Lets Swap Calzaghe and Hopkins Opponents and see whos Best ?

William Joppy top 150 alltime baby.

 

He had Honeyghan 140 places ahead of Starling.

 

Some of the right fighters, not all in the right order

 

I provided the link on the other page if you'd like to look at the complete 400.

(Post #15, click the word)

 

Marciano above Calzaghe?

Calzaghe fought better opposition and made more defences, in the stronger modern era, no less.

 

Few things come to mind immediately, and they are just small things to get off my chest before I throw my PC out of the window:

Barry McGuigan above Eusebio Pedroza and Matthew Saad Muhammad.

Galaxy. Which one?

It seems to me he's just tried to find that many fighters, I'd love to see him justify individual placings.

Without going too in depth, Calzaghe above all of these is a joke IMO:

52] M.Spinks
53] Calzaghe
54] Hopkins
55] Wills
56] W.Gomez
57] foster
58] Loughran
59] LM Rodriquez
60] Villa
61] Al Brown
62] M.Ortiz
63] Dick Tiger
64] Conn
65] Attell
66] Pascual Perez
67] Canto
68] McGovern
69] Ted Kid Lewis
70] Kid Chocolate

You can tell there's no thought going into it when you see Gushiken above Chang :deal



To be fair I'm trying to make light of such an awful list.

 

What's the point then?

 

Calzaghe wouldn't be unbeaten had he fought the same opposition that Hopkins did.

I'd stick my house on Hopkins being 46-0 against Calzaghe's opponents...... most of Joe's title defences were against clubfighters like Branco Sobot, Tocker Pudwill and Mario Veit x2.

Why not Woods, Froch, Ottke etc?

 

By that virtue, you don't have the right to criticize Hopkins until you get in the ring and beat Pavlik, Trinidad, Tarver, Wright and co, notch up 20 middleweight defences and become the #1 in 2 different weight classes. Of course we can criticize; not all of us have the time to sit down and write out a top 100.

 

This is not a viable hypothetical, because Hopkins did not win a world title till he was 30, and suffered three of his losses when he was over the age of 40. Not only did he not have some of the best physical years of his career (24-27?) to decimate world-class comp which Calzaghe did have, he also fought to a state of past-prime condition which Calzaghe did not. We have no way of knowing whether a 40+ year old Calzaghe would have been able to handle a prime and undefeated Jermain Taylor, or even guys like Winky, Tarver and Pavlik, because Calzaghe could have been a greatly diminished force by then. I suspect this would have been the case, considering Joe was dropped by the ghost of Roy Jones and could not knock him out despite landing blizzards of clean punches to a version of Roy who had a proven china chin.

Joe did not have the skills to cope at the highest level once his physical gifts had eroded. Hopkins did, but only to an extent.

Anyway, why deal in hypotheticals when you can deal in reality? Hopkins's resume is better and that's one of the key reasons why he will always be remembered as the greater fighter.

Trampie I have looked through your old posts and threads today, and it's clear you are somewhat of a historian. Why don't you make diverse threads for the Classic to enjoy instead of every time posting masturbatory fantasies about Joe Calzaghe? When will this endless and doomed-to-failure quest to make people rate him higher than Bernard Hopkins end??

There's so much more to the sport.