If Hopkins challenged and fought Calzaghe at 168 in 2002, but in US...

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Morrissey, Jul 29, 2009.


  1. tito44

    tito44 Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,585
    6
    Oct 25, 2009
    A prime Calzaghe, wins a fairly easy UD.
     
  2. Brit Sillynanny

    Brit Sillynanny Cold Hard Truth Full Member

    2,653
    4
    May 1, 2009
    Hmm .. Hop almost 37 in 2002 .. not prime

    Against the slightly better version of the Welsh Sven Ottke which makes Sven the German Joe Calzaghe.

    A prime Hop in the late 90s by KO mid-rounds.

    A past prime Hop in 2002 but with 8 lbs of muscle - a KO slightly later.

    ESB is like bozo land .. gather a group of non-athletes and ask them to rate athletes .. gives you all kinds of ****ed up polls. :lol:

    Some suggest there should be some qualifying athletic comp so it would be completely obvious which opinions are coming from the ridiculously lame - but, many of the opinions on ESB really speak for themselves - over and over again.


    Calzaghe = Starie = Salem = Ottke = Kessler = a host of other good but not extraordinary talents - more or less. Not a huge diff ... MILES FROM GREAT. All completely irrelevant fighters.

    remember .. it is not simply who you fight but when you fight them that matters.


    Fighting 43 year olds when you could have fought them at 33 is a material difference.

    Retiring when the shoe is on the other foot = ****.

    But a smart **** in his defense.

    Hanging around to meet Dawson or Ward would have been a brutal mismatch as now Joe would be the one far past prime and no one likes to get sparked out cold. Better to end with a couple older guys and 40+ year olds .. it is too bad that Sugar Ray Leonard, Marvin Hagler, and Thomas Hearns turned down the offer to face Joe in 2009. But, he knew his record is a joke and he remains factually a complete unknown in the US .. so why taint it even more - but asking Joe Frazier to sign for a possible 50th win - that's balls.


    :D



    here scrot .. here boy .. sit, roll over, speak ...
     
  3. BadJuju83

    BadJuju83 Bolivian Full Member

    3,941
    2
    Sep 19, 2008
    When was his prime then?
     
  4. BadJuju83

    BadJuju83 Bolivian Full Member

    3,941
    2
    Sep 19, 2008

    Can you explain how Calzaghe could have got Hop to sign in 98 when he couldnt get him to sign in 02??

    You say he could have, so how?.
     
  5. Brighton bomber

    Brighton bomber Loyal Member Full Member

    31,312
    29,495
    Apr 4, 2005
    Going through this thread make me see how many so called boxing fans know so little about Bernard Hopkins. It seems prior to 2001 Hopkins never exsisted and the only version of Hopkins that exsisted is the one in his 40's with stamina issues and a cautious style.

    Prime Hopkins was very aggressive, he would force you back to the ropes and hammer you to the body and then come up top with the right hand. Watch his early fights and you will see this, he was capable of matching Calzaghe in terms of workrate.

    The 2002 version was in my opinion already a slightly faded Hopkins he had already begun be a more economical boxer. It would have been a close fight for sure as Calzaghe in his prime was very underated and was pretty much a complete fighter, fast hands and feet, decent power, iron chin, excellent skills and high workrate and stamina.

    If forced to pick a winner I would pick Hopkins because an old Hopkins was able to compete with a slightly faded Calzaghe and if Calzaghe had a weakness it was to the right hand, Hopkins best weapon. Styles makes fights and Hopkins had the style to beat Calzaghe. Calzaghes workrate this time wouldn't be enough to overwhelm this younger version of Hopkins.
     
  6. Brighton bomber

    Brighton bomber Loyal Member Full Member

    31,312
    29,495
    Apr 4, 2005

    This is my point exactly so many fans only know Hopkins post Tito. Hopkins prime was between 97 to 01 in my opinion. He was a completely different fighter in his prime, very physical and more aggressive and could work at a high workrate. Watching his fight against Glen Johnson you can see how he was capable of fighting at a much higher workrate than now. In that fight he was throwing 60-100 punches per round.
     
  7. BadJuju83

    BadJuju83 Bolivian Full Member

    3,941
    2
    Sep 19, 2008
    Not cautious, smart.

    The aggresive straight line Hopkins of his novice through Baptist to late 90's is exactly what a prime Calzaghe liked. Add in Hop's problems with fast hands that all versions of him have struggled with then it points one way to me.


    I would have loved to have seen a fight at 168 in about 05, thats a hard fight to call, being agressive and one dimentional isnt the way to beat Calzaghe. A younger Hop would have fared far worse than a 02-05 version, easily.
     
  8. BadJuju83

    BadJuju83 Bolivian Full Member

    3,941
    2
    Sep 19, 2008
    Hops a freak, he says himself he grew into Boxing the older he got. The early 2000's Hop is a far better fighter than the one in 98 and before. By a mile.
     
  9. doomeddisciple

    doomeddisciple Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,001
    8
    Jul 19, 2004
    I'd pick Hopkins based on the fact in 2000 he had Bouie Fisher in his corner and would have a more effective higher output Hopkins.
     
  10. bailey

    bailey Loyal Member Full Member

    39,980
    3,110
    Dec 11, 2009
    Calzaghe. Back then Calzaghe was able to hit harder and faster and would have given Hopkins more problems.
     
  11. Brighton bomber

    Brighton bomber Loyal Member Full Member

    31,312
    29,495
    Apr 4, 2005

    I disagree the younger Hopkins was more aggressive but he wasn't a straight line, one dimensional boxer. Looking at the fights with Brown, Allen etc he showed a nice mix of boxing skill and pressure. He didn't just come at you all the time, he picked his moments nicely. The only time he didn't was in the second fight with Echols, that version of Hopkins was reckless and would have been beaten by Calzaghe.

    I think the 05 version of Hopkins was already showing his age, he was smart and skillful but not sure if he had the workrate to be able to beat Calzaghe then. Calzaghe is a very skillful boxer himself and he is difficult to outbox because he can just simply overwhelm you with workrate and win rounds on that alone as shown in the fight in 08.

    I think the Hopkins around 2001-2003 had the right mix of skill and workrate to beat Calzaghe but I think the late ninties version could also pull it off though it would be closer.
     
  12. DOM5153

    DOM5153 They Cannot Run Forever Full Member

    12,340
    1
    Jan 9, 2009
    The more Bhop engages the more likely Calzaghe comes out victorious. I would pick Calzaghe to win 116,112
     
  13. Big Left

    Big Left Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,243
    20
    Dec 12, 2009
    It is that Calzaghe was just the better fighter.
     
  14. Brighton bomber

    Brighton bomber Loyal Member Full Member

    31,312
    29,495
    Apr 4, 2005
    Yet boxer/punchers like Reid and Eubank had the most success when taking the fight to Calzaghe. This myth that any fighter engaging Calzaghe in a fight/brawl loses is just that a myth. The only fighter that had any success outboxing Calzaghe was Hopkins everybody else that had any kind of success took the fight to him.

    Reid and Eubank didn't have the skill, Hopkins didn't have the workrate, younger Hopkins had the skill and the workrate.
     
  15. rayrobinson

    rayrobinson Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,656
    706
    Dec 8, 2009
    dont see Calzaghe winning , he really only beat Hopkins on fitness , if he fought the man who stopped Trinidad I see Hopkins schooling Calzaghe and stopping him late.