Calzaghe - Hopkins Legacy: Why Calzaghe's is superior IMO.

2002-2004: Money over Legacy

Hopkins was finally king of the world: undisputed middlweight champion with a big win that gained him the recognition he deserved. He had taken out most of the contenders in his middleweight division. Legacy wise, he had already achieved alot. Where to go now if he was to further enhance that legacy? It seemed the only way was up to SMW or else LHW. Talk of a Roy Jones Junior fight emerged quickly....Negotiations were under way but Hopkins vanity ulimately scuppered the fight: he wanted a 50-50 split with a man who had already beaten him, the p4p king and one of the biggest boxers in the world! Why not take the 60-40 that Jones said he would fight him for publicly? Even 70-30 wouldn't be so bad: he would get the opportunity to avenge his loss enhance his legacy hugely and get a massive pay day into the bargain. Hopkins vanity kept this from happening and possibly another little thing that ill examine later....


The other alternative was 168. However this was a very European division where the two top fighters, Sven Ottke and Joe Calzaghe did not present nearly as lucrative a fight with Jones and in Ottkes case, there would probably be no point in even trying for it such was his reluctance to leave Germany. Negotiations began for a Calzaghe fight. Hopkins accepted the fight for 3 million. But something changed his mind just as the contracts were about to be signed....what was it? Fear? Unlikely...Hopkins was a great fighter with unwaveringly self belief...fear did not come into it. But doubt did....he could lose this fight. Calzaghe had enough credibility to fight on the basis of succesful fights against Sheika and Brewer...but then again there was another much safer option on the horizion...much more lucrative too and the media would probably be fooled as well legacy wise...

Oscar De La Hoya: A man who began his career as low as lightweight. However, he was boxings biggest draw outside of Mike Tyson. He was highly regarded. He had made noise about one day going to the middleweight division. All Hopkins had to do was wait at middleweight....how he was going to do this without losing credibility was tough but **** it...he had fought most contenders at the weight for years without recognition....he could wait.

So in 2002 he fights once against Daniels a blown 154 fighter. Then a farce of a mandatory defence against Hakkar where he of course calls out 154lbers much to the amusement of Larry Merchant. He beats Joppy during this time which was a decent enough win.

Finally 2004 things come together. Disposing of Allen(mandatory) would pave the way for a money spinning showdown with DLH! He defeats him then as widely expected disposes of DLH.

What do I think of this win? Its decent. Hoya was and is a very good fighter and I give Hopkins credit for stopping him. However he is most effective at welter. And was clearly out his depth at 160.(Sturm) So no, not a huge amount of credit goes to this win. He waited and waited for it and why not? The money was huge. But legacy wise it means little.

Continued...

 

2005 - Present Legacy Back on Track

Howard Eastman - Decent win. Perennial contender, one of the few viable ones at 160 in the aftermath of 2001. Eastman had regained his creditbility following the Joppy farce in which he should have became WBA champ. A good win for Hopkins this. 2005.

Jermain Taylor: Hot up and comer. Not unlike Jeff Lacy in the 160 division, Taylor was being touted for great things. Hopkins to his credit gave the young heir apparent his shot but stated he would execute him just as Trinidad had David Reid. He was wrong: A close fight but a clear win to Taylor in my eyes and Hopkins 10 year reign at 160 was over. A rematch was set for later that year with the result being the exact same. Unlike Calzaghe, he just couldn't comprehensively beat the new up and comer. Many began to speculate that Hopkins was finished. 2005.

A fight against RJJ was announced but cancelled when it was discovered no1 really wanted to see a couple of old guys who had lost their last few fights have a rematch(Take heed Holy and Tyson!)

Antonio Tarver: This fight was to take place at LHW with ring magazine champ Tarver, conquerer of RJJ. Tarver was a heavy favourite with the view being that Hopkins was past it. Hopkins bucked those assertions with a boxing clinic to become the new kingpin of 175! This was hugely impressive and a real shock to many. Tarver is erratic as shown by his losses to Johnson, Jones and Harding but he avenged all of those. Great win for Hopkins and champ in his second division. 2006

Winky Wright: This fight could have happened in 2005 when before were undisputed in their divisions. That it didn't isn't a big deal: Hopkins fought a very worthy contender in Taylor instead. Nonetheless, this fight at 170 for Hopkins gave him a major advantage given that he was always a very big MW to start with whilst Wrights best division was 154. Hopkins wins this fight against the man no1 wanted to face. I give him some credit but its not as big as it would have been at 160..Wright was clearly a little pudgy too.



The Final Comparison:

In terms of competiton, Hopkins HAS fought the superior competition. Not by much at all but by a little. RJJ and Tarver separate this for me. However, merely fighting the best competition does not make for a better legacy or else George Chuvalo would be an all time great. The fact is Hopkins lost not only to Jones but also to his heir apparent Jermain Taylor. Worst of all, there were the two best fighters that Hopkins ever faced at the weight. Not good.

Nonetheless, Hopkins proved himself over the years. Like Calzaghe he beat a number of contenders: Vanderpool and Echols. Hot prospects: Johnson and Lipsey. And fellow champions: Holmes and Trinidad. Truly impressive stuff. He also did something Joe has yet to do: become a champ in another division. However, unlike Calzaghe he has lost to some of his competition, most notably to Taylor the heir apparent. Please explain to me Hopkins fans the difference between beating Taylor at that point and Lacy? They were both hugely regarded prospects who had looked very good to that point. If anything, Lacy had beaten the better competition of the two till then. So exactly why are the Taylor losses glossed over for Hopkins and the Lacy victory dismissed for Calzaghe? It doesn't make sense!

Overall, however my opinion is this: Hopkins and Calzaghe are on a par legacy wise. Hopkins for me has beaten the slightly better competition on the merit of his win against Tarver. But he also lost to Jermain Taylor his heir apparent whilst Calzaghe disposed of Lacy which evens the scores a little bit.

Conclusion: One will edge ahead of the other on the basis of the up coming fight.

Your thoughts would be appreciated on all of this btw.

 

There you go. If y'all can be arsed reading it, I wrote that in the lead up to their fight.

 

No problem, cheers for the kind words :good

 

Sues2nd, thanks for the comments and feedback and let me state that I do respect you big time as a poster. I've read your posts in the past, and your knowledge of boxing far eclipses my own.

You have made alot of good points here, thing is it's Friday night (at least it is in Britain!) and I'm about to start getting ready to head out!

Rest assured, I will get back to you on these issues though. Probably some time tomorrow. Your points are hard to refute and I realise that my intial post was pretty negative. I'd appreciate it if you checked out the posts I make about a page back from here, where I'm a bit more balanced.

Cheers man, and I will try to address all the points you've made tomorrow!