Does Carl Froch have a better record than Calzaghe?

hopkins

and no

 

hopkins was a better win on paper, but it was way too late and joe knew it.

 

Keesler had achieved much more than Abraham. He's also the better fighter. What makes it a special win for Calzaghe is not the just the name of the fighter but everything it stood for: Joe being seven years older and beating a young, dangerous fighter to unify the division.

Abraham was also schooled by Dirrell in his previous fight. Sadly people overlook this because of how the fight ended.

People pay too much attention to names on a list instead of understanding the context of the fights and the fighters involved.

 

bull****, pavlik was going to "demolish slapper joe" then hopkins worked him like a punchbag. hopkins is not like rjj, he was far from shot

 

if pavlik was going to "demolish slapper joe" then why did joe pass up that fight long before hopkins fought him?

 

Because he thought RJJ was the bigger money fight and RJJ IS the bigger name ATG wise.

 

yes he is.

but fighting a great fighter when he's lost his mantle and past his best isn't the same as fighting a legitimate champion who is in the ascendancy.

 

When was Hopkins' prime? When did it end?

So many people use Hopkins' age as the indicator that he's past his prime and washed up. I prefer to use how he performs in fights.

Hopkins turned down Joe in 2002. He even admits the fight tried to made years previously and that he bascially turned it down. The videos are on youtube if you would like to watch them.

Hopkins stated the best time to fight was then in 2008. You obviously disagree with him.

 

the point was that ws the concensus among most (not me) pavlik was too good, he would just walk through the slaps, he ould lay joe out in 3 rounds at most..

joe was obviously a few leagues above pavlik to me, and lol at the suggestion he was scared of pavlik, blowing out gary lockett is one thing....

but why talk backwards? could pavlik have beaten him? hell no

 

here we go... :tired

 

he calle hopkins out in his post-mitchell fight interview

 

no i dont disagree with him.

how many fighters of joe's ability do you know never crossed the pond and made themselves marketable to TV networks when it mattered and so never got their defining career fights?

you're missing the point.

joe stayed with warren way too long because he wanted to rake in the cash - which he did - but ricky hatton showed what euro fighters needed to do to change that if they were serious about their careers.

joe consciously sold the british public a lemon, and i can't believe you're still trying to defend it.

 

No. He hasnt beat a great fighter yet. As mentioned, beating the best Hopkins propels you from good to great.

 

define 'best'.

danny green would tell you a story about roy jones you might not like to hear

 

you're comparing a shot to **** rjj to a still brilliant hopkins?

hopkins has the style to translate to having a great late career, rjj doesnt