B-Hop breaks record... and makes Hopkins-Calzaghe debate look even more ridiculous!

Listen Popkins and Commando(for the boys)

How far past prime was Eubank to you then?
Eubank had lost a close decision to Collins, that many thought he won, had a couple of tune ups and rematched Collins to a SD, had a couple of tune ups and lost clearly to underdog Calzaghe. After that loss Eubank went up to CW and challenged world champ Thompson losing a very close decision and then rematched Thompson losing on injury when ahead. Thats Thompson who years later past his best KOd D Haye.
Consider Eubank only had 2 losses to one fighter when he fought Calzaghe, the second by SD to a world champ and was 31 then went on to challenge a big CW flooring him etc, how past his prime do YOU think he was? Many years later Thompson became the only pro to beat Haye, yet Eubank wasnt KOd and ahead in the 2nd fight


Remember when you make silly comments about losses was G Johnson considered past his prime when years ago after losing to Hopkins he went 7-9-2 including the Hopkins loss

Look at the facts Eubank didnt lose in 19 world title fights.

Tarver - is 5-5 in title fights, couldnt beat the worse version of Jones straight from HW, got bust up by Harding and couldnt beat double figure losses Johnson who is 3-7-1 in world title fights or 3-8-1 if you include a WBU title attempt

Pavlik - was coming up 2 weight divisions and fighting higher than ever and is 4-1-0 in title fights and his biggest win is Taylor who was KOd by Abraham atsch

Trinidad - a former WW who had been put down 7 times that I know of before he fought Hopkins and was toyed with by Jones who people say was shot

Pascal - was 4-1-1 in world title fights and lost his 0 to the limited Froch who lost to unwell Kessler.


None of those fighters match up to Eubank who has names like Benn, Watson, Rocchigiani to name a few on his resume and went 17-0-2 in title fights before losing a contraversial away decision, then lost a SD, lost big to Calzaghe but lost very close to a CW world champ Thompson and lost a return on injury when ahead, so in 22 world title fights Eubank only ever got beaten clearly once, unlike Tarver, Pavlik, Trinidad and Pascal who have been clearly beaten more than once in so many less world title fights

 

Two minutes of Calfaggi missing arm punches and grabbing and holding. Awesome

 

Calzaghe had to give Veit a rematch or he would have been stripped and that didnt make any sense at that time.

No not everyone at Ringside scored for Hopkins liar. atsch.
HBO team of 3 all saw for Calzaghe, there was an article in a boxing mag asking 9 experts who they picked as the journalist doing the article felt Hopkins had done enough, when he asked the 9 experts all of them saw Calzaghe as the winner, including M Steward, and I think it was S Muhammed as another.
2 of the 3 judges scored for Calzaghe (and agreed on 9 rounds) as did most journalists and if you google A Byrd just see what comes up about her scoring fights atsch.

if Hopkins thought he was winning he wouldnt have been looking for timeout trying to get points deducted off of Calzaghe.
Calzaghe denied Hopkins his usual strong finish , sandwiched between Hopkins best wins of Tarver, Wright and Pavlik.
Calzaghe beat Hopkins at a new weight, in America with Cortez as ref, with 3 American judges scoring the single highest score against Hopkins ever :smoke.

Well done to Hopkins becoming a world champ again :good

 

Calzaghe slowed down a lot quicker than Hopkins has, probably because his style relied on speed and fitness, which are two of the first things to go with age, whereas Hopkins was able to adjust his style and stay an elite fighter. Yeah, Calzaghe was only a few years away from his peak and Hopkins was further from his, but Calzaghe was also a lot closer to being shot than Hopkins. Assuming Calzaghe was still active, I think he'd have lost. Probably to someone he'd have beaten years ago whereas Hopkins is still putting on good performances.

What you're saying is right, yes, but it's also a one sided view of things. Calzaghe was closer to the end of his career. Mentality he didn't want it, physically he was suffering and you can't say that about Hopkins.

 

Physically Joe was a little past his peak....but OVERALL Joe was at his best. He got the best experince LATE in his career, which took his game to that next level. So while I agree that Physically Joe may have been a split second slower or his reflexes a little more delayed, his overall skill level and craft was never better.

I think Joe left b/c he knew exactly when to call it a day! THere are few boxers who know when to hang'em up at the right times and Joe is one of them. It's not to say he couldn't still compete...he just didn't want to end up hurting his legacy when he could end his career on his own terms.

 

this fight has nothing to do with Calzaghe. If anything it shows how good Joe was. Hopkins still did not beat Calzaghe..

 

Agreed...it only helps JOe's legacy vs hurts it. Joe gets a bad wrap a lot of the time because of his early career that was pretty much against a bunch of no bodies.

 

1. Hopkins should have been awarded a close decision against Calzaghe.
2. Eubank was past his prime.
3. It took Calzaghe close to ten years to fight another resume building fight.
4. He dodged most of the challenging fights available during his career.
5 He benefited from hometown decisions and quick stoppages his entire career.
6. The Kessler win was nice.
7. SMW was a second class weight class most of his career and he beat a path north of SMW when it heated up.
8. The WBO was not recognized as a credible sanctioning body when he won the belt and even so he never made an effort to unify. He was content to "defend" his paper title for fans who don't know better.
9. When legit challenges were available at the end of his career he chooses to fight past their prime names and rather than fighting any of the credible challengers.


Hopkins defended the legit MW title 20 times, unified the belts on multiple occasions, and faced a higher level of competition.

 

Hopkins is a fighter, Calzage is a slapper.
Calzage was protected all his life. Hopkins went from very bottom to the greatest.

 

You could see a quick and significant decline in Calzaghe. Hopkins still hasn't shown that.

 

By "quick and significant decline" you mean Calzaghe actually fought some one with genuine elite skills (Hopkins) and low and behold, all of a sudden Calzaghe doesn't look all that good.

Hopkins looked terrible in the Eastman fight (which was three years before the Calzaghe fight) and had clearly lost some stamina and was slowing down significantly. However, Hopkins still has ATG skills which is why despite his physical decline he has been able to adapt and is still doing what he is doing.

 

I didn't see that fight where Hopkins should have won. I saw one where Hopkins should have lost to Calzaghe. Hopkins is great no doubt, but Calzaghe proved he is great and people put him done unfairly.

 

Yes there is! But it is not nearly as strong as the Calzaghe over Hopkins argument. Because Calzaghe is first tier Hall of Fame fighter just like Hopkins. I agree that I think Hopkins may have achieved more but Calzaghe did a whole lot too, including beating Hopkins head to head.