Did Hopkins and Jones Jnr miss out on what would have been their most defining fights

and i agree about calzaghe not being hopkins' most defining fight if they fought earlier....calzaghe hadn't even fought a single great fighter in their prime before he retired.

 

I'm not doubting they would have been very defining fights but not the most defining of their careers. For example, do you think beating Dariusz would have eclipsed the Ruiz fight? No doubt Dariusz is a far superior fighter to Ruiz, but I dont think beating him tops winning a Heavyweight title as a former middleweight.

Hopkins, there's a little more room for debate there. But I dont think Calzaghe was ever considered the kind of unstoppable fighter Trinidad was at the time. In hindsight, we can look back and say that Tito was a former WW and highlight his record post-Hopkins, but at the time, Hopkins was rank outsider, and that win brought him into the ''elite'' if you will. Not only did he beat Tito, he absolutely dominated and overwhelmed him, and as a result some people(not myself) consider it to be one of if not the biggest victory of the entire decade.

 

what you talkin about? i said prime. why you mentioning eubank?

 

arguably the most ignorant post in esb history :-(


simply sickenning and typical of an entire nations gullable ignorance :dead

 

eubank was in his prime when he fought joe?

also, he took that fight at 2 weeks notice.

 

Jones got literally nothing for that fight, the deal gave Hopkins the first $3.5 million and the fight didn't even make that much lol Roy got beat by his enemy for free.

 

:rofl...who the hell is this stupid minion??

 

he's part of the level 1 team sewer rat brigade, his opinion is worthless :-(

 

beating Calzaghe at the time would not have been regarded as a great win, Calzaghe become a bigger name later on.

 

I'm new to the forum, and it's hard to figure out who's playing Capt. Europe Uber Alles for fun, and who's actually serious. But if this topic is serious, it's hard to understand how anyone is going to bring up Calzaghe as a *victim* in a discussion about not taking big fights.

I'm a guy who thought well of Calzaghe. Great boxing skill, very impressive win streak. However, his roster of opponents is topped by a *43 year old* Hopkins, and a shot RJJ. And he looked bad in the Hopkins fight, in which he was very heavily favored. I thought he'd handle Hopkins somewhat easily, and he ended up being fortunate that Hopkins gassed later in the fight. He used to be knocked even in the UK for coasting on home town kudos and not taking a more challenging path.

All boxers, in every time period, 'duck' good fighters. I think that can be one of the most naive charges around, though there are always a few boxers that practice this a bit more egregiously than others. It's a depressing fact of boxing, but that's the way it is.

 

Calzaghe and Michalczewski were not relevant at all to Hopkins and Jones because they were not big publicity stars. no one ranked them anywhere. had hopkins and jones fought them earlier, they would still not have any names, because hopkins and jones in their prime beat calzaghe and Michalczewski in their prime. and fighters that fought jones and hopkins tend to fade into oblivion after wards. the public media would've just regarded them as paper title holders with padded records and not defining fights. by both of htem fighting calzaghe in their 40s, calzaghe gained the advantage. but before they reached 40, calzaghe was pretty much a nobody, and without fighting them, he pretty much still is. but since he was smart enough to fight them, congrats to him for being smarter than they were. had they fought him earlier, he would've retired a long time ago. but like i said, calzaghe played his hand great, credit to him.

 

this is arguably the most ignorant post in esb history. it is ignorant of the many stupid posts by stupid posters as well as ignorant of the posters own stupid posts, such as this one.

 

dubace, you should've just quoted that pitiful post you made above.