I rate calzaghe very highly at 168/175. it just seems a bit of a shame he fought the better fighters at the end of his career. I think americans terribly underrate joe.
Put it this way. The guy was an absolute stylistic nightmare for anyone. If you asked me to hand pick a fighter of similar weight to beat him I would not be quite sure what to look for. I knew that he was going to beat Hopkins and I knew why.
Sorry, I thought you meant you ranked Hops higher as a middle. I can understand him being higher in a P4P list.
I was surprised at this response. What do you think other historians 'miss'? I'm undecided in Hopkins I see the plusses and the negatives but can't make a stab at placing down a ranking.
Well, Hopkins reign wasn't that specacular but not that much worse than Hagler's imo. Hagler's reign get's a bit overated due to him fighting Duran, Leonard and Hearns. But aside from these three his reign wasn't better than Hopkins'. And shorter. Hopkins had Trinidad and DLH. Not in the league of the oher two but still Top p4p fighters of the day. Hopkisn was equally dominant as Hagler. Had more defences of his title. And better longevity. He is up there. And to put a icing to he throne he sepped up two weightclasses bea the recognized best man there, than another Top5 p4p fighter, than he has a controversial fight which has could have gone eiher way - I had it 114-113 to Hopkins - with anoher Top5-8 p4p fighter who also happened to be the number one smw of all time and than he beats he heir to his throne who was 18 years younger. He did the last part while he was 43 years old and older. That has to count for something.He was never clearly beaten afer he entered his prime. He was ofen the underdog - Trinidad, Tarver, Winky, Pavlik - and still won. How can he not be elite?
That fight really couldn't have been any closer. I certainly don't feel that either man proved his superiority. At 175, I don't particularly rate him. I certainly don't think he's as good as Conteh. As far as picking out an opponent to beat him, John is a good one. A nasty ******* who is technically brilliant, exceptionally smooth and well balanced with good all round attributes.
Explain why he is not higher up. I would have it something like this myself 1. Monzon 2. Greb 3. Hagler 4. Robinson 5. Tiger or Hopkins
hagler and monzon are the stand out middles but hopkins is up there.i think tiger is a bit over-rated
He hasn't even retired yet. Let him retire for 5-10 years and we'll see where the historians rate him.