Joe Calzaghe doesnt get enough credit for the Hopkins win

For me, Calzaghe doesnt get anywhere near the credit he should for beating Hopkins

Firstly, for all the talk of Hopkins age, its worth bearing in mind that Calzaghe was way past prime, had bad hands and admitted to starting to cut corners in training.

In the ring, there will always be a debate amongst followers of both boxers, but Calzaghe came from the seat of his pants in the first round, changed tactics, and outfoxed Hopkins in a way that nobody else has done in his career.

But the main reason I think Calzaghe deserves more credit is because of what Hopkins has done since the Calzaghe fight - if Hopkins had retired after the Calzaghe fight, then I would agree that legacy wise it didnt mean a great deal, but Hopkins went on to school Pavlik, a man whom Calzaghe was accused of ducking, and many on here thought would smash Joe, and in most peoples eyes, beat Jean Pascal, a prime, hungry warrior.

So in summary, give Joe a bit more respect for beating B-Hop :hi:

 

It was a fine win that will build more momentum in time, it was an ugly fight, that has to be forgotten and in time the win looks better and better, especially if Bernard wins tomorrow night, he does that he's helping Joe's win even more.

 

Agreed on the BHop win. An outstanding performance in many respects.

however, I do agree with a number of his american critics that there were many occasions when he could have been penalised for slapping.

 

He deserves more credit than some are willing to give him, considering what B-Hop has done since that fight. You certainly can't use the Hopkins was washed up card like you can with his win over Roy Jones.

 

It was a fantastic victory. Years past his prime with ruined hands, Calzaghe moved out of his weight class, traveled to the u.s. and thrashed their best light heavyweight in ATG skillster Hopkins, with 3 American judges and a horrifically bent American ref who tried everything to let Hopkins steal the fight with disgusting illegal tactics.

Certainly trumps anything Roy Jones did at 175lbs, and rivals anything Jones did in his whole career.

 

I agree. People use wins or losses to bend to there arguments. If Hopkins can lose to Calzaghe, and then come back and dominate Kelly Pavlik then I'd say Hopkins age didn't matter. Calzaghe was like 37 or 38 himself. Kessler was also a great win. Calzaghe didn't have the greatest resume I admit, but wasn't that bad. 168 isnt' that rich of a division . If it wasn't for the Super Six it wouldn't be as rich as it is now.

 

Hopkins was far from physical prime....but people also forget now is Hopkins mental prime.

It takes years to learn the mental side of boxing and what it takes to win. You might be slower with less stamina but the more fights you have the more experience you have in fighting effectively.

Only stupid people think a fighters prime is purely physical.

 

A good point. And a point that could be made even more solid should Hopkins defeat Pascal (again) tomorrow night.

Hopkins showed that he was far from done when he faced Calzaghe. Thus, Joe's win over BHop becomes that much greater.

 

Also calzaghe moved up in weight and went to the US for the fight, which in itself makes it a very good win. Travelling to your opponent always puts you at a disadvantage, why do think everyone wants a hometown/country fight?

 

Calzaghe's legacy is sealed so whatever Hopkins does now does NOT affect Joe. What it does prove is that Hopkins was far from done but neither guy really did anything to impress. Calzaghe threw many ineffective flurries and Hopkins landed better single shots but waited too long to follow up from his punches. By the scoring criteria I don't see how anyone could give it to Calzaghe and I don't really count Calzaghe as a LHW as I don't really count M. Spinks as a HW. Calzaghe was already going to be a HOF'er whether he moved up or not but I wish he retired facing Dawson and not a shot to **** Jones.

 

More excellent points.

 

I don't think either man came out with much credit after that appalling fight. It gets debated ad nausum on here but when the fight actually took place, by the time the final bell rang I think most people watching had gone past caring who had actually won and were just glad it was finally over.

 

Under no scoring scenario did Hopkins win the fight. I like Hopkins, but I was embarrassed for him later in the bout with his absurd stalling tactics and fake-low-blow acting. I believe Calzaghe landed more punches on Hopkins than anyone ever had previously, including RJJ and Taylor.

Hopkins simply could not compete with Calz' pace and workrate. That's not a surprise, particularly given Hopkins' advanced years and taking into consideration that nobody else has ever been able to successfully do so before or since Hopkins, either.

Hopkins has shown he still had plenty left after the Calzaghe bout. The blowout win over Pavlik and the should-have-won against Pascal made that clear.

Needless to say, however, neither of those opponents is on Calzaghe's level. And, at least at this point in the game, neither is Bernard Hopkins.

 

Effective punches-Hopkins, Defense-Hopkins, Ring IQ-Hopkins,etc. he outsmarted Calzaghe and made him look very bad and even outfought him in the inside a few times the only thing is that his workrate was pretty low though Calzaghe did less overall than Hopkins did. Taylor didn't land much on Hopkins either(first fight) and do you really think Hopkins' punch resistance isn't declining? He was 43 when he fought Calzaghe and that shouldn't be ignored. No one has beaten Hopkins clearly except for RJJ but no shame in that as RJJ was prime and Hopkins wasn't though that still was a good win.

 

Joe C. shouldn't get much credit or any at all because he lost to B-Hop plain and simple.