Calzage-Hopkins-opinion

You accuse anyone, and everyone who doesn't agree with your own personal agenda of running from you. ( Very mature )

Ok!! So I am now suggesting that one of your heroes ( Roy Jones Jr ) was nothing more than a dirty, worthless, proven steroid cheat, and as such, his whole resume can not possibly be taken seriously, because no one ACTUALLY knows when the steroid abuse began, or ended.

 

you mean very immature of you to misread someone not answering me as not agreeing.

try to get it right.

I have no thing about Jones. you fail again.

wow 2 fail for 1, bargain.

 

you are still running from the questions in the post, not running from the question 'why you running so much?' haha. Duh obviously everyone knows WHY you are running, you are doing kama-cowardzaghe style running away from questions you cant answer that's why.

And so to reiterate ONCE AGAIN, not because you will answer this time, because I know you wont, but to make it clear to everyone that you are running -

- why you think Hopkins was near his best at 43 against joe, but no other athlete in world history is near their best at 43? why you make exception for your hero joe calzaghe against the entire history of human sport?

- why didn't joe fight a great prime/near prime fighter? there were plenty around, not in the diminutive SMW division itself, but several just outside.
Toney did it. Jones did it. Bhop did it. Benn did it. Froch did it. Even Steve Collins chased Jones. It is Joe calzaghe who is one who didn't. ALWAYS.

- why did joe only fight 40something greats in the way that Mundine way (the cowards way)?

 

joe was riding their names.

YOU should go with WHAT HE DID, not what he SAID would do but never did.

AS I DO. But if you prefer to go with cloud cuckoo maybe if then that is your prerogative, just remember that such an opinion holds little value against WHAT ACTUALLY TRANSPIRES, which is FACT, not opinion.

I go with the FACTS.

 

but I will give joe credit for beating injured Kessler, that was pretty good. And bika was a good opponent too, being an ibf defence (the title joe ran from as soon as he found out their defences were tougher than serial subdomestic Wassen-wbo ones).

reid was good, though arguably he beat joe.

and finally credit for a life or death last gasp split over the faded 43 year old Hopkins, an ugly, terrible but fair victory given joes pedigree.

see, I give dues where its merited. it is anyone who thinks these views are wrong who is not giving due merit.

 

Utter BS.

Round four. Clazaghe landed more jabs 3-1 and more power punches 13-6, yet you give the round to Hopkins?! Please explain.

In round seven Hopkins landed 12, Clazaghe 20 power punchers. Hopkins did not land one jab in round 7, but Calzaghe landed 4 of them. How can you give that round to Hopkins? Hint-hint, you need to to make him the winner on your card.

Round 10 is Clazahges' He out landed Hopkins 19-14. You could make a case for this being a 10-10 round or 10-9 for Calzahge.

 

-This is your first time actually asking such a question. I feel the Tarver and Pavlik victories inbetween Calzaghe are two of Hopkin's most impressive performances. Its not all about being physical prime in boxing, most boxers today are older in general, of the current P4P there's only like one or two 20 somethings.

Hopkins with experience developed an exceptional ring IQ and effective style that was very difficult to beat. And while finally declining in his late 40s, he remains a top level fighter. I'm more impressed with his LHW run than MW run.

-Calzaghe is not my hero. I wouldn't even say I'm a fan.


-Subjective question. Your really asking why Calzaghe didn't fight Hopkins and Jones Jr sooner, and we know everybody has their own opinion on that and argue constantly on this forum.

-I will say Jones Jr. was very frustrating to follow in the 90s and bar Toney, there was many great fighters he somehow missed out on beyond Calzaghe. For whatever reasons, it was difficult to put together a superfight with Jones Jr. during his heyday.

 

haha the same failed answer you gave last time - despite you CLAIMING THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IT WAS ASKED?? What can I say ?

yet still no answer for comparing twice beaten Hopkins and unbeaten joe cal on his best wins. it is merely your opinion that Hopkins is magically superior in his 40s than his early 30s prime, him being different to every human being on the planet history in your opinion.

Hopkins was much more faded at 43 than joe was at 36. this fact you cannot deny. it is a universal law in athletics, scientifically proven that men fade as such.

but yes Hopkins was of course still fairly good in his 40s but now beatable, that much is true for all to see. Joe underestimated him when he chose him as his fortysomething legend to face.

HAHAHAHA.

no I am not, I am asking what I am asking. Don't change the question to try to suit your agenda, just read what is written in front of you and answer that. thank you. Thi is about Calzaghes resume, not Bob Hope's or anyone elses.

 

What a shitty card. I take it you count punches that hit shoulders and arms and even completely miss. Calzaghe takes it on work rate by at most 2 rounds.
At the time I thought a draw was fair in a completely **** fight.

 

Punch stats mean nothing at all. I have no idea why they are ever referenced.

 

Liar. You do indeed have a thing for Jones Jr.



You should try reading what other people write instead of spreading your opinions like manure.

You could also try contacting Sports Network, and asking allegedly ( who ****ing despises Calzaghe ), about the fight he made between Hopkins and Joe, only for the gutless piece of **** to pull out and fight Daniels instead.


That was at the time Hopkins was doing what he has always been good at and mouthing off about other fighters because he always got paid peanuts due to the fact he can't draw flies to ****.

So he proclaimed the S / Middle division was generally full of garbage, with Calzaghe particularly so. However when allegedly and Calzaghe agreed to his terms to make the fight, his brown eye suddenly started twitching, and off to Daniels he fvcked.

 

-Rather you feel its a "failed" answer or not, is not the point. I answered the question. And it was the first time it was asked.

-I don't think Hopkins even got his first "great" win until Felix when he was 36.

-Regardless, I'm more impressed with Hopkins (35-45 years of age) than I am with Hopkins (25-35). The proof is in the pudding.

Old Hopkins (35-45) beat Felix, Oscar, Pavlik, Tarver, Wright, and Pascal. While only losing close fights to Taylor and Calzaghe.

Young Hopkins beat Johnson, Allen, and Holmes while losing a wide decision to Roy Jones.

-We are measuring effectiveness as a boxer, not all around athlete. By that measure, Hopkins peaked in his late 30s and early 40s. His MW run was excellent but his most impressive outings came later.

-I answered.

 

no I don't. thus you are now the liar, and twice over.

well done there.

for a muiltifight package towards millions fighting De La Hoya.. haha you fail to mention all in case you are pwned.