Does Hopkins win enhance Calzaghe's legacy even more?

Nah, JC is a great anyway. Dont forget the Hopkins fight probably could've gone either way, very, very close.

Would JC have beaten Cloud? Yes, so I don't see how it improves his legacy.

 

This thread happens every time Hopkins wins ha.

 

imo yes because people were saying Hopkins was past it but 5 years on he's champion. what Hopkins has done since that fight has without doubt enhanced Calzaghe's legacy

 

Not really, all it does is show up modern boxing, to be brutally honest.

A man who is nearly 50, who fights once a year, completely showed up a man who ought to be in the prime of his career.

Calzaghe from that night would have done a job on Cloud, though I think it'd have been more of a tear up, given that Calzaghe didn't possess the technical nuances and ring smarts that Hopkins does.

Not that Calzaghe lacked ring IQ and nuances by any means, but Hopkins is off the chart from all bar three current fighters. Two of which are past 35 :-(

 

Nah. Calzaghe started to get more credit when BHop beat Pavlik and Pascal. Cloud is just telling us what we already know.

 

In my opinion it does but it's definitely a "yes and no" sort of thing. He won the fight against Hopkins, let that be clear. Joe Calzaghe win the fight, Hopkins lost He didn't beat Hopkins though, that's something else entirely. Nobody since RJJ can can say they've truly beat or got the better of Hopkins, not even Dawson.

Hopkins gave Calzaghe that fight. He had Joe down and made him look amateurish at times, he just didn't keep his foot on the gas and allowed Joe to take the rest of the round which was enough for a decison. That's why he called Joe out for a rematch for song long, to this day he must still kick himself for losing that fight when he shouldn't have.

 

It doesn't hurt JC legacy that Hopkins continues to win world championships. So in that sense it can ONLY help.

 

I thought that Hopkins beat Calzaghe, but it's the Hagler/Leonard thing all over again, there's a never ending debate over it.

Though the outcome of this one is more controversial I'd say, albeit in a much less historically significant fight for the sport.

 

Not really, we already knew that Hopkins whilst not in his prime was still a good fighter when Calzaghe beat him, and if there was any doubt on that the Pavlik win showed it 6 months later. I don't rate it any higher than I did prior to Saturday

 

I never understood why so many people harp on about the Leonard/Hagler fight being close or even a controversial decision. Leonard clearly wins that fight, Hagler hardly lands a glove on him and SRL clearly controls the fight, even if he was on the back foot.

The Calzaghe/Hopkins fight is far more controversial and down to interpretation if you ask me, Hopkins lands the more telling shots and gets the KD but his negative tactics lost him the fight. He gave it away rather than lost it and Calzaghe was fortunate that the judges favoured his aggressive style instead of looking at shots landed. Hopkins win obviously makes Calzaghe's win seem better on paper at least.

 

And its very easy to say that Calzaghe too gave that fight away , his footwork wasnt great in that fight, he kept holding ground after throwing punches letting hopkins grab rather jab step out and frustrate hopkins.

Also in a sense Calzaghe despite not being at his best did get the better as his constant pressure was tiring hopkins out even though it may have looked like hopkins was controlling the fight he was being slowly grounded down

Hopkins in the RJJ fight was nowhere near his best. Plus that fight was a bore fest

 

Fair point. I had Calzaghe winning as well, I just believe Hopkins was VERY capable of winning that night. He just didn't pull it of the bag and he knows that, that's why he's called out Joe for a rematch for years, its bugs him.