What does Calzaghe have to do to surpass RJJ and BHOP?

If he beats Dawson, he passes b hop in my book. For Jones cruzerweight title to tie, heavyweight to pass.

 

No what makes Calzaghe in the same league maybe better than Hopkins is his career taken as a whole,you said you only deal in facts,the facts are Calzaghe won against both.You say Hopkins beat the better fighters,who did he beat?.Plus your not taking into account his loses,if Calzaghe lost to Hopkins many the posters here would of said Calzaghe was hype and he was found out,but if Hopkins loses for some reason that doesn't effect his legacy,wheres the logic in that.?

No question Im a huge fan of Calzaghe,he is one of the best all round fighters I have ever seen,make no apologise for it,but I'm also a huge fan of Foreman and Hearns aswel.

 

The nuthugging of Hopkins in these boards know no bounds. THis even comes at the expense of belittling other fighters (Calzhage, Tito, etc). When this was done by Trinidad fans they were called trinidiots, then we had *******s and now I think we have nardtards.

I dont think the title of this thread is fair to Calz because his career is almost over and there's little he can do at this stage to further enhance his atg status. He will fight 1 last fight and retire.

THe general sentiment though is that most posters here put Joe down to make Jones and Hopkins look better - and thats quite annoying. Much as I like Hopkins - barring his loud mouth and lack of sportsmanship - I know he's a great boxer.

Joe has something that Jones and Hopkins dont have: an 0 record and a win over both. Though Jones was clearly shot, the Hopkins win has been magnified by Hopkins recent flawless effort against Pavlik.

So, I believe Jones will always be ranked higher atg than Hopkins and Calz. But I would choose Joe over Bernard because I think there is some similarity in their accomplishments.

 

Is that your only contribution to this discussion?

 

How would you respond to this post then Rock:


Bernard Hopkins

To answer this question, I'll paste in a debate Beatboxer and I had on this very subject:

Quote:
Originally Posted by

This content is protected

This content is protected

Trinidad, as good as he was, was a blown up WW though I do accept he was very good at 154 also.


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).


Quote:
Originally Posted by

This content is protected

This content is protected

Furthermore, it could easily be argued that Hopkins resume until 2004 was largely mediocre with a few notable exceptions and is wholly comparable to Calzaghes during that time. I believe you have seen my thread on the matter, and that is my opinion.



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

The general standard of Hopkins's opposition was slightly stronger despite his comp being from a lower weight class - 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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by

This content is protected

This content is protected

After the Taylor losses, he dared to be great, elite. Wins over Tarver and Pavlik added hugely to his record in my opinion. However, Calzaghe has since recorded wins over Kessler and Hopkins himself, without losing as Hopkins of course has to Taylor and Joe. It's close, as I said when comparing the two but I honestly feel that Joe's win over Hopkins gives him the edge.



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

What Joe Calzaghe can do about it now

Build a time machine, go back to 1997, and instead of hiding out in Wales for 9 years, he could have the balls to go for greatness. But if he had done so, he probably wouldn't have the zero now, as he was never on the same skill level as Jones or Hopkins anyway.

 

calzaghe never got the chance 2 unify the division because ottke didnt want 2 know thats not calzaghes problem he held wbo title for longer than hopkins and rjj held any title and then he beat kessler and unified the division hes held every title worth having in that division before moving up and beating both legends in there own back yard ENOUGH SAID!!!!!!

 

Joe has to defend the WBOgus belt another 10 yrs.

 

That's an excerpt from a debate I had with an intelligent Calzaghe fan a few months ago. I thought it was worthwhile posting again as it answers a few of the most common criticisms of B-Hop and compares him and Joe C directly. I mean what I say at the end though - for me there genuinely is no comparison. Hopkins is clearly, clearly superior - and I believe history will recognize that. Calzaghe is all smoke and mirrors. Take away the Kessler fight and what are you left with??????????

 

a lot of that post relies on P4P rankings which are complete conjecture and fantasy. They mean nothing.

 

Nah, not really much of that post. A couple of brief mentions. There's plenty more in there. You think you'd be a big Hopkins fan, considering you pray for the death of every fighter who has a "Glass Jaw". Or do you just hate everyone and everything?

 

OK then
Heres what people will say if Calzaghe were to beat these fighters.

Chad Dawson -: Too young

Glen Johnson -: Too old and wasn't that good in the first place.

B-Hops rematch -: Too old and would beat Joe in his prime

Pavlik-:Overrated and an old Hopkins beat him.

Winky Wright :- Too old and a blown up LMW

Jermain Taylor :- Pavlik beat him twice.

These aren't my opinions on these fighters,there are all good fighters.But some people wouldn't give Calzaghe any respect even if he beat the **** out of the klit brothers.

 

Shite post. You think if Joe C beat all of those fighters he wouldn't get enormous credit from all neutrals as well as deification from his own fans, and the grudging respect of the Calzaghe critics? Grow up mate.

 

Why Im wasting my time with you...I have no idea. I got the day off and am bored I guess. Oh well.

Time for me to shut you down...big time.

First let me get this out of the way...I AM A HUGE JOE CALZAGHE FAN!! I AM ALSO A HUGE HOPKINS AND JONES FAN, RESPECTIVELY!! But, what separates me from you is, I am a MUCH bigger fan of the sport. I was raised since I knew what tv was to watch boxing...my dad was a fighter (ams and in the military mostly), so he raised me that way. HELL, I have the spanish channels on my directTV so I can watch the telefutura fights...EVEN THO I DONT SPEAK A WORD OF ESPANOL!!!

Plain and simple, I bleed boxing...being american does not take away from that knowledge.

Now onto your "points".

You keep going back to this "he beat both fighters" arguement. It doesnt make any sense...we are discussing legacy here, not who beat who after their respective primes. If we were to look at it like that, then lets take a quick look at how we would have re-evaluate things.

Douglas, McBride and Williams would all be better than Tyson.
Berbeck would be better than Ali.
Joppy would be better than Duran.
Ibragimov would be better than Holyfield.
Willy Wise would be better than Chavez.
Mccall would be better than Lewis.

You see what I am getting at? It doesnt hold weight. Both are wins on Calzaghe's resume, yes...but it cant be ignored what state each of three's careers were at the opening bell of each of those fights.

Lets take a look at each man's resume for a second (I will do just Hopkins and Calzaghe, as I think even you in your insanity do not think Joe is close to Jones)...

Calzaghe - Eubank, Reid, Mitchell, Lacy, Bika, Kessler, Hopkins and Jones.

A great resume (one that gets unfairly knocked all too often).

Hopkins - Johnson, Jackson, Echols, Trinidad, Oscar, Joppy, Eastman, Wright, Tarver and Pavlik.

Another sterling resume.

Now look at the "losses" on Hopkins resume that you spoke of....but yet I have never brought up (even tho you said I did...:huh).

Debut fight...Hopkins admits a loss that happened at a weight he was not comfortable at (175), when he was fresh out of jail. Noone in their right mind considers this anything but a footnote.

Jones...one of the best fighters of all time, before both men hit their primes. No shame in that.

Taylor 1...most people feel he won this fight (myself included). This is the type of fight that is like Hagler - Leonard, where history has been very favorable to "public opinion" on who the winner was. One where Marvin gets as much credit for a win here as Leonard does.

Taylor 2...see above (I had this one a draw BTW).

Calzaghe...again, a close debatable decision by most. Calzaghe was the far busier man, but landed nothing of consequence...while Hopkins was not busy, but was the far better puncher, landing the cleaner, harder shots throughout...also displaying the better defense and dictating the pace of the fight. I had Calzaghe winning this one 8-4 minus the KD, but there were quite a few close rounds (all of which i gave to Joe on workrate).

Fact is, Hopkins easily could have Taylor x2 on his resume and Calzaghe himself. Hopefully Joe will give Hopkins the rematch he wants so he can answer the questions raised because of this fight.

Now before you start with that "Hopkins only beat smaller men" crap...let me break down what happened in these fights.

Trinidad - Hopkins was a HUGE underdog. Tito had just DESTROYED the #3 MW in the world (behind himself and Bernard). It also wasnt a matter of Hopkins losing...but what round it would happen in. Hopkins instead puts on a masterclass of boxing and Tito suddenly is a blown up WW! Funny considering Hopkins didnt even use size to his advantage in that fight, he just simply outboxed him.

Oscar - "Oscar is too fast, too skilled". Hopkins goes in and outboxes him, arguably winning every round, before being the ONLY man to stop Oscar (until Pacman). After the fight, those saying Hopkins would be outboxed suddenly turn to saying Oscar was the smaller man. Ignoring that again, size wasnt the issue in winning, skill was...and that Oscar actually OUTWEIGHED Hopkins in the ring (160-154).

Wright - Again, Bernard is the underdog...taking on the #3 p4p fighter on the planet. He wins...and suddenly its "Winky was 2.5 weight classes above his prime weight...ignoring that Hopkins himself was 2 above his...

Pavlik - Hopkins is a HUGE underdog going into this. Much like Trinidad, most people didnt feel Hop would make the final bell. Instead he puts on a virtuoso performance...and now Pavlik is one dimensional...Pavlik was 2 classes above where he is best (so was Hopkins).

None of that "smaller man" crap holds weight.

Add in that while Joe's reign as WBO champ for such a long time is amazing...it was that...a reign as WBO champ. He only unified vs Lacy...defending the IBF once and vs Kessler and NEVER defended that title (for good reasons...not a knock).

Hopkins on the other hand, was the UNDISPUTED champion at 160 and defended all of his belts quite a few times (it took time to unify fully). Any idea how many people can make the claim of holding EVERY SINGLE belt at MW? Two...Hopkins and Taylor after he beat Bernard. That is the list.

Also, look at the longevity. Hopkins is 43 years old (44 next week) and he is still considered one of the top 5 fighters in the world. Calzaghe hasnt had the chance to do that yet...and I do think he has the talent to stay at the top until he retires, but I think even he doesnt think he could sustain it for that long. Few fighter in HISTORY can match Bernard's longevity. Much like resume, skillset, achievement and h2h ability...longevity MUST be taken into account.

So to answer your statement again. I am american...AND I KNOW MY **** WHEN IT COMES TO THIS SPORT! I love Calzaghe, but do not think his legacy is close to that of Bernard Hopkins. This is not a knock on Joe...this is an observation, based on fact and history...not only nationality or media bias.

Again, fan of the sport first...fan of the fighter second. It helps alot when trying to be impartial.

 

Don't get me wrong your post did make some good points. But, P4P is like Dungeons and Dragons for Boxing fans it is all myth and fantasy. I pay no attention to P4P rankings because rarely does a fighter actually prove it. Manny in my opinion has proved his #1 ranking P4P at this time.

:good

 

You could pick so many holes in this......

for example 3 of Hopkins best wins were against lower weight guys.Johnson is mentioned as a great win but he was **** then and got beat by Sven and Sheika who isn't even mentioned in Calzaghe great wins although he beat him easily.

As for the whether Calzaghe deserved the win....check out forums from outside UK and USA and they all majority say Calzaghe won EASILY and that Hopkins just tried to cheat the win.Calling Eubanks rusty is rubbish,you need to watch the fight and listen to what Eubanks says about Calzaghe.Calzaghe wins are all against real SM's.Hopkins never travelled and lost against 5 guys.