BHops gamble

I see, I think it was Amsterdam that said " If Calzaghe doesnt dominate Hopkins, I will think alot less of Calzaghe", he went on to say more, I just cant remember the rest of what was said. I just hope Hopkins gives a good account of himself, if it's competitve, alot of people will be convinced that a prime Hopkins wouldve beat Calzaghe, which may or may not be true, depending on the result of the fight next month.

 

I totally agree with PrideOfWales initial post. Would like to add, that maybe Hopkins is trying to build his legacy, by not have the tainted "I pulled out of a match with Calzaghe"...

 

I beleive this is a huge gamble for Hopkins but I don't think HE see's it that way. I think he is underestimating Calzaghe in a big way. The reason for this is Joe's limited resume... I see a UD for JC as the most likely result but if things go badly for BHop and his age finally catches up with him I think it could be a late stoppage.

 

No geriatic bums came close to beat Calzaghe because they were not supposed to, guys like Brazilian Luciano Torres and Paraguay's Juan Carlos Gimenez. You have to see that even Ian Darke was debating with Warren for having chosen someone like Luciano Torres to be Calzaghe's last fight before the title shot ( and Warren sayin that he was not supposed to fight 12 round slug-fests) and even Calzaghe was agreeing that that was a premature stoppage... All the slower, stronger, hungrier fighters that Calzaghe fought ( exception for Lacy and Kessler) are no where near in class with the guys that are mentioned in this thread - Tarver, Hopkins and Wright - and whom Calzaghe always wanted to fight... Basically, you want to make some money and fight some names but, then, you are not supposed to descredit them before you fight them... Why would you give credit to Sheika, Brewer, Mitchell, call out Tarver and Hopkins and then say how much superior you are before the fight takes place? Hoya said he would win and that he was prepared to back in 2004, Hopkins said that he respected Hoya and that he was less experienced in these kind of Superfights than Hoya was, Calzaghe is calling Hopkins Old Popkins and that he's gonna demolish him ( put his name in his resume with a 7th round TKO or whateva)... There's a difference here - Calzaghe has no reason to say such things even if he doesn't know how to deal with the pressure, he wanted a fight with Hopkins since 2002 and now he's getting it... Basically, Calzaghe may drop the rain on him but Hopkins should never have given him a fight just for these reasons - Calzaghe is not a Showman, has no mainstream appeal outside the UK, brings nothing to the promo - I agree that those are the real reasons Nard should have never taken the fight.

 

I like your analogy. The thing with Kesslers power, and Joes Chin.. Getting hit with a punch you expect, or see comming is different than being ambushed with a shot you never expect.. Hopkins has a way of hitting you with shots you cant see, time, or expect. Its what makes his counter punching dangerous at times.. If Calzaghe allows, "Old Popkins" to get comfortable, and load up on a counter.. He could floor Joe.. Heck, he could floor anybody. Hopkins is one of the few fighters who can disguise fully loading up and sitting on a punch, setting up a counter with such a shot. He's done it plenty of times.. Not expecting this to happen against a fighter of Calzaghe's calibre, but if Calzaghe gets too complacent, or too wary, he could just get, "Popkins'd."

 

Joe can be beat. **** precedents. You don't know Bernard Hopkins. Just look at his history. Joe has never faced a fighter on Hopkins level period.

 

On the other hand Calzage has everything to lose and nothing to gain. If he wins, he beat an old man. If he loses, he lost and was overprotected his whole career. if he wins but doesn't do it in blowout fashion, he would have lost prime for prime (hopkins huggers will inevitably say hopkins was robbed). if he hadn't taken the fight, people would say he was scared of hopkins.