Calzaghe Legacy Skyrockets Following Hopkins' Legendary Win Over Pascal

atschatschatschatsch

 

:good

 

If you think Calzaghe is better or greater than Hopkins because of his perfect record. Then you must think Floyd is better than Pac.

I know, you won't find consistency in agenda driven biased posters. :deal

 

Hey, I didn't say he won. But he started his career -- 23 years ago -- at 177. So don't tell me he's smaller than Calz, etc. :roll:

 

Calz is better because he won the head-to-head, when both men were past their primes but still excellent fighters (which Hopkins again proved tonight, that he still has plenty left).

Is Floyd going to beat Pac head to head? Are they going to fight? We all know the answer to the second question.

 

In his prime, naturally, sure. That was the guys point I think, right?

 

WHy cant a white man win a title at 46?

 

(Indirect) victories over Pavlik, Perdomo, Lacy again, Froch, Ornelas, Jones again, and arguably Pascal twice. Who can possibly hope to compete with that resume? I'm also very much looking forward to seeing Bute and Dawson added to his already immaculate record.

 

Should've been my first post

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

What a ******ed thing to say. Is Ken Norton better then Ali. Is Sandy Saddler better then Willy Pep. Is Jimmy Young better then George Foreman?


Seriously just stop. Hopkins is the greater man. Slaps won a close decision in an ugly fight, his only claim to fame. Hopkins is a legend. Get over it.

 

Logic module not turned on tonight, Pete ?

Calzaghe beat a younger, better undefeated version of Kessler, who still had two eyes.

Calzaghe beat a younger, better version of the legend that just took Pascal's title.

9-3 or 10-2.

 

Brilliant man. Even I was like WTF. :good


Calslappy, king of the shoulda coulda woulda's! :good

 

Indirect victories wtf atschatschatschatsch

 

Which fighter was more past their prime?

This is simpleton logic. Again, Calzaghe could've beaten him in 2001. So what? Styles make fights, and you have to evaluate an entire career. Hopkins has achieved more. Charley Burley beat Archie Moore, Oscar De La Hoya beat Chavez, Saddler beat Pep 3/4 times, Wilfred Benitez beat Roberto Duran, but the most knowledgeable historians and fans rank the latter ahead of the former. It's just not that simple.

Hell, Holyfield beat Tyson twice at HW when they where both past their prime but most rank Tyson as the greater HW (Not P4P), and rightfully so. Check the ESB Classic HW poll. Bowe beat Holyfield 2/3... the list goes on.

Not only that but Calzaghe barely won. A fight that was not very decisive or clear enough to showcase one fighter's superiority over another. One HAS to evaluate an entire fighters record and achievements in the sport even more so to determine which fighter is the greater fighter. If you want to argue that Calzaghe is a better fighter than Hopkins, fine. Be stubborn, and think he was a superior fighter. But to say that he's a greater fighter, with a better legacy would be intellectual dishonesty. The same comparison applies to Floyd-Pac.

P.S. If Pac were to lose to Floyd he would still be the greater fighter with the greater legacy.

 

It's a great argument, but Hopkins is no Ali, as much as I love the guy.

You don't often get rematches for 9-3 round fights. Hey, I would have loved to have seen it, but Calz was so pissed off with Hopkins' whining, I don't blame him.

And, the fight likely goes to Wales (that was the talk). You think Adalaide Byrd is getting the assignment there?

I love Hopkins. He just isn't as good and doesn't have the style/tools to beat Calzaghe. This is the point: Hopkins is great; Calzaghe is better. Tonight helps to put that in perspective.