Age was DEFINITELY a factor with HOPKINS

I never said he got old overnight.

In fact, at 43, his tactics were still good enough to beat probably anyone else at light heavy aside from Calzaghe.

It's just that Calzaghe is a tireless puncher, and Hopkins style is so much reliant on moving around the ring to obtain angles, that you can't deny he wouldn't have done better if he were 5 years younger.

He just didn't have the legs, so in my opinion, age was definitely a factor, but no, he didn't age overnight.

 

Why is this thread turning into a debate about who would have won? That's irrelevant.

The point is that age was definitely a factor.

A 43 year old man doesn't have the legs of a 35 year old.

Is this even debateable?

 

Bernard adapted fine, and you making comparisons of him to Kessler for instance or any other figher for that matter, that's the wrong route to take.

Kessler had no problem being the aggressor and allowing Calzaghe to counter him. Bernard constantly moved around the ring in an attempt to bait Calzaghe in, so he could counter him, predominately with right hands.

So you can't tell me, REGARDLESS OF WHO WINS THE FIGHT, that age wasn't a factor.

Bernard simply did not have the legs that he had 5 years ago.

 

No, you just sound like someone that looks at boxing from the outside in.

If you've ever been in the ring, you would understand how difficult it is to keep your legs moving like Hopkins does for the entire duration of the fight.

There were several lapses in the Kessler-Calzaghe fight where they would feel eachother out and stay relatively stationary.

Hopkins was constantly on the move and Calzaghe was constantly on the attack.

You just don't see the difference between the styles, but if you want to believe your some kind intellectual in the sport of boxing, that suits me fine.

You can't be a hero in your own mind, but I suggest that you either get in the ring at some point in your life so you can find out how taxing it is, or you pay more attention to a fighter's style so you can see the differences between them.

But the worst part of your assumption is that you fail to acknowledge, admit, or realize that Calzaghe had never shared the ring with a fighter like Hopkins.

I'm sorry, but age was a factor.

And for calling me a moron, go ahead and kindly slap yourself.

atsch

 

Thanks if you're not being sarcastic.

With that said, I take nothing away from Calzaghe who I acknowledge as a great fighter; however, styles make fights.

As far as who would win in their primes....I don't know. That's irrelevant.

My point is that regardless of what would happen, that in this fight, age certainly was a factor that cannot be ignored.

 

I never said that Calzaghe was at his prime if that's what you're getting at. ****, age was a factor with him too, unless you consider that a prime Calzaghe.

Stop getting so insulted.

Everyone who really appreciates the sport of boxing respects Calzaghe, so why are you getting so uptight?