Why I Rank Calzaghe Above Hopkins

This content is protected

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.

 

It is defensible... if you are clinging to completely inept, illogical and bordering on idiotic criteria which even a teenage noob boxing fan could see the rank inadequacy of.

 

I rank them more or less equally- I just love seeing how defensive people get about it because despite the venom and vitrol spewed back and forth, the fighters have more similarities than differences. Any second now, I'm sure there will be replies telling me I'm missing the point, but it takes more effort to ignore the similarities than to notice them and you'll find my points neither illogical, inept, or idiotic.

- Both had inflated title reigns of 20 defenses fighting a number of bad fighters, fighters moving up in weight, or fighters on their home turf along the way. Hopkins fought a few more beltholders (not sure why it gets made out to be such a drastic difference), but has more losses and Calzaghe was the one to travel in their fight.

- Both had H2H skills surpassing their resume, and we really never got to see what either would've been truly capable of in their primes.

- Both unified their dominant weight class after years and years of holding just the one title.

-Both have top victories over fighters significantly younger than themselves.

-Both also wound up being Ring light heavyweight champion with 1 defense each.

-Both were "late bloomers", getting most of their biggest wins outside of what would generally be considered a boxer's prime.

 

I rank Calzaghe ahead of Hopkins in terms of "shoeshine" performance alone. Joe Calzaghe's bogus flurries during his fights would have been no match for a prime Hopkins. Also, Joe did his best to avoid quite a few of the top contenders during his reign, holding on to and protecting his championship.

Joe Calzaghe and Oscar Delahoya are quite similar IMO in their careers. The only difference is that Delahoya got his gifts by at least fighting some of the best competition in the ring. Calzaghe never fought anyone in his prime that I'd consider a potential threat to his title.

Calzaghe was a good fighter and decent champion during his reign. Nothing about his reign or record signifies HOF status.

 

None of this has any relevance whatsoever to my input on this thread amigo. You have misunderstood my "vitriol" entirely, and I'm sure if you go back and actually read my individual posts, you will see that I express no feeling whatsoever at any point regarding the opinion that Calzaghe should be ranked higher than Hopkins. My sole issue with this thread was the rather absurd claim of Trampie that if two fighters have fought, then all other factors like resume go out of the window, and the winner of the fight must rank higher in an all-time pound-for-pound sense. It was that nonsense which prompted me to intervene, not the actual Calzaghe-Hopkins debate. I'm not being rude when I say I have no interest in your post, but I don't. That's not because I agree or disagree, or because I think it's necessarily a bad post, it's just not a subject I have much interest in going over. That hasn't been the focus of my posts on this thread, and it still isn't.

 

So thats why his opponents gloves were so shiny?

 

No offense taken my man, I'm posting simply going off the last page since it seems things got ugly and I had no interest in going over the prior 8 pages of banter. It's all good. :thumbsup

 

Me and my mate done this debate yesterday, we came to the Hopkins>Calzaghe conclusion eventually. It was in depth and good debate.

 

Such a surprising comment from a guy with your avatar and posts ..

Hmm .. having a Welsh parent and certain grandparent (Phillips - son of "Tom Thumb's" older brother - Dec 10, 1941) I am so unfamiliar with Calz nuthuggers. Good thing there is such an abundance on ESB to fill me in on his athletic greatness and career - well, greatness at least, in comparison to others from that area - merely. Strong post, dude. Stay out of the gym - and you'll hang on to those illusions - I don't let nationalities color my opinions of athletes.




Off to bed.

 

Cool mate, no bother. :good

 

Do you know what "shoeshining" in boxing is? Watch Calzaghe's fights and you'll get an understanding of what I'm talking about. Just in case you didn't know, Calzaghe has a penchant for throwing punches in volumes that barely land.

Hopkins caught him clean repeatedly the whole night and had him down early. I'll give Joe credit that some of the punches in his furious flurries landed, but not it's not like his punches were hurting Bernard, except for the low blow. The same thing occured in the Peter Manfredo fight, that was stopped early from Calzaghe's volume of empty punches. Manfredo wasn't hurt in the fight, but the ref saw fit to stop it because Calzaghe was throwing punches repeatedly while Manfredo was protecting himself.

 

You keep on answering and looking silly when you could just admit your statement was bull**** or let it go.

OK, Douglas and Tyson were not of the same "standard".

But these men, who you conveniently disregarded for your answer, unarguably were of a similar standard in a way that Douglas and Tyson admittedly weren't:

So how does your criteria deal with these pairings?

This content is protected

If you insist upon replying and digging yourself further into an already gigantic hole, then don't just blab on about some random example and criticize me personally, actually address the pairings I have listed.

This content is protected

PS: I have plenty more pairings for you if you want them, as history is just loaded with examples which harpoon your inadequate criteria.