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

You really think Taylor beat Hopkins, even Calzaghe admited when Hopkins put it on him. Point being Hopkins fought Taylor and in the majority of peoples scorecards won the fight.

Hopkins called out RJJ numerous times, but RJJ didnt want the rematch.

Unline Hopkins, Calzaghe didnt call out Ottke once, nor did he go anywhere near him. Calzaghe just remained silent and fought Tocker Pudwill and Jiminez.

You only touched on one of the 5 points I mentioned.

At LHW, Calzaghe fought BHop, a SD victory and refused to have a rematch in Cardiff. Then defended The Ring title once vs RJJ and retired without taking risks. He also admitted he would eventually lose if he carried on.

At LHW, Hopkins fought Tarver, Wright, Calzaghe, Pavlik, RJJ, Pascal. Firstly Hopkins displayed balls and courage that Calzaghe never displayed at LHW. Secondly Hopkin clearly done better than Calzaghe at LHW, 2 weight divisions above his own.

Calzaghe's best win was a split decision win over a 42 year old Hopkins, whom he refused to give a rematch, at LHW above his best weight of SMW.

Also by saying IF, its all speculation with Calzaghe, if he did this and if he did that.

Robert Allen 1 was a NC, Robert Allen II was a rematch, and III was a mandatory. Calzaghe fought Mario Veit twice, and filled his resume with the likes of Evans Ashira, Tocker Pudwill, Jiminez, Branko Sobot.....

Both were long reigning champions, so had to face the likes of these.

Calzaghe's oppositions average age at LHW is 40.5 years old. Calzaghe didnt stay at Light heavyweight for even half a year because the competittion was far to tough for him. Hopkins is given credit regardless for staying there for the last 5 years, he fough young lions in Pavlik and Pascal. Which young lion has Calzaghe stepped into the ring with when Calzaghe was at old age?

We can look at **** brears on each others resumes, but lets look at former, future and reigning champions.

Check my last post that you quoted, Hopkins not only faced tougher opposition, but also beaten better and tougher opponents over the span of his career than Calzaghe has.

Forget the Pudwills, and the Hakkars.

 

B-Hop's lifeline as a great fighter stays constant, he never declines due to:
-While his physical performance might not be as good as when he was a MW
-He can make up for that by being a intellectual, and skillful fighter

That seperate him from JC and makes B-Hop far greater... while B-Hop wasn't prime, he shows us everytime that he is everything but shot!! Kelly Pavlik, RJJ (was more shot), Tarver, Pascal...

So I don't take anything away from JC's victory, he beat (although slightly) an always game B-Hop, and the fight could've gone either way so nobody take a thing away from B-Hop's performance!! It was JC's night... But for ATG status the victory over B-Hop won't make JC greater than B-Hop...

...Solely based on both fighters' lifeline!! B-Hop achieved more in a larger timespan than JC who stepped up a few years be4 retirement, while B-Hop is still achieving!!

 

When Calzaghe won the WBO SMW Title, Toney was LHW almost CW.

Hopkins was a MW, and Toney was at LHW/CW.

there was not possible match up to be made.

 

Calzaghe will always be a the better fighter of the two (in my mind...) Bhop has without a doubt fought the best and toughest competition of the two.

 

1st of all lets dispell the myth about the supposed greatness of hopkins resume, take away the smoke and the mirrors and this is what your left with from hopkins 6 best wins, with 4 of them being from when he made his opponent fight way above what their best weight was.





trinidad
prime weight = welterweight (147)
fought hopkins at middleweight (159) :deal
trinidads record at middleweight or above from hopkins onwards = 2 wins / 3 defeats

winky wright
prime weight - light middleweight (154)
fought hopkins at - 170 lbs :deal
in 57 fights, the hopkins fight was the only fight that wright had weighed over 160 lbs (a full 10lbs difference)

de la hoya
prime weight - welterweight (140lbs)
fought hopkins at - middleweight (160lbs) :deal
de la hoya only fought twice in his career at middleweight out of 45 fights -1 win / 1 loss - the win was a very debatable decision over eurobum felix sturm

pavlik
prime weight - middleweight (160 lbs)
fought hopkins at - 170 lbs :deal
in 34 fights pavlik had only fought 2 minnions at the beginning of his career at 169. all pavliks fights since hopkins have been at the 160 limit.

tarver
prime weight 175
great 2 weight jump from hopkins and his best win despite tarver being a b-level fighter and going 3 wins / 3 losses from hopkins onwards.

johnson
prime weight -super mid / light heavy (162 to 175)
fought hopkins at - middleweight (160)
johnsons record at 160 + from hopkins onwards - 19 wins / 14 defeats / 2 draws
the defeats have come against people of the level of ottke, woods, shieka, gonzales, harmon, branco, vanderpool, Kiwanuka, sosa





next you throw in the fact that calzaghe beat hopkins sandwiched inbetween hopkins supposedly best performances of tarver, wright, pavlik, pascal.

take into account that for the hopkins fight, calzaghe
- fought at light heavy for the 1st time
- fought in hopkins back yard
- had hopkins brother joe cortez referee the fight and do everything in his power to try and even up the fight

despite all this, joe calzaghe with extreme brittle hands defeated hopkins.



now we here you hopkins fans scream "that wasn't hopkins prime", well it was certainly the point of hopkins career where he was getting his best results. was hopkins prime when he was beating robert allan 3 times and beating hakkar and calling every welterweight on the planet to fight him?



so we then answer the question of why the 2 hopkins and calzaghe didn't fight each other whilst in their supposed primes in 2002

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

now it wouldn't be fair for me not to give hopkins some credit because he is a very clever man, extremely astute tactically and defensively, he knows how to disrupt an opponents rhythm and he knows to neutralise an opponents strengths. he's also very good at calling out fighters he knows he can expose tactically and calling out fighters he will have big weight and strength advantages over.


the bottom line in all this for me though, is that bernard hopkins was not good enough to win 7 of his fights (5 defeats, 2 draws). there is a clear blueprint there of how to beat hopkins and this is probably the reason why hopkins didn't want to fight dawson but was desperate to fight pascal.

on the other hand, there is no blueprint to beat calzaghe, sure fighters can cause calzaghe problems but there is a versatility in him, a common trate in great fighters where he can adapt to the man he is fighting and find a way to win, the charachter to stare adversity in the face and walk through it by adapting his gameplan to that of his opponent.

for hopkins there will always be a blueprint of how to beat him but for calzaghe there never will be. on top of that there will always be that head to head victory over a version of hopkins that is far better than any hopkins fan on here will be prepared to admit, as well as the 7 fights hopkins wasn't good enough to win.

 

well said. if u compare thier title defences there aint actually much between them. Hopkins took a lot of easy fights

 

toney was already fighting at cruiserweigh before calzaghe had even beaten mitchell.

i'm not sure why hopkins never fought toney, maybe hopkins ducked him like he did calzaghe in 2002?

 

Who took bigger risk in fighting the most dangourous opposition.

Pavlik, Taylor II, RJJ, Pascal, Trinidad, Tarver, Calzaghe. are all fighters where Hopkins was the underdog.

atschAnd you say Hopkins too more easy fights than Calzaghe.

 

big difference

 

calzaghe would have been slaughtered for fighting froch in his last fight.

who had froch fought when that fight could have been made? if calzaghe ruined froch in a one sided beat down, people would have been talking about froch being along the likes of starkey, woodhall, pudwill etc.

thats 2 very ignorant points you've just made, either do some research or **** off out of the thread and play with your *****.

 

everything i posted is fact. if that discredits hopkins then so be it, you carry on watchin hbo and reading your ring comic if you like.