Bigger Win? Calzaghe or Hopkins

I think it's a little short sighted to view the Lacy win as a bigger win than Tito especially with that line of reasoning.

Lacy was certainly an impressive scalp and up to that point he had impressed everyone on the basis of his power and the hype behind his ability to score stunning KOs despite his technical flaws. Although Lacy was always a SMW like Calzaghe, using this as a basis as to overlook the Trinidad win because it was not in his original weight class would be misleading. It would hold water if Trinidad's first fight was at against Hopkins but his debut at 160 was against WBA champion William Joppy and he annihilated him more impressively than Hopkins and Taylor.

Additionally, Trinidad was widely considered the better fighter and up until the to that point had beaten some pretty impressive fighters in succession and in dominant fashion. Tito already secured his legacy, sort of like what Pac is doing now by going up and beating top fighters in higher weight classes. Lacy on the other hand had impressive performances but against less than stellar opposition. His reputation was based on his perceived ability as opposed to who he actually beat. In effect what I'm saying is that Trindad was more proven against the elite fighters where he unified at 147, 154 before moving up to 160 to capture a belt and subsequently unify.

So in the end they are two great wins and two great performances, but one of them was a win over a great fighter and the other against a good fighter.

 

Dont get Bailey on the Calzaghe Hopkins debate , this will run until Mayweather grows a *****.

 

Facts

I cant understand that either :huh

Tell me which parts arent facts?
Im happy to say if wrong. Trinidad may have been put down more than the 7 times I know of, which might need correcting etc, so please tell me

Facts are facts Rayrobinson

 

This isn't really up for discussion, the facts speak for themselves.

Look at how Lacy and Tito performed against a shot Jones Jr and you can see the difference in actual ability.

Trinidad fought a younger version of RJJ, 4 divisions above his best weight yet did better than Lacy who fought an older RJJ only one division above his best weight. If this doesn't convince you of the gulf in class between Tito and Lacy nothing will.

 

Hopkins a natural middleweight beat a welterweight. Impressive.

 

That was against Bernard Hopkins and it was discovered by Nazim Richardson. It was alleged that he may have done the same against Joppy but there is little evidence to prove it otherwise he would have faced enourmous penalties.

Joppy had lost before. He bounced back and won the WBA middleweight title. Nobody beat Joppy the way Tito did. Before or After.

This has already been answered several times in different threads.

I don't see the relevance. Frankly it sounds like you're nitpicking different flaws to undermine what is obviously a great fighter. The point is that he had never lost.

Quality is quality regardless of weight.

Joppy was WBA champ at 160. Trinidad beat him more impressively than Hopkins, Taylor and Bute not to mention he was able to dispatch of him quicker.

Also Reid, Vargas and De la Hoya are simply more impressive fighters.

I never said Lacy was a bad fighter quite the opposite. I just don't think it necessary to aggrandize Jeff Lacy to make Joe Calzaghe's win look better. Trinidad was simply a more proven fighter with better wins at their respective points.

Luck or not Oscar ran for a reason. It was controversial, but it was also on par with De la Hoya vs. Mosley II.

Being floored many times is a reflection of poor balance/footwork or being caught with a good punch. It would mean alot more if being floored many times led to many KO losses. Instead every guy with the exception of Jones and Hopkins who floored him; suffered a KO loss.

This isn't an issue of size. This is an issue of quality. Tito already proved that he belong in 160 when he demolished Joppy more impressively than a fighter who debuted at LHW and was a long time MW.

Anton Echols was a big strong MW does that make his win more legitimate than the Trinidad win? Does it make it better?

I'm guess you're running Pro Calzaghe agenda. Fine, he's a great fighter and everybody knows it. But this is a situation where the answer is pretty clear; Felix Trinidad is twice the fighter that Jeff Lacy ever was. And Hopkins beating him was a far greater achievement than Calzaghe beating Lacy.

 

Roy Jones beat John Ruiz....

so if

Lewis beat RJJ, then it would be considered a great win??? GTFOH!!!

 

Not really, because the circumstances are different.

In 2003, Lennox Lewis was a proven Heavyweight Champion with a HOF career.

Even with the win over John Ruiz, at no point was Roy Jones Jr. considered the division's most dangerous fighter nor was he really expected to provide a real challenge to Lennox Lewis.

Both Lacy and Trinidad at the time of their respective fights were considered the division's most dangerous fighters and they were considered the biggest challenges to both Hopkins and Calzaghe. This is not applicable to the Roy Jones situation.

would never have been expected to see the final bell.

 

The Same