the truth about bhop and calzaghe...

You don't have any mexicans to cheer for so you jock a retired coward.

 

:good:good:good:good:goodWell said. The blind hate shown by a few knobjockeys on ESB towards Calzaghe is staggering.

 

:good:good:good good post

Manny Stewart/ Teddy Atlas etc agrees...which says quite a lot in my book.

 

Use some ****ing paragraphs! We've heard all this kind of thing before from disgruntled Joe fans. There was absolutely no incentive for Hopkins to fight Joe for a WBO. Maybe if Joe had been a little more proactive in cleaning out his own division he may have been a more attractive proposition for Nard. What evidence can you offer to suggest he would have earned more money fighting Joe than Tarver?

The stuff about the fight is opinion. Some favour Nard's cleaner work, some favour Joe's workrate and aggression. All I know is that Joe wasn't too keen on a rematch. People need to put this to bed and definitely stop making condescending threads that start "the truth..." because seldom is it so. You're offering an opinion and a poorly constructed one at that.

 

hooooo boy...atsch

 

against a drained tarver from the 220 he was for the Rocky Balboa.

not in mine.


hopkins , jones , calzaghe , kessler are all very over-rated fighting only old/smaller/drained/shot (or a combination of these) oponents and making a career out of it. jones at least is smart for choosing great names. and having the greatest talent between these 4 , kessler fought nobody and i'd say his 2 biggest wins - for him are : 1. andrade 2. Thobella (Yes , i know and i mean : for him -relative to the rest of KESSLER's wins)

jones at least fought a peak tarver 3 times.
who did hopkins fight ? trinidad who started 147 ? dlh who started 130 ? a drained tarver without a rematch ? wright who started 154 at 170 , and still having to headbutt him early in order to win on points ?

 

Hopkins clearly won the fight. Get over it. If you don't think one punch that lands is better than four that don't you shouldn't be a boxing fan.

 

There are so many things wrong with this post, I don't know where to start.

Joe Calzaghe was an obscure WBO belt holder from Wales, who was reluctant to travel anywhere, or face anyone with a pulse. The idea that Bernard a) should have gone to Wales to fight him and b) would have made more money doing so, is bizzare - you really think Calzaghe, a guy who'd never fought in the US had a higher profile than Antonio Tarver, coming off the back of 3 fights and 2 victories over Roy Jones?

There was nothing clear about the Hopkins-Calzaghe fight. I personally scored it to B-Hop by a point. I don't have a problem with people who saw it the same, but for Calzaghe. It was a close fight, one or two points maxium in it. You come up with a score like 115-112 for Calzaghe, and then accuse OTHER people of being "blind"? How ironic - perhaps you should learn how to score a fight correctly?

Hopkins' lossses to Taylor and Calzaghe came about because he was outworked by younger men with better stamina. While he still controlled the fight, slipped a lot of punches, and caught a lot on his gloves, they were able to have a higher punch output than Hopkins - because Hopkins is a man approaching his mid-40's. The idea that the version of Hopkins than fought Calzaghe is "the best" or "close to prime" is ridiculous. Hopkins still has many of the stylistic attributes that made him a great fighter, but what he doesn't have is workrate and stamina.

The Bernard Hopkins that fought Trinidad was prime B-Hop, end of story.

 

oh , i forgot , hopkins also beat a pavlik who came from 160 , and to this day doesn't plan on 168 , at 170 , and is considerring fighting williams who started 147. he's so p4p.

 

delete

 

Would you care to explain to the group why you don't consider Trinidad a legitimate middleweight?

Or why Winky's size and weight were so important to the way he fought?

Or perhaps you'd care to elaborate on why size and weight were significant to DLH's tactics in the Hopkins fight?

 

people talk like calzaghe was in his prime when they fought. no way, i dont think a prime calzaghe would have got beaten up by a 43 year old man, in his prime he was pretty good. neither was he prime against jones, a prime calzaghe would not have been put on his ass by a shot to bits jones, although im not 100% sure. nah calzaghe wasnt near his prime.

 

Calzaghe was prime, or very close to it.

 

1. trinidad was good 160 when they fought simply because the others sucked. he was better than a weak 160 division.
there is nothing brilliant in trinidad's technique.
2. only 2 years before their fight he was 147 , and that's for as long as 6-7 years before he came up to 154. so he didn't grow fast all of the sudden. maybe he outgrew the 147 division , but certainly not the 154 back then , he simply felt unstoppable and wanted to extend his legacy by something as lucrative as being the 160 champion after being the 147 and the 154 champion. trinidad could stay at 154 instead of fighting hopkins.

certainly not as important as the headbutt hopkins gave him

i wonder if the body-punch that finished dlh could have done the same against a legit 160.

 

Calzaghe OWNS Hopkins,that is the bottom line