who is greater, Bernard Hopkins or Joe Calzaghe?

Hah. :good

 

This content is protected

Bespoke savile row suit outside of my georgian with victorian additions country estate.

You just nullified your own opinion alias :rofl

Shot Joe smashed prime Hop at his natrual weight in his own back yard, end of story!

 

When a fighter is in the public eye and known about they can often become bigger than they actually are. Hopkins is an American fighter known to the American public, he gets alot of credit by being a reformed criminal, a guy who came from nothing to become a world champ. That makes a great story, which people buy into and focus on. Consequently America knows of him. America didnt know who Calzaghe was so didnt have an interest in him.
Both have good wins and ruled a division. I know people will say im biased when I say Calzaghe, but to me Hopkins has made most of his career beating smaller fighters. Except for Tarver who had lost 3 times when Hopkins fought him, Hopkins hasnt managed to beat a top fighter his own size, most of Hopkins big wins are against good but smaller fighters.

 

I just cant have ANY respect for this sick **** of a racist to Bernard! And if I should compare those 2, I'll say Calzaghe by far!!!!!!!!!

 

It's clear you don't know what smash means. He beat him. I know that, you know that. He didn't smash him. You don't smash another fighter when you're the only one that tastes the canvas. And why, pray tell, would you remove the knock down? It was a two point fight on two scorecards. It was a close fight. Get over it. He smashed him? Hillarious.

 

NO, you should get over that BH lost big!!!!:bbb

 

I do agree with you on one point. Joe has a much better resume than many foreigners, particularly Americans, are willing to give him credit for. The reason for this is simple: they just don't know much about the names on his list...so they dismiss them as bums. Obviously, guys like Viet and Eubank were not bums...they were very good fighters. I'd still have to go with Hopkin's resume...

 

I'm not a Hopkins fan, so there's nothing to get over. He lost, but he didn't lose big. Apparently you can't read a scorecard. A two-point loss is not a big loss. atsch

 

Im glad you understand what ive said before about fighters not being known so they get dismissed, or fighters in the public eye get more credability. Examples of fighters known to the public with not so great win resumes but are highly rated =
P Malignaggi
A Berto
A Khan
D Salita
L Bute
A Dirrell
A Abraham
etc
Thats not to say these fighters are bad or I dont like them, and they may all go on to be greats. But if you analyse their win resumes their not the best resumes, but because they are recognised they are considered great fighters by some people.
I expect some backlash from this, but open another thread as this one is dedicated to Calzaghe and Hopkins, and to me Calzaghe is the fighter with the better resume when you break down the fighters, I say this due to Hopkins fighting so many naturally smaller fighters.

 

It's far closer than people on here care to admit.

 

Why isnt the same said about Calzaghe?

RJJ used to box at middleweight
Hopkins used to box at middleweight
Kessler used to box at 154
Manfredo used to box at 154
Bika, was a Middleweight
Ashira was a Middleweight
Tocker Pudwil used to box at 147
Eubank was a middleweight
Reid boxed at 160
Woodhall was a middleweight
Sobot was a middleweigtht

 

hopkins, because fighters are called great for winning big fights where they were picked to lose like Ali ~ Foreman, Hopkins ~ Trinidad, Hopkins ~ Pavlik.

 

joe is so damn over hyped its not even funny..

 

bottom line is i would much rather watch calzaghe fight anyday