Why I Rank Calzaghe Above Hopkins

Absolutely.

 

ROCK solid. Especially the end. It is possible to be in great and admirablecondition compared to other 43 year olds (or 47 year olds as I know ) but an age advantage can and should NEVER be dismissed as inconsequential. At this age somewhat great performances are still possible .. but, consistently superb performances are not.

 

atsch

 

What complete and utter bull****. "FACT" -

Maybe Delaney means something in the UK but he was weak domestic fare and would have been dominated, embarrassed, and put face down in 1 round by Bernard Hopkins straight out of Graterford Prison.

"Calzaghe was capable of beating people on skill or toughness prior to damaging his hands."

What an often repeated ESB myth. I wonder how Joe managed to last fifteen years going from such a renown two-fisted BANGER to crippled arm puncher?

Wonder which of those early pro career wars (if not all of them) did him in?

Was it drilling Paul Hanlon twice in the back of the head?

Was it Paul Mason slipping twice before getting knocked down (legitimately) by a punch and then the ref abruptly calling the fight in the 1st round with Mason completely fine?

Was it the one round "battle" with the completely shot Frank Minton who came in 6-16 in his last 22 fights before facing young Joe (and then went 2-10 afterwards)?

Maybe the one round war with that fat bum Robert Curry and his 33 losses?

Perhaps the TKO in the 4th of Nick Manners in which he was completely unhurt and the ref stopped the fight anyway?

Or could it have been the TKO in the 1st against Guy Stanford (who had lost 11 of 13 before that fight and then another 9 of 10 directly after) in which Joe was allowed to hold and punch and then the ref "inexplicably" stopped it early - to Stanford's surprise - at being able to call it a night (and collect the check) for so little effort expended?

Could it have been the six minutes of sparring that ended with the TKO at the end of the 2nd round when fat/overweight bum Warren Stowe just decided to quit on his stool?

Maybe the action before the bull**** ref stoppage in the 2nd round for a TKO of fat and horrible Pat Lawlor?

Can't ignore the test of Carlos Christie in that 2nd round TKO (of course, he had already been KO'd by Delaney, Catley, and Starie).

Just a random list ... don't mean to slight those TKOs against Spencer Alton, Martin Rosamond, Darren Littlewood, Karl Barwise, Mark Lee Dawson, Trevor Ambrose, Tyrone Jackson, Stephen Wilson, Anthony Brooks, Tyler Hughes, & Luciano Torres (all of which could invite similar color commentary to emphasize the absolute modesty of the accomplishment).

This line of Joe as some diverse athlete and devastating puncher (before his hand problems) based upon his pre-Eubank fights is bull.

Joe's punching prowess (if one wants to call it that) was always one of accumulation and his power was never extraordinary though he was a decent sized SMW who struggled his whole career to remain there (the unpopular, least respected, SMW stepping stone division) and avoid meeting the big boys at 175.

The truth is that Joe was just more talented, athletic, and skilled than the collection of old men, bums, old bums, fat guys, and old fat guys that make up 99.9% of those first twenty-two fights of which he got 19 TKOs and the ONLY 2 KOs of his ENTIRE CAREER.

Most everyone begins their career against soft touches and some guys rattle off a nice list of KOs/TKOs. In Joe's case, why isn't it obvious (as it sure seems evident to me) that this "accomplishment" was a complete and absolute product of the so-called competition he faced? This achievement can't be used to substantiate what "he was" before his hand problems in defending his standing vis-a-vis or in comparison to the greatest in boxing's history. This is merely evidence (at the most generous) of being more talented than local, regional, or domestic level opposition (and that includes Mark Delaney).

Who wouldn't and couldn't have also destroyed this sad sorry list of boxers/fighters?

Is this the kind of list of TKO (and I'll repeat - Joe only KO'd two fighters in 46 fights) victims you attribute to to an ATG or in determining an ATG? Really? Ever looked at Roy Jones Jr.'s list and compared them to Joe's?

You really want to go over Joe's struggles and performances in the post Eubank period (including the Eubank fight where he did great for about the first four rounds then basically caught punches with his grill for the remainder against a spent and worn Chris Eubank who had dropped weight and took that fight on very short notice)?

How about the only decent TKOs (not KOs) of fighters with a pulse were both BS ref stoppages in which a pissed off Sheika was stopped due to a cut and Parris intervened against a stumbling Mitchell with only 15 seconds on the clock in the round in which Joe got dropped HARD for the first time in his career?

No rematches were given to these decent fighters.

I could go on and on about Joe's career. Watched every single minute of it. He was a good fighter. I like Joe as a fighter - but ESB is full of revisionist BS and constant overrating of the man. Bernard Hopkins in his late 20s to early 30s would have DOMINATED any version of Joe Calzaghe.


[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

I thought it was more meaningful to mention a few specific fights and fighters than just make blanket statements. I'm not trying to be pedantic but you are. The records of Joe's opposition vis-a-vis BHOP's doesn't change anything about the horrible quality of the fighters I saw Joe fight.

How about this then .. if you think Joe is above Hopkins after watching every fight of both fighter's career and Joe's amateurish performance against the 43 year old version then you need to get in the gym because you don't know crap about athletics.

I've got other things to do .. market opens in a couple hours here in the US ...

Cheers.

 

Its impossible to reason with a person who feels Calzahge is above Hopkins because he beat him in the ring. I suppose Leon Spinks is above Muhammad Ali too?

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

I'm not interested in comparing lists, I'm not a list-maker. I've never seen your lists so I can't criticize them and I haven't criticized them. My issue was with this statement:

And it seems now that you have indeed backtracked on it somewhat, by now amending it to include the size issue since I brought up the Bowe-Holyfield example. You initially did not mention size, stating only that if two people had fought when neither was shot then that was all that counts. I am glad you have seen the folly of that statement now. There are various other factors to consider other than h2h.

It is also encouraging that you have recognized that the placings of Griffith and Napoles that you posted on this thread are in contradiction of your statement.

Do you therefore, accept that the statement was in fact bull****??

Because there are so many examples of fighters who were of comparable size and quality, but the one who did better in the h2h confrontations between them should still definitely rank lower in all-time terms, and these still either cannot or have not been explained by yourself with regard to your h2h statement:

How can you stick to this in the face of these examples:

(I can remove examples like Holmes-Spinks now because you have changed your criteria to incorporate size after I cited Holyfield and Bowe, but your statement still has many glaring flaws which will be further highlighted by more examples)


Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler

Vernon Forrest and Shane Mosley

Eder Jofre and Fighting Harada

Roberto Duran and Thomas Hearns

Roberto Duran and Wilfred Benitez

Alexis Arguello and Aaron Pryor

Carlos Ortiz and Duilio Loi

Carlos Zarate and Lupe Pintor


Obviously if you reply and say things like "Duran was past-prime and above his best weight when he fought Hearns and Benitez" then you are only further proving how silly this statement was:

Because best weight and prime years are yet another two factors in addition to size that your statement kicked to the kerb.

And another reason why your statement makes little sense is that how do you decide who is of the same standard/ability as anyone else?

OK, we can rule out Douglas and Tyson as a freak result (Douglas was never a world class operator), but how about these examples:

Juan Manuel Marquez and Freddie Norwood
Juan Manuel Marquez and Chris John
James Toney and Montell Griffin
Marco Antonio Barrera and Junior Jones
etc
etc

OK, the pairs in this group are not as close in terms of greatness as the earlier group (Pep-Saddler etc), but Norwood, John, Griffin and Jones were close in terms of achievement to Marquez, Toney and Barrera at the time they fought and were not journeymen, they were world title level operators at the time of the fights.

Mate I just don't see how you can cling to your statement in the face of such evidence. It was a very silly thing to say, has been proven wrong, and you should retract it now.

This content is protected

 

I'd say it is incredible but there are so many on ESB who regularly state all kinds of nonsense - personally I suspect there is an abundance of crappy athletes who love boxing, and posting about it on the internet (ESB), but would embarrass themselves if they had demonstrate their own athletic abilities as some kind of substantiation of why they should be taken seriously. Sort of like asking the tone deaf about their favorite music - they just have no basis for any kind of informed opinion.

ESB is loaded with a bunch of young or younger guys (two-thirds) that are probably really horrible and inept at sports because I doubt anyone really active in athletics currently would be spending any of their spare time arguing about boxing on the internet. The rest of us (one-third) are already well into our lives and have an excuse <g> for checking in here.


Give me a prime BHOP from the late 90s and we'll add 8 lbs of muscle for one fight with Joe at 168 after the Eubank fight and Joe gets KO'd. He doesn't have the vision or the innate reflexive athletic quality to get out of the way. Bernard was much more aggressive and direct with a better workrate than Chris Eubank. Chris came in on short notice, cutting weight, and was past peak and not quite the same fighter since Watson II. He still hit Joe with the same right hand repeatedly from the mid-rounds through 'til the end rocking Joe in the last seconds of the 12th. As Eubank said later about that fight, "Listen, Calzaghe is easy to hit with right hands. He's busy enough, fast handed southpaw but he's a bit European, quite square and rigid, you know? He's far from unhittable, in fact he's easy to hit with the right (hand). Just a basic, straight right hand lead he doesn't seem to see, but of course, you have to have a bit of speed ... I also found him (Calzaghe) easy to hit with body shots."

Eubank was never Hopkins.

Cheers LH31. Be well.

 

Overall I think Hopkins achieved a lot more than Calzaghe, but then again I&#8217;d argue he did more than Toney and Jones too, so it&#8217;s not really a put down.

Both men were past their prime when they fought. Hopkins was the older and further over the brow of the hill. He was champion though. You can&#8217;t ignore the fact that Hopkins best accomplishments are from the age of 40+, AND that he was the best man in the division when they met.

They fought a close fight and Calzaghe deserved the win, but it was close. You can argue that Hopkins would therefore have won in a prime-for-prime match up BUT it&#8217;s not entirely conclusive. In a H2H sense I believe you can argue it either way. I think both sides can make a decent argument.

 

Excellent use of google my friend!:rofl

 

So in other words, this statement was absolute bollocks:

Since making this statement, you have changed it to incorporate the size of the boxers when called on it, and now you have modified it further to state it is only used to separate boxers who you ranked exactly the same - which is completely different from your initial statement earlier in this thread before I cited these examples:

Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler
Vernon Forrest and Shane Mosley
Eder Jofre and Fighting Harada
Roberto Duran and Thomas Hearns
Roberto Duran and Wilfred Benitez
Alexis Arguello and Aaron Pryor
Carlos Ortiz and Duilio Loi
Carlos Zarate and Lupe Pintor
Emile Griffith and Jose Napoles


It was a very, very silly statement to make. You should think more deeply about your process next time, there will always be someone on here to torpedo such flimsy and erroneous criteria.