Bhop Vs Joe Calzaghe

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Let's hope that Hatton/Mayweather and Calzaghe/Hopkins isn't on the same card....this forum could very well be purged of half its members in one night.

 

Jumping 2 weight classes in one fight to shut out the champ at that weight is not only a good win....at the age in which Hopkins did it in....its a fantastic win.

The ODLH fight was significant in it being a name and also giving Hopkins a status as a big money fighter (as his last few paydays show....).

Now the Taylor fights were fights Hop didnt have to take. Taylor was a young, hungry up and coming STAR, not yet a mandatory. And rather than moving up or taking an easier fight, he fought someone younger, faster and hungrier than himself or what he could have taken. Taking the Taylor fight was a risk...I love how people ignore this.

And plus, the Taylor fights were close fights. I had Hopkins 1-0-1 in them, but wouldnt/didnt argue a Taylor win in the 2nd one.

Point is, people can try to diminish what Bernard has done in the ring, but he has fought much better competition than Calzaghe has.

I love Joe, but he would lose even now vs Hopkins.

 

I don't see how Calzaghe can be regarded any higher than Sven Ottke, who also rarely left home to fight and rarely took on a tough challenge. Ricky Hatton has the right idea....he made the decision to get into the mix, and it's paying off.

 

Jumping up two weight classes to beat an absentminded no-trained has been that beat a has been - does nothing for me - except that he did it at an old age, however - both RJJ and Tarver are almost as old.

Yes, it was a risk fighting Taylor - compared to any other of his fights since RJJ. Still Taylor was only an up-and coming star with like 24 fights or something like that. Never had he been in the ring with an elite. I guess that Hopkins thought it would be greater to do it before he got better.

However Taylor still lives off those fights. He went fairly even with Winky, but I feel that Winky won. He went to a close fight with smaller Spinks whom is featherfisted(just like Winky).

Just because he has fought better opposition doesn't make him a better fighter - especially not at 42. No way in hell can he beat JC now. I fail to see how.

He fights in spurts due to his old age, he is still fairly strong, and an excellent counterpuncher. Going up in weight may fly well versus a done Tarver, but not versus an just past prime JC, who does a hell of a lot more in each round and has better movement by far than Hopkins.

 

I love it. So because Tarver came into the fight unprepared, that is somehow a slight on Hopkins. Makes so much sense.

atsch

Do you have any idea how many fighters jumped 2 weight classes in one fight to take on the champion in that class and WON in the past 20 years?

Roy Jones Jr
Bernard Hopkins

End of list. Plus when you factor in the age, and the fact that he fought the generally regarded BEST of the champions at LHW (rather than a tailor made for Roy, John Ruiz) it makes it the more impressive win of the two.

But again, because Tarver wasnt ready for the fight, that is a knock on Hopkins.

It alllllllll makes sense to me now. :-(

You say it was a risk fighting Taylor....the first risk he had taken since Jones? WRONG AGAIN BROTHER!!!!

So fighting an undefeated PRIME Glen Johnson wasnt a risk? Or how about Joe Lipsey, who was, like Taylor, considered the heir apparent at the time and had walked through all 25 of his opponents leading up to the fight....HELL he was even favored to win by a huge amount of writers/"experts". Or how about Tito? Who had just DESTROYED one of the top 5 MWs in the world like noone had before or since?

I guess because hindsight is 20/20 we shouldnt give him credit for being the first man to beat Johnson because others have since (even tho EVERY boxing fan with an IQ over 25 knows the majority of his losses were gift decisions in the other fighters back yard...but whatever). Or the Lipsey win should be considered a win over a fighter whom obviously lacked the heart to be great (yet lets forget the skills and power he had....and nevermind the risk). Or lets just call Tito a blown up WW...because thats the easy thing to do (and ignore his DESTRUCTION of Joppy...where he proved he belonged at MW).

I GET IT HOW!!! HOPKINS CAN SEE THE FUTURE!!! Wow he gets better every day....:hey

How many risks has Calzaghe taken? 1? Lacy? Or should we use hindsight to show that because he wasnt as good as we thought (even tho I picked Joe to win by UD....) and that he wasnt in with an "elite" yet, that this win wasnt a risk either? HELL NO! That was one hell of a win. Get ya head out your ass if you feel that way!

And as for Taylor. What does this guy have to do to show his mettle? The haters on this guy are absolutely ridiculous. He has fought Hopkins twice...Winky (which I had a draw, but wouldnt argue it either way)...Ouma (as a tune up)....and Spinks (and Spinks' style would make ANY fighter look bad...that is the way he fights)....and now Pavlik. That is 5 former or current world champions (Hop twice) and 3 p4p top ten fighters in 5 fights. AND HE, whether you think he won or not, IS 4-0-1 IN THEM...meaning all of the fights were at the very least close. And now he is fighting the most dangerous fighter in the division. All this guy does is take risks....

So, yeah, really living off those Hopkins wins... :huh

And I love how you knock Hopkins for fighting in spurts, when in his last fight....HE OUTWORKED TARVER!!!! He was throwing all night... BUT, even if we ignore that and go on what you said. The man is a 42 year old physical marvel, but not a ****ing superhero. What do people want him to do, go into every fight attempting to reenact Corrales - Castillo 1? Make some sense.

All your post did was show your obvious bias on the subject. You dont like Hopkins....cool, we get it. But at least try to look at it objectively. See that is the difference...I love Calzaghe, he is one of my 5-10 favorite fighters today (my list changes daily with my mood...:nut ), but I am not going to look at the fight as a fan of a certain fighter....but I look at each fight as a fan of the sport....easier not to make idiotic comments like the one I quoted.

Hopkins style (defensive MASTER, unreal counter puncher, still good power, etc) is taylor made for someone who fights like Joe does (high workrate, low power, very accurate). Hop UD....or if he catches him too many times with that lead right, he may stop him late (tho I feel that is unlikely).

And the following statement is so stupid by the way....I gotta quote it again!

Um, yes, it actually does. That is how you measure a fighters greatness....by who he has proven it against. Not the skills he has.

HELL, if we did it by skill and potential, we would have to say Zab Judah is still one of the best fighters in the world...I mean, skill wise, the man is amazing....BUT putting it together and actually doing something with it...the man is shite (tho his fight with Cotto shows he may something in him after all...who knows)!!!

Greatness is what Hopkins has proven, Joe, tho I still believe can and will be considered great....has yet to fully show it (not leaving home, not fighting top comp, etc.....).

Again, all you did was show you dont like Hopkins. Look at the facts, rather than your obviously warped opinion. You wont embarass yourself like that anymore!

:hi:

 

It was hardly on the level of Calzaghe vs Lacy...Lacy is certainly better than Tarver at this point in time too.

Total punches
Tarver: 78 of 437, 18%
Hopkins: 133 of 417, 32%

All three judges score the bout 118-109 for the winner by unanimous decision, Bernard

 

Agreed....I thought the Lacy win was a great win for Joe. Especially when so many people were picking Lacy (even tho his style was tailor made for Calzaghe...).

But, because Tarver wasnt/isnt on Lacy's level at that time....it doesnt take away from the type of win (or the impressiveness of said win) it was for Bernard.

I dont mind so much people picking Joe...just be fair and unbiased about it....dont just discredit Hopkins (unfairly I might add...) to try and prove your opinion.

 

It was a great win in terms of legacy for B-Hop (name fighter, fairly dominating, up in weight, the same if he beats Winky. But in doesn't prove him, in pure physical boxing terms to be on Joe level. I won't discredit the win itself, but it certainly doesn't suggest to me he could beat Calzaghe.

 

Agreed again.

I dont look at a fight that happened so late in Hopkins career...vs a fighter that fights in no way like or on the level of Calzaghe as a measuring stick as to what Hop-Calzaghe would look like.

I just feel that the two styles of the fighters match up in a way that, with Joe being accurate, and busy, but not very powerful...a fighter like Bernard, who is widely considered the best defensive fighter in this era (arguably) is going to be able to get inside on him...where Joe is alot less effective. And with the lack of a fear of KO from Bernard, it will make it a hell of alot easier to land that big lead right.

 

Hopkins K0 7, Hopkins frustrates Calzaghe in the first half of the fight. Then Calzaghe will open up and every big right hopkins lands calzaghe will becomes more erratic windmilling his punches like a school boy in a playground fight.....then hopkins lands big ...thank you and goodnight:hi: