Beating Hopkins,Eubank & Jones>Beating Hopkins & Toney

wow, this site has gone to **** real fast

 

which is a better bhop?
1993 bhop or 2008 bhop? :think

 

Funny how these "cold hard facts" are based on the ASSUMPTION that Calzaghe will beat Jones in November. It seems like Joe's whole resume hinges on this fight..... but Roy's doesn't. That 'cold hard fact' right there should tell you something about their respective resumes.

 

You seem to conveniently neglect to acknowledge B-Hop as a young opponent against Jones versus B-Hop in the twilight of his career against Calzaghe. :-(

 

2008 Hopkins, but one man won by a very close decision, the other lost 2, or at most 3 rounds and was not quite prime himself.

 

you're right about lacy and calzaghe deserves full credit for beating him - and kessler. but unless kessler goes on to bigger and better things these won't be defining fights because neither fighter, although genuine contenders at that time, haven't beaten proven world class opposition.

the benefit of hindsight can't take away the quality of these wins - and they were excellent wins - but it still doesn't change the fact that calzaghe never sought a foothold in the US while he was beating up (and lets be honest) B grade contenders out of wales.

calzaghe will never have the worldwide respect and be talked about in the same breath as hopkins and jones outside of britain because he CHOSE (under frank warren's guidance) to stay in wales and rack up title defences that were never going to further his career in terms of how good he really is (lacy and kessler being the exception).

you're final point about "when the pressure was on joe won and roy got knocked out" just isn't being objective at all - partly for the reasons i've already mentioned.

joe's never fought a proven world class fighter in his prime and that's because he never made the moves to take on jones or hopkins when it mattered.

so while joe fought mostly b-grade fighters from wales and got rich, both jones and hopkins were gaining notoriety and title defences within the US marketplace - which means it was worth the while financially for anyone to fight them.

you need to understand how important this fact is.

sure, jones and hopkins ruled weak divisions in the same way joe did, but putting yourself in a position of 'higher risk' means you're an open target for anyone within punching distance (weight class wise) who carries that same financial clout.

roy got knocked out because he was never the same fighter after beating a man 30 pounds heavier than him at heavyweight and tarver was in the right place at the right time - and jones never recovered.

who was calzaghe fighting that weekend to avoid getting KO'd?

 

atsch Jones won belts in 4 weight division, CLEARLY beat a YOUNG HOPKINS and a prime Toney...way too much is being made of Calzaghe's undefeated reocrd. If he would've fought a young Toney and younger hopkins, he would no longer be undefeated. The best name on Slappy's resume is Hopkins and he won by split decision. Calzaghe is a damn good fighter, but how does beating past their prime Hall of Famers and spending the majority of his professional career defending his single SMW title against creampuffs in Wales set him above Roy Jones or Hopkins in terms of legacy? it doesn't....the nuthuggery is getting out of control!

 

fool - jones captured titles from the middleweight division all the way up to heavyweight, fighting the best there way. Sure he got KTFO twice, but he sure wouldn't have had he stayed in Great Britain fighting in ONE division.
Godammit people, Calzaghe nuthugging is gone out of control.

 

Are you saying the present day B-Hop is better than at any other time in his career or is he better today than just when he was in his 20's?

Or do you mean that he was better against Pavlik than he was against Jones?

 

after reading my long post above you tell me why he doesn't have these guys on his resume?

 

(1) Eubank was almost done when Calzaghe fought him, and was nowhere near the same fighter as he once was. Also, Eubank was never in the same league as Toney or Hopkins.
(2) Hopkins was 2-2 in his last 4 fights before Calzaghe, and was 43 years old. Whether he is a freak of nature or not, he was obviously nowhere near his prime.
(3) RJJ is 3-3 in his last 6 fights leading up to his fight with Calzaghe, is 2 months shy of being 40 years old, and hasn't knocked anyone out in 6 years...


RJJ fought Hopkins when Hopkins was the "executioner", and fought Toney when Toney was #2 P4P behind only Pernell Whitaker...

Beating old Hopkins, shot Jones, and almost retired Eubank is not greater than beating young Hopkins and prime Toney. Not even close.

Also, for those of you talking "tomato cans", from 1997 (after the Eubank fight) to 2006 (the Lacy fight), Calzaghe was fighting tomato cans, nobodies, and making garbage defenses of his worthless WBO super middleweight title for 9 years...

Don't try to rewrite history...