Arise Sir Joe! Calzaghe vs Hopkins the Final Word.

Well, its over. After all the debate and arguments, the fight is over and the man who had his hand raised in victory was of course Joe Calzaghe.

Here are my thoughts on the fight and the implications of Calzaghes victory.

THE FIGHT ITSELF

I think this went the way everyone pretty much thought it would in regards to the way Hopkins in particular fought and the manner in which Calzaghe won, that is one guy was looking to fight off the backfoot trying to lure in his sometimes wild opponent then catch him with tasty right hands and then of course, rough him up on this inside.

Most of course thought that it was highly likely that Calzaghe would simply outwork and overwhelm Hopkins. This was particularly true down the stretch and its my opinion that the pace did start to get to Hopkins big time...and this as it transpired was decisive.

I had a bad feeling this would be a **** fight but rather than call it entertaining Ill call it enthralling, gripping and in places nailbiting...pleasantly surprised and Im not dreading watching it again when I go to verify my scorecard.

I shall now deal with the naysayers. There are three types of these in my mind: The Haters, The Revisionists and of course the Spinsters. Let me deal with each of these in turn.

THE HATERS

You guys will now in the grand scheme of things be silenced. All the ammo you once had to fire at Calzaghe has all but ran out given that he cleared out SMW(when you all accused him of running away in 2004) and has now beat the man to become number 1 at LHW. The wider boxing community will not accept any of your bull**** anymore and in time, most will come to appreciate Calzaghes greatness. Your day is done im afraid idiots and im delighted to see that the idiot Hopkins humper newbies are already on their bike as often happens in big fights.

THE REVISIONISTS

Oh you know the guys that said Hopkins would win at a canter but then in hindsight decry the verdict then after that assert that the win didn't mean much because Hopkins was old or in an even more extreme line of argument assert that Hopkins always lost to the best fighters he ever faced and only beat a faded Tarver fresh off the Rocky Balboa set and a 154lber.

To you guys, give some ****ing credit and show some humility. You may actually have some points, but concede that Joe is simply an awesome fighter and that Hopkins did put in a great performance but just feel short. Eat humble pie, hell knows Ive done it for instance Miguel Cotto has proved me very much wrong to the extent that I simplu need to accept that most of the criticisms ive made of him have been disproven. You guys can make your points, but do it within the context of giving Joe and for that matter Bernard due credit.

THE SPINSTERS

The worst of all. The idiots that will twist every bit of a guys resume to suit your agenda. Well I shall answer this one head on in regards to Hopkins. I actually agree before you idiots even state it that Hopkins in his physical prime may well have defeated Calzaghe.....

BUT! Thats irrelevant when considering the merits of each guys career. Why? Because as we all know this could have happened in 2002 when Hopkins was far fresher but understandably he played the businessman and stuck around at 160 waiting for DLH. Deal with it spinsters, B-Hop made the choice to go after money first before legacy back then. To his credit, post DLH everything has been about legacy but he always knew that time would wait for no one and its not Joe's fault that he chose to fight him now and not in 2002. Calzaghe > Hopkins whether you like it or not. Its not hypothetical, its fact and what fighters actually achieve is what I judge them on not what they might have or could have done.

TO BE CONTINUED

 

Also, the snobby fans that populate the main forum have had a rude awakening this week. Ive insisted all along that until proven otherwise, Hopkins is the man at 175.

Of course, certain fans have tried to pre-empt events and get ready to be smug and backslap themselves with the assertion that Dawson not Hopkins was the man to beat at 175.

Exactly why might I ask? And I did ask and I questioned why Calzaghe fans would prefer this fight over Pavlik or Hopkins. I asked why when it was clear that JC would not get immediate credit based on the fact that Dawson had only ever beat Adamek at that point and on the basis of his opposition, remained largely unproven. What the **** would Calzaghe get out of that? More idiots slating him for fighting an 'unproven prospect' ala Kessler.

Others would also no doubt state even if Dawson went on to achieve alot that he was green and Calzaghe got him early like some sometimes attack RJJ over his win over Hopkins in 92. What the **** is the point when you consider the risk-reward ratio? And btw I do rate Dawson but as a fan of JC its not the fight I want to see and ive just explained why. Hopkins was the right bout to take, and thats been proven I believe by Tarvers re-emergence, Dawsons mediocre performance and Hopkins good performance versus JC.

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN LEGACY WISE?

Legacy wise, it adds substantially to JC's resume. Why? Because he has beaten an ATG MW and the reigning LHW Champ at the same time landing more on him than anyone else in history. No matter which way you cut it or spin it thats big. Give the guy his due, im certain that writers and analysts in the future will.

As for Hopkins, he loses a little and in my book JC goes above him in terms of resume now. I don't think he loses much, given his opponent and the nature of his loss but Hopkins naysayers will point out that he has lost to the two best fighters he has ever faced (JC and RJJ) and arguably the third (Taylor) rightly or wrongly, people will count that against him and watch out Hopkins fans for the great revisionism that your righter will under go with every idiot scrunitinising every little detail of his competition.

WHERE DO BOTH GO FROM HERE?

Ill start with Hopkins. Retire, a very good performance against a younger ATG, slightly contentious to some. Go out the Hagler way and enjoy your retirement. True boxing fans will be talking of you for many eras to come for your fantastic achievements. Any win over a nobody would be anti-climatic and a loss to a young up and comer may hurt your legacy a little bit. Time to go old man.

For JC, one last fight one more. Pavlik. Why? He will get huge credit for this win as its against the reigning undisputed MW champ that the Americans I suspect will cling to as their last hope against Calzaghe. He will also have beaten by that stage pretty much everyone there is to beat either directly or indirectly through his slain foes from 160 to 175 aside from Dawson. And the fact remains haters, that there will always be someone left to fight. Marciano could have stayed on for Patterson, Lewis for a Klitschko rematch and people were critical because they didn't. However, in time people come to admire them for getting out at the top at the right time and criticise Ali, SRL etc etc for going on too long. Be one of the former Joe: take short term criticism for long term acclaim. You deserve it mate.

ARISE SIR JOE! JC FOR KNIGHTHOOD!

 

Jeff, I respect you as a poster and alot of what you said in regards to why you thought Hopkins would win, much of it transpired but it just wasn't enough. I know your a big fan of B-Hop and that in the cold light of day, once your pride starts hurting I know that guys like yourself and Dan B will give JC his due credit.

The only thing I will say to you is stop being so darned nice to that Hater, Revisionist, Spinster and all around moron in Sleaze Nation :twisted:

Ive given him too much air time myself. The guy contributes nothing of any worth to this forum in my humble opinion. Hes like an autmoated robot with his responses to other peoples posts.

 

TFFP! Whats he done? I saw his questionable, probably slightly bias scoring but he seemed quite restrained and reserved in spite of that. He been doing some Hopkins bashing?

 

Ahhh not good. Not down with firing personal insults generally(though some have got under my skin in recent weeks I do confess). I think both of you guys are good posters and I can get how emotions might spill over given TFFP's admiration for Joe and yours for Bernard.

Btw, I think Calzaghe won the fight and by a few rounds but I can understand someone scoring it for Hopkins narrowly depending on their criteria for scoring fights.

One aspect of Hopkins game I was disappointed in was his shameful play acting in the 10th. He exaggerated the first low blow and tried to invent a second, I wasn't impressed by that at all though I must admit I was amused when Joe took him back to jail so to speak

 

Just saw this post mate cheers :good

Already you will see the hating, spinning and revising im warning against on the main fourm though. The only good thing is some of the more idiotic newbie Hopkins humpers are fleeing in the same vain as the Kesslerites did in November.

 

Thanks for the kind words guys.

The British board to me, is largely a refuge from these haters who populate the general forum en mass. Its up to us to safeguard against them by calling them on their bull****.

If Hopkins had won last night, I would have gave him his due. Calzaghe wouldn't have became old over night, an overhyped Euro bum reetc etc: Hopkins would have simply achieved a huge victory first and foremost and those other points would have been considered only after acknowledging that.

Hopkins fans in my mind have to do the same for JC. And I know the true fans will do that once the pain subsides from their guy losing that fight.