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

The fact that Calzaghe beat Hopkins makes it still a valid argument. This may sound weird- but Hopkins has never beaten anyone as good as the Hopkins Calzaghe beat! And that's credit to Hopkins as well as Calzaghe.
And for those that go on about Hopkins age when they fought (42) this argument has lost any merit in the years since as Hopkins has shown his experience has made up for any loss in anything else- he's still a world class fighter even now.
Theres no question Hopkins has a better record in terms of wins, but whether is greater depends on what factors you are considering

 

:happy:happy:happy:happy:happy

 

Hopkins has a better win record but, overall, because of his losses it's pretty close.

I don't want to get involved in a hypothetical "Calzaghe would beat ____" argument because it's been done too many times. I don't think there's anyone on Hopkins' recrod who Calzaghe would struggle with too much though but I realise it's not a valid point when it comes to discussing their legacies. What is a valid point though, is that not only did Calzaghe clearly beat Hopkins, he also doesn't have losses or draws against inferior fighters. Calzaghe doesn't have a Taylor, who proved over 24 rounds that he was a better fighter, even though both were close. Calzaghe himself outboxed Hopkins and ended up winning a clear decision. The only time he has ever fought a great fighter in his prime, he lost a very wide decision.

People can fault Calzaghe's lack of impressive wins all they want. I do too. At this point, I think Froch has a better win record than Calzaghe, despite having a short career at the elite level, however, Calzaghe never lost and he didn't really come that close to losing either. That's something Hopkins can't match.

Ranking them all time is close because there are two different sets of criteria for both fighters. On one hand, you have Hopkins who has a more recognizable list of opponents but then you have Calzaghe who didn't come too close to losing, despite serious setbacks in his career.

It's close. The idea that it's not a debate is absolutely stupid.

 

BHop is better ATG, than JC but still JC edged him slightly in the ring...

 

Hopkins was almost 43 when he fought Calzaghe, but aside from that had much more ring wear than Calzaghe. Calzaghe was coming off of his best win against Kessler. They were hardly in similar points in their careers. Calzaghe then fought Jones and retired to protect the "o".

Calzaghe had soft comp for most of his prime. In fairness, he did step it up somewhat later on, but 3 fights(one of them old man Hopkins) is not enough to erase the previous 8 years. So just when he was getting interesting, he then fights Jones, and promptly retires. Had he stepped it up earlier, or fought later, and lost he would have lost that "0" and that would have knocked him down the ladder in your opinion? If so, you're rewarding a guy for not taking risks and that's not what boxing should be about.

It is impressive considering his age and changing weight classes. What makes it sad is that people try to use it as evidence that he was still in his prime at 43 so as not to take away from Calzaghe. It was a good win for Calzaghe, but not great, and I don't think people would give him such a hard time over it if it weren't one of the 2 real good wins of his career, or if they weren't trying to dress it to suit their needs, rather than see Hopkins as an aged fighter who can still compete at times.

 

Hopkins ranks higher much higher, so does Roy Jones and James Toney

 

Yeah, well if you want stupid, you came to the right thread.

Notice how the poll gives you the option of either agreeing that Hopkins is better, or having to defend it only based on Calzaghe's resume?

Such idiocy. :roll:

 

a) jermain taylor...rjj...pretty sure those are "rivals hopkin's didn't beat" at middleweight. :deal

b) you are diminishing calzaghe's resume based on a fighter who ducked calzaghe? atsch

the difference between b-hop's resume & calzaghe's resume is people have picked apart calzaghe's resume & just accept that b-hop's is better without applying the same stringent criteria. if all of calzaghe's best win's were 2 weight divisdions above their best weight you'd hear about it. if calzaghe had faced robert allen 3 times you'd hear about it. if calzaghe had stayed at lightheavyweight for 4 years & still not faced dawson you'd hear about it (especially as we still hear "calzaghe ducked dawson" **** & no-one mentions that b-hop actually HAS ducked dawson & still is). we all know the names pudwill, starie & mcintyre cos we use them as examples of a **** resume but who's heard of andrew council or joe lipsy or william bo james or syd vanderpool or the other glorious superfight title defences that b-hop cemented his atg status with?

 

JC is better but didn't really care enough about boxing to get the big fights in his prime.

 

Calzaghe.

It's interesting to me that people are still missing the point about how the Hopkins-Pascal match-upcame into fruition. Bhop saw vulnerabilities which he could exploit, so he took the fight. The 'calzaghe didn't want to give him a rematch' thing is false and ridiculous. Calzaghe i think pretty much knew he had one more fight in him- and he wanted that to be with RJJ. I'm not sure anyone in their right mind at the time was desperate to see bhop-cal fight again, after what transpired in the first one.

 

There never was a debate, Hopkins is far greater

Hopkins was 43 and Calzaghe was 36, Hopkins gave Calzaghe his toughest fight and arguably won by landing the cleaner harder punches. Take 7 years off Hopkins and we have ourselves a different fight.

 

Yeah, the choices are poor. I don't think anyone would say that Calzaghe has a better win record, but he also doesn't have 7 blips on his record like Hopkins. The poll suggests that if you rate Calzaghe higher, you must think he has a better resume which doesn't necessarily have to be the case. In terms of their overall records, it's close.

 

The Roy Jones that fought Toney would beat them both like a walk in the park.

Why did Calzaghe and Hopkins never fight James Toney by the way? I think he could beat both Calzaghe and Hopkins.

 

well, Roy had already comfortably beaten Hopkins- with a hurt hand

 

This is true. For a long time after the Jones fight, Hopkins was delaying who he would fight next. There was talk of Dawson, Cloud and other fighters around the weight, or even going up to heavyweight to fight Haye. The main one was Dawson though but Hopkins dragged his feet with that for such a long time. Within days of Pascal winning, it was clear the next bout would be Hopkins/Pascal.

He waited until there was a clear beatable opponent for him and took it very quickly.