If Hopkins challenged and fought Calzaghe at 168 in 2002, but in US...

Where I disagree with this is that Hopkins was effective when he opened up he just didnt do it enough.

 

Marion, at least there was less hate toward JC in that post than usual.

 

An older Hopkins gave Joe all he could handle. With many believing Hopkins either won or it was a really close fight. A younger, fresher Hopkins would be able to deal with Calzaghe much more better.

 

I wouldn't pick against Calzaghe, simply because he out-thought and out-fought everyone he faced. I'm not confident that any version of Hopkins could handle him.

 

He would have got his ass whooped. Hopkins in 2002 was only slightly better whereas Calzaghe was in his prime.

 

..
________
Novana Residence Condo Pattaya

 

I agree. Most people say "well Hopkins would have been better". Well yea, but you have to remember the Calzaghe that Hopkins fought wasn't near his prime either. Calzaghe used to punch much harder earlier in his career. Later his hands had been broken many many times and were his main enemy.

 

Is Hopkins being underrated here, just because he was beaten in their actual fight?

Or Calzaghe's style is just all wrong for Hopkins? Even if they fought earlier in 2002?

 

i don't know, but if we went back in time right now with what we know, i would pick hopkins. tough fight for either guy at any time though. it would probably be another split decision only the other way around.

 

Calzaghe, gets a UD for me.

 

Stop talking about Calzaghe. Guy is retired and that was the best thing for boxing to have happened in a long while. I can't think of a more unskilled fighter, who has ducked so many opponents. Oh wait Mr. Haye. Please Britain provide us more hype.
Hopkins TKO 3

 

Calzaghe dont want No Mo of Nard even in his own backyard. He knows if he does Bang goes Slappy's 0

 

You can't be that foolish, CJ.

If Bernard couldn't win it in HIS backyard, in Joe's first fightb at light-heavy, how the **** do you think he would win in Wales ?



He had a US location.

A US Ref.

Three US judges.



Bernard won two rounds on all three score-cards

Joe won four rounds on all three score-cards.


Of the remaining six rounds, Joe won five on two of the three cards and Bernard won one on two of three cards.

Alltogether, 9 rounds to three.

Three US judges.

Harold Lederman: "Nine rounds to three for Calzaghe"

Manny Stewart: "This wasn't a hard fight to score."


While most of the rounds were close, the fight wasn't.

116-111 was the most reasonable score.


Bernard didn't win in America with three US judges and a US ref, facing a guy fighting at 175 for the first time and who needed the first three or four rounds to figure him out.

But some think he could win a rematch in Wales ?

Bernard was very upset at losing to Taylor. He got his rematch and the fight went down pretty much like the first one.

Why would Calzaghe 2 be different ?

If he'd let his hands go against Calzaghe the way he did against Pavlik, things would have been different ?

So Bernard just learned how to let his hands go the night he fought Kelly ?



If Liston had just nailed Clay the way he nailed Patterson, he could have beat him ?


Calzaghe is not Pavlik. They're not even in the same general league.

I predicted that Bernard would beat Kelly (Though the margin surprised me).


If Calzaghe's 'slaps' were so ineffective, why didn't Bernard just walk through them.

(See what Lacy and Jones had to say about those slaps !)


One guy came confidant into the other guy's back yard and came to win, so he didn't care who the judges were.

The other came to survive.

:deal

 

:good

 

I'd pick the 2008 version of Hopkins to be the 2002 version of Hopkins 10 times out of 10. i,e Hopkins was a better boxing in 2008 than 2008. He certainly wouldn't have lost twice to Taylor. Hopkins wasn't as good in 2002, but looked better knocking out little guys like oscar.
2002 would also be a A younger, fresher faster, harder hitting Calzaghe compared one who couldn't punch in 2008.