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

Beatboxer as you've critiqued BHOPs opponents its only fair I do the same to Joes:

Chris Eubank - 2 weeks from fighting at 175 he cut around 30lbs and was horrendously weight drained and past prime

Robin Reid - many had Reid winning, Reid lost his last meaningful fight, Joe wouldn't rematch.

Omar Sheika - Glen Johnson was pretty much jobbed against him

Richie Woodhall - coming off a loss to Markus Beyer last time out and as you want to mention Trinidad being a blown up 154lber (his best division), Woodhall was a blown up MW who lost to BHOPs victims

Mario Veit - bum

Mitchell - coming off a loss in his last meaningful contest (and this was not at all controversal if you've watched it). Mitchell decked Calzaghe, was stopped prematurely, threw the last punch of the fight and it was controversal because of this. Mitchell was also past prime and never had good wins after losing to Otke

Charles Brewer - Sparked in 2 by Echols the year before, way past prime.

Jeff Lacy - big hype job, hasn't done anything since Calzaghe, beat some decent top10 opponents though

Sakio Bika - blown up MW, Bika couldn't miss with his right hand

Mikkell Kessler - Very good win BUT has never beat top top competition

Hopkins - Hopkins should have got the decision, a 43yo blown up MW (if Winky and Tito are blown up after all...) who fought as low as 156 3years earlier

Jones - 39yo shot to pieces managed to floor Calzaghe, Tarver and Johnson beat him more emphatically

 

Keyboard wankery of the highest order,well done

 

What hell are you talking about?:twisted:

He made some damn good valid points!:deal

How can you dispute them?

 

I've got to say apart from a couple of dickheads this thread has been one of the best I've seen on here about Hopkins and Calzaghe.
Both sides for the most have made there points without name calling and solid arguments.Respect to both sides.:good

 

Otke - undisputed champ at 168 for around 5years Joe had his WBO bauble, Otke had better comp than Joe in this time

Beyer - WBC champ for

Prime Hopkins - as much to blame as each other, going over to Wales to fight Joe when he was an unproven name is unattractive

Prime Jones Jr - P4P no1, naturally the same size, Joe once said Jones was unbeatable, then said he'd never face Jones because Jones was 'shot to pieces', when asked about this

Michalczewski - huge match, just 1 division up, never was an attempt made to make this 1


People Calzaghe could have faced from 2001-2006, when he only faced 1 top10 opponent at 168 - this is astounding:

Glen Johnson - pulled out of the fight twice with spurious reasons, also screwing Glen out of his payday

Echols - KO'd in 2 Brewer who Joe faced instead

Mundine - WBA Champ

Robin Reid Rematch - many had Reid winning, Reid wanted a rematch, Joe wouldn't give him 1

Green - top10 contender

Vanderpool - 1 of Hopkins better

Mads Larson - top10 contender, pushed Otke close

Erdei - wanted to fight Gonzalez for the WBO and linear championshiop at 175, being a long time 168lb WBO belt holder he could have enforced a fight, fought him, but changed his mind when Erdei beat Gonzalez

Fighters Calzaghe has recently avoided:

Chad Dawson - Dawson alongside Hopkins is the no1 challenger at 175, kudos to Joe if he takes him on

Hopkins Rematch - around 40% of fans had Joe losing, Calzaghe looked pretty bad missing and slapping most of his shots

Tarver - offered the fight after Lacy and just because Hopkins beat him doesnt mean Joe could, styles make fights

Carl Froch - prime WBC champ 168lb champ who's chased Joe for 2-3years

Pavlik - a big threat in his prime, Joe knew he looked bad avoiding this 1 and even lied about offering Pavlik the fight pre-Lacy. Hopkins beating Pavlik does not mean Joe could (he may have but styles make fights)

 

This is a late reply, but this is my take on it. sorry for how long it is (it's going to be 3 parts).

Let me first say that while I recognize how well-made your argument is, it does not change my mind, nor do I expect my post to change yours. when comparing these two, it will come down to a lot of subjectivity, it just depends on how you see certain details between them.

This is how I see each man's big wins.

Calzaghe:

1. Hopkins. I personally had Calzaghe winning 114-113, I think a rematch would be helpful in the comparison considering how close I saw the fight, maybe it would be the same, maybe Hopkins would win, maybe Calzaghe would win more convincingly. Any of those results would have some sort of significance on the comparison between Calzaghe and Hopkins, but that is another topic.

Calzaghe edged past the man himself. It was a slim margin on my card, but it was a deserved win. That said, it was an unconvincing performance over a 43 year old man. Hopkins is not the average 43 year old man, but 43 he is. I think the performance against Pavlik was more due to the limits of Pavlik that were so easy for Hopkins to expose than Hopkins still being at optimal level. Pavlik is the perfect opponent for Hopkins' style, he will always look good against fighters like Pavlik. Against Calzaghe, Hopkins clearly tired. Now, Calzaghe made him tire, so he deserves credit for pushing a pace Hopkins could not deal with. On the other side, Hopkins in his prime years (roughly '97-'03 IMO), was not one to show any signs of fatigue, ever. He got stronger as the fight went on, set a high pace himself, and systematically broke his opponent down along the way, switching through the gears as he went. At 43, Hopkins is more suceptable to fatigue, and Calzaghe is the perfect fighter to take advantage of that. I felt Hopkins landed the more effective shots in the vast majority of the rounds, but Calzaghe threw nearly twice as many every round, and in the end landed more, although for the most part, less effective punches, enough to take 7 of the 12 rounds on my card.

Like I said, the version of Hopkins who strung together top performances at his overall best at a consistent level was in that range from '97-'03. I don't feel that the Hopkins' of the Eastman, De La Hoya, etc fights after '03 was quite as good as that version. Calzaghe's prime has been in the 2000's. The starting date for it is a little difficult to determine, but given the level of the opponent and the performance, it lasted until at least Kessler last year, and the only relatively poor performances from Calzaghe in the past 5 years have been against Bika, a difficult and rough opponent, and Hopkins, who makes everyone look bad. so concerning a match-up of prime-for-prime, I believe Calzaghe is certainly closer to his than Hopkins is. That may not be your opinion, but it is mine and it plays a part as to why I feel Hopkins is greater. Prime Hopkins would not tire at the pace of that fight, which I believe was an essential part of Calzaghe's path to victory. He would not be consistantly outworked like he was.

The win is of great value. If you felt he won by a bigger margin than 1 point, than you probably feel it is better than any on Hopkins' resume, and justifiably so. For me, the win was not convincing considering that Calzaghe was expected to do more than he did, and that at least by my view, age had nearly as much to do with the loss as Calzaghe himself did. Average performance, but a valuable win that is certainly on par with any Hopkins has, if not better.

2. Kessler. A highly talented fighter, who has looked superb in wins over Mundine, Andrade, and Beyer, and virtually all of his other wins. A bit too upright and straight-froward, but obviously a a very good fighter. Calzaghe won something like an 8-4 decision if I remember correctly, and showed his ability to go to a different level and adapt well to an opponent. Excellent win.

3. Lacy. You could make the case that this is another great win given the performance, but I would not. Lacy never impressed me personally. He always showed limitations, against Vanderpool, Sheika, and Reid, even before Calzaghe thrashed him. He's done basically nothing of value since. A brilliant showing by Calzaghe in a fight that many were expecting him to lose, but against an opponent who at best was a B level fighter.

4. Eubank. This could be lower than it is. Eubank was no longer a top 10 Supermiddleweight, he had defeated two nobodies since losing to Collins, and was given a fight for the vacant WBO belt on short notice thanks to his name. He gave a good effort of it, but this clearly was not Eubank at his best.

5. I won't put the Jones win here. He was 0-3 against the only world class opponents he had fought since late 2003.

So it's either Robin Reid or Byron Mitchell. Decent enough fighters, both probably should have gotten the win over Ottke (Reid for sure), but again, B level fighters at best.

Around the time Reid lost the close decision to Calzaghe, he was also beaten by Silvio Branco and a fading Thulani Malinga. Calzaghe beating Reid in a close fight is an average win.

Mitchell stopped Frankie Liles and had a pair of wins over Manny Siaca, but he was nothing special. Calzaghe did very well to come back from the knockdown and stop Mitchell in the same round, but it was a questionable stoppage. Solid enough win.

Other than that, Calzaghe has Sheika, Woodhall, Brewer, Bika, etc.

 

Hopkins:

1. Tarver. This could be either Pavlik or Trinidad, but I'll go with Tarver for now. Tarver himself was nothing special, but he was the man at 175. He aveneged an early loss to Eric Harding, split fights against Glen Johnson (he probably should have won both), handed Roy Jones his first legit loss barring the DQ, and in brutal fashion. Ultimately came out 2-1 against Jones, although a faded version for sure. Also beat Reggie Johnson, Montel Griffin, and after Hopkins he all but shutout Clinton Woods.

Hopkins, at the age of 41, steps up 15 pounds to challenge the best Lightheavyweight in the world, a 3-1 favorite, and he outclasses him. Pitches a virtual shutout, score a knockdown, and by the late rounds he began to toy with Tarver. Since then, Tarver has lost a one-sided fight to Dawson, but look at the comparison. A 41-year old former Middleweight champion for 10 years dominated Tarver at least as impressively as a prime, elite level Lightheavyweight did, and he did 2 years earlier.

2. Trinidad. 40-0, viewed by all as top 3 P4P, and by some as #1. Punished Fernando Vargas, who himself was coming into the top 10 P4P after beating Wright (a decision that Vargas deserved IMO), and Quartey. Then stepped up to 160lbs, and obliterated Joppy in 5 rounds, defeating him in more one-sided fashion than either Hopkins or Taylor could do later. Again a 3-1 favorite over Hopkins.

Trinidad was a naturally smaller man, but not by any large margins. He reported having trouble making 147 towards the end of his reign there, and fit comfortably at 154 and Middleweight (he even weighed-in a pound heavier at 158 than Hopkins did at 157). Hopkins put on a masterful performance, again won virtually every round, and in the end knocked Trinidad out, the only time he was ever stopped. After this, Trinidad blew past Cherifi in 4, retired for more than 2 years, then stopped Mayorga and was shutout by Wright. He then retired again, this time for 3 years, before coming back and going the distance ina one-sided loss against Roy Jones at 170.

3. Pavlik. Undefeated Middleweight champion, beat Jermain Taylor twice, stopped Miranda and Zuniga. Less skilled or not than Taylor, he proved himself overall more effective by stopping him and then decisioning him. Pavlik is limited, but good at what he does - serious power, good jab, good workrate, and tough.

I don't really believe the size difference in this one. Hopkins, at this stage of his career has put on more muscle, and fits better at 170 than Pavlik right now, but he is not a naturally bigger man. If Pavlik can stay at 160 for more than 15 years, than I'll say he is indeed a naturally smaller man than Hopkins.

People were counting out Hopkins based on his age, and made Pavlik the 4-1 favorite. Hopkins once again put on a masterclass, outclassing Pavlik round after round, scoring a shutout, and he made it look almost effortless.

4. Wright. Winky was a bit bloated and above his best weight, although I'd like to see if he can have success at 168 before I make my decision on how effective he is at the weight. The reason why this is impressive, is because Hopkins solved the Wright puzzle. He found the way to penetrate Winky's defense - "The best defense in Boxing" - and negated Winky's great jab. I'ts not as if Hopkins is a natural Lightheavyweight, although he is clearly a bigger man. Hopkins tactically picked Wright apart at the age of 42.

5. Probably someone like Keith Holmes. Holmes defeated Richie Woodhall, Hacine Cherifi, and Andrew Council. He's on the same level as Reid or Mitchell for sure, and was the 2nd best Middleweight in the world at the time. Hopkins in a one-sided, although a bit lackluster performance took Holmes' WBC belt.

Other than that, Hopkins has Eastman, Glen Johnson, Echols, De La Hoya, David Jackson, Joppy, etc.

I think it's clear that Hopkins has the better resume, all things considered. Top level wins or lower level, the fighters he beat, generally speaking, were better than those that Calzaghe beat.

 

I also feel that Hopkins was a better overall fighter in his prime than Calzaghe was, although there is little to go on for that, Calzaghe won a very close decision when both were probably past their best, Hopkins clearly more so IMO. At least to some degree of importance is the fact that Hopkins in terms of all-time, should stack up to Middleweights. He spent 15 years at the weight, came in under 160 on several occasions, and only began struggling to make 160 into his 40's. Calzaghe has been at 168 his entire career until recently, and I believe he reported that he was having some problems with making 168 into his mid-late 30's. It doesn't make sense to compare Calzaghe to Middleweights, he has always been at least 6 or 7 pounds higher than 160, if he is to be compared in an all-time sense to fighters of the original 8 weight classes, it should be at Lightheavyweight, a division by old standards he has always been in.

For your critique of Hopkins losing to the best fighters he fought:

Hopkins, pre-prime, lost to Roy Jones, the best fighter of his generation. I can't see why this would hurt his legacy. It wasn't Hopkins at his best, and it was against Roy Jones. He lost at the age of 40 to Taylor, two very close fights that could have gone either way (I personally had their series 1-1). In comparison to a past Middleweight great, I think Hagler losing a clear decision to Willie Monroe before his prime, and then past his best at age 33 to an inactive Ray Leonard competing for the first time at 160 are just as bad for his legacy as Hopkins' losses to Jones and Taylor.

A very close loss at age 43, 15lbs above the weight that he set his legacy, to a fellow great fighter like Calzaghe is not really a bad mark either.

Duilio Loi beat the best fighters he ever fought, Roberto Duran lost to the best fighters he ever fought. Who's greater? The comparison between Hopkins and Calzaghe is not as extreme as this, but you see the point.

Hopkins never lost in his prime, twice before it, and 3 times after (all 3 very close decisions). In between there was a 12 year unbeaten streak.

For paper accomplishments, Hopkins unified 160, was considered the best at 160 for nearly all of his reign, made something like 6 defenses of the unified title. Calzaghe was splitting the top spot at 168 with Ottke, generally being placed at 2nd until Ottke retired. He unified his division by beating the best man available in his last fight there.

Hopkins is one of only two undisputed Middleweight champions to capture the Lightheavyweight crown. He is the oldest man to ever win it.

Calzaghe is the only unified Supermiddleweight champion in the division's short history, and also captured the Lightheavyweight crown.

As you are a big Calzaghe fan, I am a big Hopkins fan. I probably have a few biased views in here, but I am by no means a Calzaghe 'hater.' I'm not really a fan, but I have full respect for him and what he has accomplished. He is obviously a great fighter IMO. I personally feel Hopkins is greater though.

Again, very sorry for how long it is, I hope you take the time to actually read it all. The original post was a very well-made argument, so I wanted to make my reply as detailed as possible.

 

Excellent posts from Cobra and Beatboxer. Good Work.


Hambone and Pugilist64 **** off and watch volleyball or some ****.

 

Great stuff Cobra.

Only thing i might disagree with is that Winky was bloated at 170. He was noticeably above his ideal weight. So i wouldn't put him at #4.

 

This content is protected

 

IMO, no.

I rank his performances like this.

Tito
Johnson
Tarver
Pavlik

But lets take a look at that list of fighters for a second and put it into perspective. Those four great/very good fighters won a combined (arguable) 2 or 3 rounds tops against him. Simply amazing.

 

Bernard Hopkins' has the greater percieved legacy in the eyes of the American's who record the history of the sport.

That is all that really matters once we're all long gone, in one hundred years time.

 

I must admit i've only ever seen Tito fight the once when he got his ass wiped by Roy.Johnson i've only seen the Dawson fight but I would like to see more and Tarver hrrmm i've not been too impressed with him in all honesty,so i'll have to take your word for it.
After the Calzaghe fight which I thought was diabolical on Hopkin's part I thought never again will I watch this man but..I did against Pavlik and he was Ace in all fairness.Winky wright was a snooze fest so I suppose have there been any other exciting fights in his career exciting ala wooping Pavlik

 

All of Hopkins big-name wins came against guys moving-up in weight (usually two classes); with the exception of Tarver (who had to lose 50lbs of muscle).