Calzaghe couldn't have done any better in terms of comp than he did.

:good Pay no attention to that guy, he's an absolute joke.

 

Even tho you were answering a terrible post...ya kinda answered with a terrible one of your own.

First, Hopkins was 0-1 at LHW before beating Tarver. He said MANY, MANY times throughout his reign at MW that he didnt feel comfortable AT ALL fighting at 175, hense why he moved down to a more managable 160 (during his reign, he walked around at 160 and even entered the ring at 160). It was later in his career (and his age) that making 160 became a problem, hense why he said he felt fresher and stronger at 175...it was not because he had lost, its because he couldnt make it anymore (he is 40+ years old for god sakes)....leading up to and after the Tarver fight.

Did you just make that stuff up or something?

Second, Joe's SMW resume is no where near Hopkins MW one. Johnson, Oscar, Tito, Joppy, Eastman, Holmes, Echols, Vanderpool, Lipsey, etc. You have to be kidding me. As I have said over and over (and its pretty well known as well) Calzaghe is one of my favorite fighters...has been since the Eubank fight. But come on...you cant really believe that? Can you?

And again, he did not fight the best he could have. That also is NOT a knock on him, as, not many of them were beating down his door to get a shot. But god, can you Calzaghe fanatics be fair and consistant for once (or at least RESEARCH some facts???).

 

Great post but do you ever feel like you're banging your head against a brick wall with this topic?

 

Which stuff were you referring to?

There's no point in rehashing all this again. You and I exhanged about 10 lengthy posts one sunday last May debating the relative quality of Joe's and Bernard's opposition.

Neither of us convinced the other.

You have stated what you believe. I believe that Joe's resume is as good or better.

And as far as being a fanatic, what could be more fanatical than thinking that Bernard would have beaten prime Roy Jones?

 

Hell yes....

:wall

(tho not in the back and forth with sean...as always, he is unbiased and well informed)

 

Oh of course, I was referring to the afore mentioned fanatics.:good

 

Umm, the entire paragraph you cut out of your quote/response.

Well, as for the fanatical thing. As I have stated, when you fail to take anything into account but a slighted, biased, non-factually based opinion...when you make things up...when you unfairly degrade one fighters resume/skills/career and in turn unfairly overrate anothers to strengthen your arguement....then you cross the line of FAN and you become a FANATIC!

And for the record, your not nearly the worst offender, not by any sense of the imagination...and in no way the only one...but...

And as for the Jones thing...I have stated my case as to why. I have made numerous posts as to why. I dont just blindly think it...

 

You're so full of it. Your problem is you think you know more then you ever show. Anytime you've been asked to EXPLAIN a fight in terms of styles or matchups, you are usually gone...or you give a rather simplified answer.

Maybe you should go back to the lounge and recruit people for your little club. :yep

 

*AHEM* Amsterdam...:rofl

 

I've not seen anything to convince me the initial post was well off base

I've actually heard from various well placed sources Frank Warren hired private detectives armed with a bic and a contract to capture Ottke and Beyer. They couldn't be located in the cold, densely wooded Bavarian forests

It's well established Hopkins would rather have gone back to jail than take this fight 6 years ago. It's even proving difficult now, when he has nothing to lose but his health

If they are too scared, we might as well add them to Joe's record based on likely outcomes of said fights

Beyer - KO 1
Ottke - KO 2
Hopkins - UD

 

Hopkins also fought Tarver and Winky Wright.:hi:

 

With Oscar, its not just the name, but the performance. Lipsey on the other hand was a HIGHLY TOUTED prospect who got obliterated (even was favored by many of the "experts" going in)...I can easily take both out tho and still have Hopkins on top.

Tito had just obliterated Joppy (a VERY good MW) before stepping in the ring with Bernard. He was also a HUGE favorite in the fight. Hindsight is all well and good, but it doesnt take away from the brilliance of Hopkins win.

As for Kessler....I said it leading up to his fight with Joe....he is OVERRATED! He is a very good fighter, but a VERY, VERY limited fighter. I said EXACTLY how he would lose to Joe and I turned out to be right. Now, afterwards, he is even more overrated....it boggles my mind. Hopkins would have beaten him clearly...just as Joe did. In his prime, Bernard would have stopped him....plain and simple. The guy is a very good fighter, but for some reason, he is now great in most people's eyes. Even tho he is the same, VERY GOOD fighter but very limited guy he was leading into the fight.

Johnson is also a better fighter than anyone on Joe's resume. Remember, when he lost to Bernard, he was undefeated and in his PRIME!

We could go on and on about this...but there is really no arguement when assessing the two's resumes (and it gets further apart when you add in what he has done at LHW...and at the advanced age he accomplished it all in). Just as there is no arguement on the fact that, as great as Joe is...and as truely underrated as Joe's resume is...he DID NOT fight the best competition that he could have.

And of the names you have given for Joe...why not bring up that Lacy was severly overrated (which YOU KNOW, I also said going into the fight...), as his struggles with PETER FREAKING MANFREDO shows....or that Eubank was past it and that his record after Joe was 0 - 2....

(BTW, I think, tho the above is true...its bull**** when looking at the fights fairly)

You can find fault with ANY fighters resume if you dig and use hindsight to look at each fight. But when taking a fight in the CONTEXT of how it was when they fought is when you can more fairly assess what they have done.

:good

 

Again, you accuse others of bias, blithely oblivious to your own. I guess that's the definition of bias. As i already stated, we can't resolve matters of opinion by debate. We just have to agree to differ.

However, you did not answer cloarify your remark about making things up.. This i find more worrisome than our differences about the fighters.

Just what did I make up ?

 

That Hopkins throughout his MW career said that LHW was a more comfortable weight for him...when in reality, its the exact opposite that he said on MANY, MANY occasions and he never said that 175 was good for him until he outgrew 160.

That he left 160 because he lost, yet he had said before the FIRST Taylor fight that he was moving up afterward (only staying there for the rematch).

And as for me being biased? Go ask around bro, I am KNOWN on here as one of the more informed, unbiased posters. I always research what I post, I never blindly follow a fighter, I never unfairly degrade a fighter, I even pick against fighters I like when I dont feel they will win. Just because I dont agree with you, doesnt make me biased. Everything I post is formed from fact and careful analysis (doesnt mean I cant be wrong, but)...and you are maybe the 2nd or 3rd person ever to call me "biased". Pay more attention to my posts...