Who had the more impressive wins Calzaghe or Hatton?

I think RJJ beats Calzaghe, maybe by stoppage but Hopkins new at 168 after fighting welterweights at 160 could well have problems with JC.

 

the only reson calzaghe had stayed undefeated is that frank warren picked the right fights at the right time for calzaghe warren did that all of calzaghe career

 

no one of his era beats roy jones, he made a fight against the most skilled fighter of his generation the most one sided "competitive" title fight

Hopkins never beats prime JC and RJJ, they do exactly what he struggles with, (workrate, speed, unconventional)

 

Probably not and that is why he showed his class by taking the fight his own direction rather than fighting Kesslers fight and rolling the dice IMO :bbb

 

:nono Admittedly he did fight some former welterweights but he also fought every middleweight contender going. The fights prior to the unification series were all solid 160 men.

Anyway, some great comments on this thread. I agree with people with regards to the 'filler' in Calzaghe's career. There were a lot of politics in the division but was enough to overcome those politics? It's debatable.

Hatton was prepared to take the greater risks but then the financial rewards were there for him in a way that they weren't for Joe. As HOYA-UK alluded to, Calzaghe was something of an enigma mentally so who really knows how he felt about a lot of these things.

 

He almost beat him when they did fight. The young Hopkins was a buzzsaw of a fighter who definitely would not have struggled with the workrate. Watch the first Echols fight for an example of what I'm talking about. The Johnson fight is a good one to watch too.

 

Calzaghe!

 

Yeah, it was as unfair of me to post that statement (I'd been on the Carling!!) but I do think its fair to say that Hopkins best defences were against guys coming up from a 147 and the genuine middleweights he did defend against were a very average bunch (not Hopkins fault, he beat the guys that were around at the time).

 

Johnson wasn't average but I take your point. The difference between Hopkins' and Calzaghe's reigns at 160 and 168 respectively were that Hopkins did come through the politics and won, and defended, the unified title. He also didn't have an equivalent of Beyer and Ottke missing from his resume. Up until the Taylor loss he was the clear king of his division. Calzaghe was the best of his division but cleaning it out was a culmination of his career there as opposed to an ongoing thing.

 

I suppose the main difference between those two scenarios is that Trinidad and De La Hoya are not as good as Hearns and Ray Leonard. I totally take your point though and the Trinidad fight especially was historically important for boxing. Great fight as well!

 

Calzaghe - Kessler, Hopkin, Jones, Eubank, Lacy


thimply the betht

 

Yup, but I just feel Calzaghe allowed himself to be avoidable if you see what I mean? An obscure WBO beltholder, no matter how skilled, is fairly easy to ignore if one should choose to do so.