Even Calzaghe fanatics must now admit him or Hopkins isn't even a debate anymore?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by horst, Dec 21, 2010.

  1. simon850

    simon850 Boxing Addict Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,007
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bhop is far superior, take a look at his and calzaghes resume's next to each other. Do we really need to debate this? Calzaghe slapped his way to a SD against an ageing Hopkins (which many felt Hopkins won) and then avoided a rematch like the plague.
     
  2. unsigned_userv2

    unsigned_userv2 Well-Known Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,138
    Likes Received:
    0
    ATG rankings should be determined over who they fought, the circumstances they fought under, and how well they fought against a variety of opposition over a period of time.

    Single fights only factor marginally into the equation when not viewed over a career and hypothetical matchups should not factor in at all.

    Calzaghe beating Hopkins in one single fight does not automatically propel him ahead on the ATG list, just like Trevor Berbick doesn't jump over Muhammad Ali for beating him; or David Diaz over Erik Morales; or Hector Camacho over Sugar Ray Leonard.
     
  3. roversbowers

    roversbowers Well-Known Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,960
    Likes Received:
    0
    what about 2 losses to jermaine taylor? thats damn awful. a draw to pascal, a win against a middleweight drunk, a loss to calzaghe and one of the worst boxing matches ive ever witnessed in jones v hopkins II. yet people talk about his last 5 years as if hes blowing people out left right and center.

    Im not saying he isnt a great fighter but he just isnt as good as Calzaghe. maybe if he threw more punches and didnt foul and clinch all night we might well have a different view.
     
  4. rushman

    rushman Devoid is Devoid Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    1
    Posting this thread now means that somehow the Pascal fight is meant to have tipped the argument. It doesn't, and it is kinda stupid to think it does.

    The Pascal fight was nothing more than a decent performance against a decent opponent. If it wasn't for Hopkin's age, then it would be an unremarkable effort. People talk about Hopkins going back into the top ten P4P, which is frankly stupid - unless they had Pascal in the top ten already. Most people had Pascal well and truly out of the top ten, so an imaginary win over him does nothing to catapult a fighter into the top ten (especially one without a decent victory since 2008 ). The top 10 P4P is not a charity list, or a special olympics event where we say "well, he really isn't the best but he is doing so well for his age!"

    So the question is "Does Hopkin's amazing longevity push him higher on the ATG lists?" Because that is all that the Pascal fight has reaffirmed.
    For me the answer is that it does a little bit, but not much. Basically, if you you thought that Hopkins was equal to another fighter on the ATG lists, and there was nothing else to split them, then Hopkin's longevity would put him ahead.

    Or, the question may be "If we say that Hopkins won, then does this addition to his resume put him ahead of Joe's resume, and then does that put him higher on the ATG list?" Well, this depends on how you rank ATGs. If you do it just on resume, then you probably have a good argument - even without Pascal.

    However, this question has come up as a result of the Pascal fight, which Hopkins did not win.
    If we say that he should have won, then we get into hypotheticals. That's where people start to say "And Hopkins secretly beat Calzaghe too" and then people say "Well, Calzaghe would have beat everyone on Hopkin's resume" and it all becomes frankly stupid. People start to invent whatever imaginary outcomes supports their preferred fighter. But the fact is that ATG lists do involve some guesswork.

    I think most reasonable people would say that Hopkin's resume is better. To me, the much more important question is who would win, prime for prime? That is a bigger factor in the question of who is an ATG. (For example, Tyson's resume does not really stack up all that well, and you can pick it to pieces if you really want - but his ATG status is boosted considerably by how we would stack up, head to head against anyone in history if he was in his prime form)

    So does Joe win or does Bhop win, prime for prime? Well, that's a can of worms, and would mostly be answered by people who are cheerleaders for one or the other. I don't think you will get a clearly thought out response. To me it comes down to this: I know Bhop can be beaten. I have seen him beaten. I know it can be done, and not just by fluke. I never saw Joe beaten, I always saw him rise to the occasion. I don't know what it would have taken to beat him, or if anyone in his era could achieve that. These are the limited facts we have to work with before speculation comes into play.

    So prime for prime, I'm going to tip it towards JC.

    So I have JC beating Bhop prime for prime (as well as when they met after their primes of course).
    I have Bhop with the better resume. That's not bothering with Pascal, otherwise you might as well add two wins against Jermaine Taylor and one against Calzaghe to BHop's resume too. (No, I don't think he secretly beat Taylor or Joe - and I have definitely seen worse robberies than Pascal. Really the sentimental rage against that lowered the collective intelligence of the planet)

    So really, this whole thread is meant to be about how Bhop's imaginary win over Pascal has cemented his place higher than JC in the ATG rankings. I don't agree that this fight established anything one way or the other, as whichever one was better was already established before this fight.
     
  5. realsoulja

    realsoulja Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,441
    Likes Received:
    294
    1. Calzaghe has 32 KO's out of 46 fights, but none of those KO wins are in his top 5 wins. That is a 70% KO ratio, but none happen to be in his top 5 wins. Hopkins has KO wins over Glen Johnson and Felix Trinidad that are in his top 5.

    2. Hopkin's at age 36 faced Felix Trinidad who was 28, 8 year gap
    - Hopkins at age 40 faced Jermain Taylor who was 27, 13 year gap
    - Hopkins at age 43 faced Kelly Pavlik who was 26, 17 year gap
    - Hopkins at age 45 faced Jean Pascal who was 27, 18 year gap.

    - Calzaghe at age 33 faced Jeff Lacy who was 28, 5 year gap.

    Point being, Hopkins faced the young lions who were Champions, he has shown the use of intelligence/experience. Calzaghe aint shown that since he retired when the young lions such as Andre Ward, Andre Dirrell, Carl Froch, Lucian Bute, Kelly Pavlik and Chad Dawson were lurking around his weight class.

    3. At Middleweight Hopkins had no rival he didnt beat, he was undisputed. Calzaghe had a rival in Sven Ottke

    4. Hopkins Unified his IBF title with the WBC within 5 years, Calzaghe unified his WBO with the IBF within 8 years.

    5. Hopkins has beaten more Former/Future/reigning champions than Calzaghe

    Former Champions beaten:
    Bernard Hopkins: 10 (Aquino, Jackson, Brown, Holmes, Daniels, Joppy, Hoya, Tarver, Wright, Jones Jr)
    Joe Calzaghe: 7 (Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Brewer, Mitchell, Hopkins, Jones Jr)


    Reigning Champions beaten:
    Bernard Hopkins 5 (Holmes, Trinidad, Joppy, Hoya, Pavlik)
    Calzaghe: 2 (Lacy, Kessler)


    Future Champions beaten:
    Bernard Hopkins 3 (Johnson, Hoya, Tarver)
    Joe Calzaghe 1 (Kessler)
     
  6. Boro chris

    Boro chris Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    10,276
    Likes Received:
    21
    Fan of Calzaghe and he's not far behind Hopkins ability wise but its in quality of oposition that Hopkins is truelly superior.
    Bernard is an atg and Joe is a HOF'er.
     
  7. Suga

    Suga Boxing Addict Full Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    3,731
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hopkins, and there shouldnt be any doubt.

    Now I have a better question:
    When was a prime Hopkins?
     
  8. jc

    jc Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2004
    Messages:
    13,971
    Likes Received:
    14
    Hop has the better record.

    Calzaghe did legitamtely beat Hop though.
     
  9. Uncle Rico

    Uncle Rico Loyal Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    39,748
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ha! So many things wrong with that post, I don’t know where to start.

    Hopkins was a career middleweight that only moved up to light heavyweight 2 fights prior. Calzaghe on the other hand was a super middleweight (that’s one division above Hopkins’ middleweight) that made a natural progression of 7 pounds up to light heavyweight. In other words, weight meant **** all in that fight. They were both comfortable at the weight.

    Calzaghe coming to America bares no relevance, either. It’s common knowledge that Bernard Hopkins is a fighter that’s never a hometown favourite, even in his beloved America. Furthermore, Las Vegas - being the home to all mega-fights - is regarded as a neutral venue regardless of the nationality of fighters.

    And as for Hopkins crumbling, pffft!! Sure he did. Knocking the opponent down in the first round, barely being hit, getting the better of exchanges, busting up the other guy’s face in the process....really is a sign of a fighter breaking down. Enzo, for the final round, screaming to his son something like “You need a knockout else you’ve lost this!” is also another sign that Old-Man Bernard was crumbling against the Mighty Joe. Now tell me, if that’s what he had to endure from a 43 year old Hopkins, imagine what would have happened if he fought a Hopkins who had the stamina to match his work-rate, and not be restricted to pot-shotting?

    You Joeys make laugh. You really do.
     
  10. Observer

    Observer Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hopkins left a bigger mark in boxing history and fought harder and more well known competition. But Calzaghe would still beat him at any point in his career. Doesn't change the fact that Hopkins will have a far more prominent spot in boxing history.
     
  11. BigBone

    BigBone Boxing Addict Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,453
    Likes Received:
    1,713
    This content is protected
     
  12. rushman

    rushman Devoid is Devoid Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    1
    Calzaghe SD12 Hopkins.
     
  13. unsigned_userv2

    unsigned_userv2 Well-Known Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course you have to factor those fights in, but you are strickly focusing on the negatives, why not mention him moving up in weight and beating Tarver, being the only person to KO De La Hoya and Trinindad (who was undefeated), 2x wins against Echols, wins over Keith Holmes, Johnson etc. No mention of his 20 title defenses.

    I've been critical of his LHW career, but even I can still appreciate what he's been able to achieve at his age.
     
  14. Uncle Rico

    Uncle Rico Loyal Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    39,748
    Likes Received:
    3
    ...and yet Hopkins fans can still sit back and comfortably know their man has safely cemented an incredible legacy. Calzaghe fans on the other hand, resort to closely following the progression of Kessler and Lacy (Calzaghe's most renowned wins :rofl) in the hope that Calzaghe's legacy will be somehow enhanced by their future wins.
     
  15. rushman

    rushman Devoid is Devoid Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    1
    ... and yet Calzaghe SD12 Hopkins.