Calzaghe fans! Be honest, would Joe have won if he'd been fighting 2001-2005 B-Hop??

honestly there is no way this fight would happen years ago, joe would have to trimmed down and fight at 160, it would be a stupid move for hopkins to not defend all the belts he has work hard for and instead move up fight someone still unknown to the public

 

Remember Calzaghe is also past his best, at his peak he was quite a bit better than his current state. This would be a very good fight that could go either way, Joe didn't 'slap' when he was younger and he'd be able to keep Hopkins more tentative. Bernard had superior stamina when he was younger so he wouldn't fade in the fight. He may not decide to merely 'spoil' and instead open up a bit more (whether this would be a good move is another question). Personally I'm not sure who would win, at the moment I'll go for Hopkins SD.

 

roy jones and b-hop fought in the beginning of their primes and the fight was very close.

b-hop fought calzaghe @ 43 and it was still an very close
i dont even like b-hop but thats the truth

 

I personally think that Hopkins is getting too many excuses made for him ... its not like Calzaghe was 28 ... the guy is 36 yrs old ... and he's been in the pro fight game for 15 yrs ... this guy wasn't in his prime either ...

None of this bull**** would've been said had Hopkins won the fight --

So why this **** when he loses ... he showed no class after the fight ... he never could accept defeat ... he did the same thing against Jermain Taylor --
After watching the fight against Calzaghe again ... I think the margin shouldve been wider ... Calzaghe swept 9-12 rounds ... and won every round after the 5th.

Hopkins thought that he could wear down Calzaghe like he's done to most of his opponents in the past but Calzaghe turned it up on his ass after the mid point of the fight like he said and won the ****in fight.

It had nothing to do with age ... they were on the same level ... if that were the case then they wouldve never made the fight.

 

Its like Manny Pacquiao v JMM ... there's just not much he couldve done at any time ... the fight wouldve been the same had they fought 10 times and 10 different points in their careers.

 

I don't like Hopkins at all. He did show zero class after the fight and I do think Calzaghe beat him. I'd like to see Hopkins KTFO and then hear his excuses. Having said all that, I'd still take him in his prime over Calzaghe.

 

No no no no no no no.

36 vs 30? Joe still wins.

 

remember manny started out with less boxing skills hence the three losses early on save the morales, but even by the second fight manny was a more complete boxer than the 1st jmm fight. this is nothing in comparison at all with b-hop and joe. 43 is not 36 and at 36 b-hop was faster with his feet than a 29 joe

 

Hopkins was never fast ... he was never as fast as Calzaghe ... a youger Calzaghe is faster with more energy ... i'm surprised at 36 that Calzaghe is as fast as he is.

 

yes he is fast for a 36 year old but his punches are sloppy and he slaps them, hop is very accurate and honestly he displayed it with a first round knockdown! please i know you like calzaghe but as a fan who doesnt like bhop(me)i still say he wins back around 2002-2005

 

He beat Kessler just 9 months ago. Calzaghe has got better with age imo. Sure he may have looked good against the poorer quality opponents back then, but that doesn't mean he was better. He is not far off his prime at all.

 

Well you would have made a lot of money because all the bookies would have Hopkins as a clear favourite.

 

A younger Hopkin with more stamina would have opened up a bit and actually tried to win. This would have resulted in a clearer Calzaghe win.

 

They would. Just like I made a good del of money on Calzaghe-Lacy, Wlad-Peter and so many other fights where Americans overrate the american fighter.

 

An awful lot of people believe that he lost to 43 yr old Hopkins, and so did one of the judges. Calzaghe was made to look amateur at times, and scraped a controversial split decision.

I really don't get, that from that, people come to the conclusion that Joe beats a younger Hopkins when he barely beat a last legs Hopkins who had previously been beaten more convincingly by Taylor; who beat Hopkins twice.

Joe has never ever fought a prime top ten p4p guy so it's hard to give him the benefit of the doubt. Nobody knows what joe fights like against prime elite fighters because he's never fought one. He's never fought one for a reason.