Bernard Hopkins 2001 vs. Joe Calzaghe prime, who wins this fight?

1) Irrelevant. Every fighter is different, mentally and physically, irrespective of whether they share boxing stylistic similarities or not. Joe Calzaghe was a smarter, more seasoned, more versatile, more cerebral, and physically stronger fighter in 2007 than he was in 1997, and there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest his stamina had diminished at all (I will never buy into the myth that Calzaghe was a powerpuncher early in his career - he never was, his high stoppage, not KO but 'stoppage', ratio was mostly due to the abject standard of his competition than it was to any concussive punching power). I think Calzaghe peaked so late because he spent so much of his career (roughly 1997-2006, more specifically 1999-2005) fighting very easy opposition in very mundane, danger-free fights, hence his autumnal freshness and fire.

2) Hopkins did indeed sustain his skills exceptionally well, but he did not sustain his physical attributes to the same degree. This is my point. The Hopkins of 2003-2005 was noticeably slower, more toothless and less active than the Hopkins of 1996-2001/2. This can be confirmed by watching his fights on dvd. From 2004 onwards, only fighters who have refused to let B-Hop fight at his own pace have had relative success against him (when I say success, I mean making it close with him, Taylor & Calzaghe). Guys who let Hopkins fight at his own pace and dictate the fight (Pascal, Pavlik, Tarver etc) are undone. Stamina is the issue (though power is a side-issue as well now, Hop does not carry the venom in his shots that he once did).

 

I agree, Hopkins had a preserved type of title rein and he really did not have too many rough fights or as a middleweight in a fight where anyone thought he would lose. His better fights were vs Tito and Oscar and they really were not middleweights.

I thought Taylor beat him in their fights. Hopkins did look excellent as a light-heavy- stronger and more confident. He beat Tarver and was very competitive and had a great win over Pavlik. He gave Calzage a decent fight although I thought he lost clearly and the fake a foul tactic was to get rest.

Calzage was not a kid and Hopkins was a very late bloomer so for me his overall peak is between the Tarver and Pavlik fights and certainly looked strong in the 2nd Pascal fight. There is a physical prime and an overall prime.

 

what a ****** that guy is. anyone who says that is lying to himself.

 

So Bernard Hopkins's peak wasn't at any point from the age of 28 to the age of 40, where he went undefeated for 12 years, and compiled a record of 24-0-1-1(16 stoppage wins)? Nah?

No of course not, his peak was when he went 3-1 (0 stoppage wins) between the ages of 41 and 43.

You couldn't make this shite up. atsch

 

Point One is absolutely relevant. If you do note concede it you acknowledge Calzaghe as some sort of rarefied physical freak. His style simply does not translate to longevity and the lack of precedent proves this. I had the pleasure of watching him in the early 90's (remember the Ring Mag Up and Comer section?). He could bang pretty well, not Gerald McClellan but significant. Fragile hands took that away. By 37, his accuracy and reflexes were also going.

Both guys were undeniably diminished by this fight but Bernard was declining at a slower rate, tho further along in his decline. Neither was prime.

 

Point 1 is irrelevant, as are all generalizations really.

Naseem Hamed peaks at around 24 then declines, Sergio Martinez peaks at 35 year old, etc.

Any grouping or categorizations of fighters is pointless, when you could instead just focus on the specific fighter in question.

I believe Calzaghe was a significantly better all-round fighter when he was beating better fighters and beating them more impressively around 06-07, than when he was has going to a split decision with Sugarboy Malinga's leftover Robin Reid in 1999.

And I think there is no justification whatsoever for saying the younger Calzaghe was "more accurate", in fact I think that's just flat-out wrong:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACgTJhEdj5M&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

Calzaghe was always a volume-puncher, he never tried to pick his shots for maximum impact, he never possessed that kind of poise or technique.

IMO, Hopkins's peak was approximately 96-02, Calzaghe's was approximately 03-07, so Joe was a helluva lot closer to his best than Bernard was, hence Bernard's very apparent stamina issues in the fight. It's just logic really.

 

We could have found out if Hopkins didn't ***** out back in 2002. The fact that hopkins did tells you all you need to know.

 

I could make a video compilation that shows Berbick beating Tyson. Highlights are not great analytical tools for these discussions.

Calzaghe looked pretty damn impressive versus Sheika in 2000, a powerpunching Sheika who just beat Glen Johnson. He tore his face apart in 5 rounds, picking hard counters against Sheika's advances. Now, Rodrigo Valdes he is not, not even saying that, but he used to sit down on his punches much more and yes, I think he had better accuracy (tho the opponent determines a lot of that.)

I agree Bernard's stamina was on the decline, despite his spartan training regimen. That comes more into a "styles make the fight" argument, a more prime Hopkins would have to deal with the pace of a more prime Calzaghe. That would always be an issue. Calzaghe pushed a great pace in their fight, but still in my opinion looked a bit desperate and threadbare compared to years before. You know, there is a reason he retired.

 

Don't feel that way about the Sheika fight - at ALL. This fight was actually similar in one aspect to the later part of the Ward / Kessler match except it occurred early. There was two perhaps three (would need to review the tape to identify the exact moments) head clashes within the first three or four rounds. The ref assisted by the atmosphere didn't pause the action after the obvious head clashes - and Sheika can be visibly seen shaking his head and indicating what had happened. Joe in spots did his usual wrap his right around the opponents head and throw the left while in a clinch. If someone hated the physical nature of Ward / Kessler then they should be objectively appalled by Sheika / Calzaghe. The head butts / clashes are what softened up Sheika's eye. Rodriquez did a horrible job in the loud partisan atmosphere of Wembley. It was largely a bull**** stoppage and Sheika was completely upset by this hometown bs that was so part and parcel to Joe's fights.

I don't believe the head clashes were intentional but they were nonetheless undeniably impactful on the fight and Sheika's condition. Joe was moving forward - ala Andrea Ward - and both fighters repeatedly moved into the same space. It happens. Still, it made every difference on the result of that fight. How anyone could use that fight as an example of Joe's excellence or impressiveness and not mention the head clashes is downright amazing.

The cut is what impacted the fight. While Joe got off to the better comparative start and moved to the lead this was a twelve round championship fight - with Sheika the man in actual foreign territory - and it was COMPLETELY impacted by head clashes, a cut, Sheika's resultant vision, and a quick ref stoppage due to the cut. Sheika in this time would have made for one of the best possible fights with Joe and there should have been a rematch. Sheika knew he was gonna get screwed and threw some caution to the wind with the cut and Joe landed some punches as a result of the vision impairment as Sheika threw harder punches in desperation at his plight. But ANYONE with any sense of ability to evaluate athletes would have noted that these two athletes were on a very similar level in 2000 and my view wasn't changed by the circumstances of that kind of tainted victory. Sheika without the cut would have made for a much different fight - and he deserved the entire twelve rounds to prove it - as there was definitely no material gap between these two athletes and fighters in 2000. Obviously, there wasn't going to be a rematch offered as he hadn't been knocked out.

 

When do you think his peak was and what was his best win and over what opponent.?

B-Hop to me was a late bloomer and I think stronger at 175lbs, I think he handles age the best I have seen. As a middleweight I thought his opposition was nothing spectacular and his best wins were over Trinidad in 2001 and Oscar in 2004, 2 blown up welters...but I think his best wins came after the Taylor losses.

B-Hop fought 18 of his 1st 19 fights North of 160lbs and although I agree his physical prime was in his younger days he put it together better with age.

early in his career he fought Glen Johnson but that was not the same Glen Johnson that we have seen in recent years, another fighter who has improved with age.

 

Ya a fact that should be noted as Popkins posted. Bernard was actually knocking out and getting TKO wins after his loss to Jones all the way up to his Oscar De La Hoya win in 2004. Hopkins hasn't had a knockout win since. Hopkins is an old man and is just using his incredible skills that he learned and kept throughout the years to win fights nowadays, not power.

I think Hopkins best days were between 96-01. Where he went 13-0 with 9 Knockouts/TKO's and 1 NC.

 

While BHop had ample stamina and movement etc in the late 90's to mid 00's, he certainly did not have the ring IQ he subsequently developed. The stamina diminished as he aged but that was compensated for by his increased craftiness and experience.


Obviously, his physical peak was earlier, but his 'skills' peak came later and a lot depends on where you set the balance between the two.


His MW reign was impressive in length and number of defences, but overall, not really any greater than Calzaghe's SMW reign.

His true greatness was made manifest with advancing years, and as My2Sense has pointed out, he was terminated at MW by Taylor. Twice.

Close fights, but two losses. Particularly telling here was his inability to do anything significantly different in the rematch.

Had that been the end for him, he would have a very good legacy, but not in the stratosphere.

His best wins were, IMO, Tarver and Pavlik and they book-ended his Calzaghe bout.

And they came after his MW days were over. One could argue that Hopkins' best wins point to when his best years occurred.


His prime (optimal combination of physical gifts with ring IQ) could well be argued as being 2005-2008, and it also came at LHW, a weight he should have perhaps moved to much earlier, rather than wasting his efforts on a third Robert Allen bout. I understand his desire to surpass Monzon's record and as it turned out, his choices did work pretty well for him.

Re: his Calzaghe bout, the conventional wisdom was that his stamina failed him. But I argued at the time that this was much more a function of the places Joe took him, places he had not been before, even with Taylor.

I said my piece on this when I predicted that Hopkins would upset Pav, a fairly bold prediction in light of the fears afoot for his safety prior to that bout.

[url]http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2538333&highlight=conventional+wisdom#post2538333[/url]

The Calzaghe win (and there is really little doubt that it was a win) based on his pressure style, becomes more impressive in the light of Bernard's subsequent dismantling of Pavlik. And even more so when placed in the context of his years-later draw and defeat of Pascal. Stamina was not an issue for him in these bouts.

Yes, he was a gym rat and in great shape with an excellent training regimen, but there was no point in his career that he had anything on Calzaghe in the stamina department. Quite the reverse. If matters came down to stamina, he would always have lagged Joe to a small degree.

We can't know how an earlier bout would have gone between these two.

In 2002, Hopkins pulled out of a verbal agreement to face Calzaghe in the US. Presumably, this would have been at 168 as Joe could not get down to 160.

Bernard would have been fighting at a new weight instead of Joe (as when they did meet). Bernard would have been fresher and had more stamina, but I've already discounted stamina as the main determinant when they finally met. Bernard would have had less experience and ring IQ. Calzaghe would also have been younger and brought as much or more pressure to bear.

It would have been interesting, and I think Calzaghe would have prevailed at any stage where they could have realistically met. And at any weight.

 

Couldn't disagree more here.

Calzaghe's loss of handspeed towards the end of his career was negligible, if it even occurred at all, his hands were blindingly fast against Lacy in '06, and at points in all of his subsequent fights.

And I will never, ever understand why so many people think that because a 43 year old Hopkins struggled to match Calzaghe's pace in their fight, this means a peak Hopkins would have done the same. This makes no sense to me. When did Bernard Hopkins EVER struggle with stamina or fitness issues in his prime? It didn't happen. This is just wishful thinking. The fact is Bernard was always a phenomenally well-conditioned and resolute athlete, until Father Time made his intervention. If Calzaghe fought a 96-02 Hopkins, Bernard would not find the pace problematic at all.

And I believe the reason Calzaghe retired was because he realized after the torrid, torrid evening he had with Hopkins that he never wanted to risk it again, and got the hell out of there. At the final bell, there is no doubt in my mind that Calzaghe felt he'd lost the fight. Look at the faces of him and his team as they await the decision. He knew he looked amateurish, inaccurate and ineffective in that fight, and that's why he took a fight with a shot-to-smithereens Jones and bailed, when Hopkins was offering to go to Wales for a rematch.

 

Calzaghe beats Hopkins at any stage of their careers, Calzaghe being too fast too skilled for Hopkins at any stage, when they finally fought {Hopkins pulled out of the fight back in the day} in Hopkins own country with an American ref and judges, Calzaghe was too good for Hopkins, although Calzaghe's motivation was on the wane and his hands shot, Calzaghe was further from his peak than Hopkins was, Calzaghe was a lot nearer to retirement than Hopkins, Hopkins was on and still is on a purple patch at the time.