the truth about bhop and calzaghe...

Do you have anything else in the locker, other than some second hand rumor you read on the internet?

And are you really so desperate that you are now resorting to critisicing a persons ability to type as a credible way to get the better of him in an argument?

Weak.

 

Calzaghe beat Hopkins, no woulda no shoulda no coulda plain and simple Calzaghe beat Hopkins. Calzaghe 21 defences, undisputed, undefeated, 2 weight champion. Hopkins 20 defenses, undisputed, 2 weight champion.

Calzaghe>>>Hopkins.

 

Hopkins has a better resume, he fought and beat better fighters, and he was the champion of a proper division.

If the only argument for Calzaghe>Hopkins is a disputed SD over a 43 year old version of B-Hop, then its a pretty feeble argument.

 

This thread is about Calzaghe beating Hopkins.

I'm not trying to justify Calzaghe's career.

See how you guys wriggle and slither looking for ways to undermine Calzaghe's credibility when the thread is about the result of the fight between Calzaghe and Hopkins, and not about Calzaghe's career?

You guys can't even see how ingrained this behaviour is in you

 

He has a slightly better resume but has 5 losses and a draw, debateable, proper division?

Calzaghe beat Hopkins, no woulda, coulda or shoulda. Calzaghe beat Hopkins.

 

This content is protected

Jonhson is he ONLY question mark between the two: Winky/Tarver/Pavlik - all these guys are nothing compared to Joe; nothing!!!!!

 

Hopkins' resume is significantly better than Calzaghe's, by at least a couple of names.

Losses are what happen when you fight better fighters over a longer period of time. But I understand your point, I just don't think preserving an '0' is good enough justification for not fighting anyone of note for most of your career.

And yeah, Middleweight was a proper division, with proper champions and proper contenders. When Calzaghe ruled 168 it was a Mickey Mouse division.

Calzaghe does have a a split decision 'w' against a 43 year old Hopkins on his record, no doubt about that :good

 

And I bet Hopkins wouldn't lose to Robin Reid!

 

Names are names, in that case seeing as De La Hoya the midget is considered a top name to have on your resume so is Roy Jones regardless of the situation?

Don't pretend there was great fighters at Middleweight, who can forget Hopkins' epic trilogy with Robert Allen or his fight with the great Morade Hakkar? Yes he fought better fighters but the two biggest wins made their names at Welterweight.

Calzaghe does have a W against Hopkins, glad you agreed. Afterall facts are facts :happy

 

I bet Calzaghe wouldn't draw with Mercado or lose to Taylor.

 

I bet Hopkins wouldn't struggle with a shot to hell Charles Brewer.

 

Taylor has 2 wins over Hopkins:happy

 

Here's the discussion between you and pugilist64:

So, let's split hairs, shall we?

1. Correct, the British judge scored the fight a draw, which, due to the other 2 judges scoring it for each fighter respectively, resulted in the fight being ruled a draw.

2. Incorrect. Stanley Christodolou (SA) scored the fight for Lewis 116-112. Eugenia Williams (USA) scored the fight for Holyfield 115-113. pugilist64 never claimed Williams' score was the 'definitive factor' in that fight, he claimed 'That was when the Yank judge voted for the Yank fighter.'

• Williams is from the US.
• Holyfield is from the US.
• Williams scored the fight for Holyfield.
• Adalaide Byrd is from the US.
• Adalaide Byrd scored the fight for Hopkins over Calzaghe, which resulted in a Split Decision result.
• The Split Decision result is what causes any controversy or dispute over the actual outcome of the Calzaghe vs Hopkins fight.

Therefore pugilist64's statements are correct.

How you choose to interpret his statements is entirely up to you, but you are in no position to accuse him of being wrong when you have clearly taken his statements and tried to spin them to suit your anti-Calzaghe agenda.

You embarked on an argument based on your misinterpretation, therefore your argument is flawed.

 

They aren't rumours.

You know they aren't rumours.

Running out of straws to grasp? :yep

 

Yeah, but I honestly believe if guys like Eastman and Echols has fought at 168 over a period of time, they would have been belt holders in that division.

I'm not going to get into the size debate about Hopkins resume again, I don't think Hopkins' size and weight were significant to the way he fought, and Trinidad was a legitmate Middleweight, by any standard.