It's true that his career was mis-managed, his resume is contextually feeble, and his current lofty status is something of a sham. And even though I scored the fight in favour of B-Hop, I do genuinely believe that Calzaghe deserves a lot of credit for his perfomance in that fight. Hopkins' style was good enough to school Tarver, Tito, Pavlik and Winky. And it was the same style that Calzaghe encountered. Calzaghe worked hard and adapted very well. It wasn't a schooling, in fact he got the decision against an absolutely elite opponent and for that he deserves praise. Well done to Joe Calzaghe.
Agreed. People still don't realise how good this win is for some reason. His resume is not a sham. If his is a sham I don't know what the others Brits are because apart from Lennox Lewis I don't see any others from this era coming up with something better.
Agreed. I said it was feeble, but only in the context of his ability and talent - for whatever reasons - it should be much better. In the context of comparisons with other Brit's in particular, its pretty good.
I think feeble is an exageration, theres no denying its poor in places but there are some decent enough defences in there.
Nothing wrong with showboating. Jones would have more than the one DQ against his name if that was an issue. Calzaghe did very well against Hop. Hop looks terrific at 175 now. He looks revitalised now compared to having to make 160 towards the end of his career.
I think people mean it's a shame in a world-level context. The truth is, very few British fighters ever have defeated a large number of top level or elite contenders from the US/Latin America. Maybe we should just accept that compared to countries like the US and Mexico, we're going to have limitations in terms of what quality of boxers we can produce. The only boxer I think we produced who had the ability to be at that level was Hamed - if he hadn't been promoted by Frank Warren from the earliest part of his career it would have been interesting to see him up against Barrera, Morales et. al whilst he was still in his early twenties.
this subject has been discussed many times and here and it always surprises me how many people knock joe and discredit what he achieved and claim hopkins beat him, hopkins lost that fight because he was negative and just didnt work as hard as joe. i feel those who knock joe suffer from the awful british disease of loving a loser and when they arent knocking winners like joe are busy worshiping the likes of tim henman
No offence, but this whole post is bull****. Hopkins' style was no different to the style he had in virtually every other fighter since he got that style. It was the same style that schooled Winky, Tito, Tarver and Pavlik. To say he lost the fight because he was negative is ridiculous, and is actually doing a disservice to what Calzaghe was able to do. As for the 'loving a loser' thing, come on. atsch
Hopkins gave one of the worst showings of his ugly side against Calzaghe. His faking of pain from virtual low blows was a disgrace. Calzaghe's pace was obviously troubling him, a true athlete would have accepted it and fought on with the risk of being stopped. Calzaghe deserved that win, even if it was one of his lesser performances.
i agree if u look at all the other middleweights like winky, pavlik, taylor, brute, froch etc etc calzaghe would beat all those, he doesn't get the credit as much as he never got as much big fights until late in his career. Truth is bhop never really could fight any other kind of fight with calzaghe as calzaghe has proved he can adapt and has a style which bhop could not match. calzaghe is the best british driver for sure