for me is that Joe has never lost and has a better top win that Hopkins does. I can't get away from the fact that so often Hopkins came up short against the most effective fighters he faced at any given weight (Taylor, Calzaghe, RJJ).

Those are the main reasons I give Calzaghe the edge. Now it's late, and I've not did my best job here, but I do acknowledge the effort you put into this and you make some very strong points that are hard to debunk. I have did my best though (considering I'm knackered!) and it's what I truely believe.

 

You're suggesting if Hopkins fights Kessler and wins decisively or stops him that JC would then step up and make the rematch?

No need to answer. Everyone knows the answer.



re: avatar

****, it looks like Shaq fighting Steve Nash. What a size disparity.

 

B-hop fought his fair share of **** as well in his time, Antwun Echols twice, Robert Allen 3 times.

Calzaghe's resume pre-Lacy is better than B-Hops pre-Holmes.

Also, Hopkins LOST to half these 'legends' he's faced. Taylor, Jones and slappy Joe all beat him.