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

People act like Joe was in his prime when they fought, actually Joe's speed and reflexes were not what they once were and neither was his power. If anything, moving back in time favors Calzaghe, because his game relies more on speed and agility while Hopkins relies more on textbook boxing skills, and his hands would not be as damaged

Joe is still the only boxer who has actually outsmarted Hopkins in the past decade plus, which is something that Hopkins and his fans can't come to grips with. Calzaghe came out trying to mix it up and make it a fight but Hopkins refused to do so, instead clinching repeatedly and throwing one punch at a time and catching Joe with counters. This is a classic Hopkins tactic. The other guy tries to be aggressive but Hopkins refuses to let him do so by clinching and landing sneaky counter punches, turning the fight into an ugly, dirty fight contested at a slow pace which favors him.

But instead of falling into Hopkins trap as most fighters do, Joe decided to stop trying to mix it up and merely land punches regardless of whether they did damage or not. Calzaghe haters/Hopkins fans tried to deride him for not hurting Hopkins, but Hopkins wasn't hurting him either and Joe was landing many times more shots. He completely took away Hopkins jab and lead right hand. For the last 8 rounds Hopkins was totally befuddled and had no answer for what Joe was doing. If Joe was so ineffective then why did Hopkins look dazed, walk to the wrong corner, and resort to trying to get cheap point deductions by shameless acting?

In 2002 the speed difference would've been arguably greater than it was. The rest of the matchup is basically the same. People try to act like Hopkins was shot, yet the Calzaghe fight was sandwiched between two of the best performances of his career which kind of kills that argument.

 

two of the best performances of his career? what the hell are you smoking? those were great career wins. def. not his best performances.

go watch hopkins vs. echols II, jonhson, trinidad, allen II, etc. if you wanna see peak hopkins

and calzaghe and hopkins both looked like crap that night.

 

Given the caliber of opponent and the weight class, yes they were two of the best performances of his career.

Echols and Allen? They aren't even close to upper level opponents. Beating either of them doesn't mean a whole lot. Neither of them ever even won an alphabet soup title. And Tito was a much smaller man fighting at a severe stylistic disadvantage

Tarver was a legitimate, quality light heavyweight who had been undisputed champ at that weight. Pavlik was an undefeated, big middleweight who had decisively beaten a guy who had defeated Hopkins twice. Those wins are much more meaningful, and came against much more credible opponents

 

Hopkins was still in his prime in 2002, so Hopkins beats Calzaghe convincingly. Hopkins was past his prime in 2004.

 

Still a much younger Hopkins would beaten Tarver and Pavlik more impressively. Hopkins in 2005 started to get real sloppy, his physical skills eroded which was evident against Howard Eastman, that same year he lost to Taylor twice. Hopkins used to be a well schooled boxer from the beginning of his career-2003.

 

Hopkins would have put a hurtin on Joe in 2002, it would have looked like a man vs. a boy

 

Calzaghe would win on neutral ground. Win clearly in Wales and it would be close in the US, with a possibility that Hopkins could get the win although the punch stats will show that Calzaghe threw 4 times more than Bernard and landed double of Bernard.

 

People must have forgot the fighter that bernard used to be

 

He matches up poorly against Calzaghe at any point in his career. People can say Hopkins was past it but his performances against Tarver and Pavlik indicate he was not nearly as far gone as the excuse makers claim

People also seem in denial that Calzaghe was faster, more agile, had better reflexes and was a better puncher in 2002 than he was in 2008. They are acting like moving the fight back to 2002 means that only Hopkins would improve. Calzaghe is one of the few boxers whose instincts and ring smarts can match Bernard's, his versatility and awkward style make him nearly impossible to adequately train for, and he has a decisive advantage in speed and workrate over Hopkins at any point in time when both were active. There's a reason Calzaghe looked better than anyone else has against Hopkins since Roy Jones

 

got to agree . however Hopkins was a bomber in his younger days but by 2002 he was taking a more methodical approach. however i see joe c beating him as well and if his hands were good . hopkins won't be to quick to trade punches. joe just has the style to beat most other styles . just ask all his opponets. he beats hopkins clearer then in when they did fight. alot of people seem when always bringing up a joe c fight they always take the b-hop, Rjj, kessler or lacy fights when infact he had already slipped by then a by alot in the Rjj and b-hop fights. joe was quick and had above average powers . although he started to have hands problem sat that time they weren't as bad as they were when he did fight b-hop. Joe c from 2002 is just better then b-hop. (not a knock against b-hop as i am abig fan a love watching his brutal Ko of Joe Lispy and his methodical break down of TITO) .

 

Hopkins was able to counter joe, he just didnt have the enery to follow up, different story in 2002, vastly different story if they had met in the 90's

 

Jones, Toney, and Hopkins would all be able to do it but I would only favor Jones against him. His footspeed, angles and handspeed would give Toney fits. On the other hand, Toney's power and counter punching skills would present Joe with some significant trouble. Ultimately, I would take Joe on a thin decision, because he was much more versatile and better ad******g than James, who had the tendency to get very frustrated when things weren't going his way (see Tiberi, Thadzi, and of course Jones)

Jones is faster than him and had much better power, but Joe's workrate and awkwardness would make it a much tougher fight for Roy than anyone he fought between Hopkins and Tarver. I would pick Jones to beat him by decision but a hard earned one

Hopkins-Calzaghe is always going to be a close fight, I just think that placing it earlier in time doesn't change much. The advantages for each man remain the same and if anything, moving the fight back in time favors Joe because his punching power was much better earlier in his career

I think Johnson gives Calzaghe a tough fight, but he doesn't really have the tools to beat him. He's not going to outwork him, he's not going to outbox him, and he doesn't have the power to stop him

 

WTf why do peopel seem to think that B-hop in 2002 would be facing the same joe c from 2008. its utter Bull****. JOe C by 2008 had already slipped quite a bit and was not punching properly. sorry But joe from 2002 gets a wider win then he did in 2008. and no hopkins was not able to handle joe technically for 12 round joe had him confused and holding by round 3 and took off by round 5. please matchit properly joe c from 2002 is many times over better then joe c form 2008

 

In 2002, Joe's reflexes and speed were noticeably better. He was harder to counter back then. And Hopkins was not able to counter him effectively after the first few rounds. People are always able to counter Joe early in fights because he fights recklessly. If someone is able to hit him with a shot that gets his attention, suddenly he's not getting countered anymore because he adjusts accordingly. That has happened in numerous Calzaghe fights