Calzaghe must be top 10 atg ?

I'm afraid I do!

 

i find it hard to assess jones because he is a proven banned anabolic steroid cheat. i can't abide drug cheats and there is always constant suspicion for me hanging over jones. how can you compare him fairly against clean athletes like hopkins and calzaghe.

with regards to hopkins and calzaghe, it is also difficult to assess. hopkins longjevity is magnificent but his middleweight reign was the bum of the month club in an awful era. you then look at hopkins best victories and it seems like his career is surrounded by smoke and mirrors swallowed by gullable ring comic / hbo comedy channel puppets.



look at his best wins

trinidad
prime weight = welterweight (147)
fought hopkins at middleweight

This content is protected

trinidads record at middleweight or above from hopkins onwards = 2 wins / 3 defeats

winky wright
prime weight - light middleweight (154)
fought hopkins at -

This content is protected

in 57 fights, the hopkins fight was the only fight that wright had weighed over 160 lbs (a full 10lbs difference)

de la hoya
prime weight - welterweight (140lbs)
fought hopkins at - middleweight

This content is protected

de la hoya only fought twice in his career at middleweight out of 45 fights -1 win / 1 loss - the win was a very debatable decision over eurobum felix sturm

pavlik
prime weight - middleweight (160 lbs)
fought hopkins at -

This content is protected

in 34 fights pavlik had only fought 2 minnions at the beginning of his career at 169. all pavliks fights since hopkins have been at the 160 limit.

tarver
prime weight 175
great 2 weight jump from hopkins and his best win despite tarver being a b-level fighter and going 3 wins / 3 losses from hopkins onwards.

johnson
prime weight -super mid / light heavy (162 to 175)
fought hopkins at - middleweight (160)
johnsons record at 160 + from hopkins onwards - 19 wins / 14 defeats / 2 draws
the defeats have come against people of the level of ottke, woods, shieka, gonzales, harmon, branco, vanderpool, Kiwanuka, sosa

Pascal
prime weight 168-175
fought hopkins at 175
needed 2 attempts to beat a carl froch victim but must be given huge credit because of his age.


look how hopkins dragged fighters like trinidad, de la hoya, pavlik, and wright way above they're best weights.

on paper, hopkins greatest wins look like they were against tarver and pascal - are these really the wins of a true all time great?



next you throw in the fact that calzaghe beat hopkins sandwiched inbetween hopkins supposedly best performances of tarver, wright, pavlik, pascal.

take into account that for the hopkins fight, calzaghe
- fought at light heavy for the 1st time
- fought in hopkins back yard
- had hopkins brother joe cortez referee the fight and do everything in his power to try and even up the fight

despite all this, joe calzaghe with extreme brittle hands defeated hopkins.



now we here you hopkins fans scream "that wasn't hopkins prime", well it was certainly the point of hopkins career where he was getting his best results. was hopkins prime when he was beating robert allan 3 times and beating hakkar and calling every welterweight on the planet to fight him?



so we then answer the question of why the 2 hopkins and calzaghe didn't fight each other whilst in their supposed primes in 2002

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

now it wouldn't be fair for me not to give hopkins some credit because he is a very clever man, extremely astute tactically and defensively, he knows how to disrupt an opponents rhythm and he knows to neutralise an opponents strengths. he's also very good at calling out fighters he knows he can expose tactically and calling out fighters he will have big weight and strength advantages over.


the bottom line in all this for me though, is that bernard hopkins was not good enough to win 8 of his fights (5 defeats, 2 draws, 1 disgracefull no contest). there is a clear blueprint there of how to beat hopkins.

on the other hand, there is no blueprint to beat calzaghe, sure fighters can cause calzaghe problems but there is a versatility in him, a common trate in great fighters where he can adapt to the man he is fighting and find a way to win, the charachter to stare adversity in the face and walk through it by adapting his gameplan to that of his opponent.

for hopkins there will always be a blueprint of how to beat him but for calzaghe there never will be. on top of that there will always be that head to head victory over a version of hopkins that is far better than any hopkins fan on here will be prepared to admit, as well as the 8 fights hopkins wasn't good enough to win.

head to head calzaghe is obviously better but how much does hopkins phenominal longjevity make up for it, winning a world title at 46 is outrageous, even if he did need 2 attempts to beat a carl froch victim.

i find it very hard to balance up the longjevity factor versus calzaghe being the better fighter to give a definitive ATG answer.

 

Nothing until august 31st

 

yep, its the same little scottish ***boy

 

This thread is just too funny.

U got cockins and delusional hitman arguing about the same thing...Whilst saying the same thing. Only two complete imbeciles can manage that.:rofl:rofl:deal

There will always be haters.
The fact remains we will talk abou Joe for a long time...

 

ooh look at mummys brave little soldier

not man enough to debate boxing but he has the brutal courage to point out a spelling mistake

did you learn that spelling on your 'dick sucking degree course?' :rofl

 

@headbanger.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions. We do not need to discuss this further.

My final word is the 3 will be remembered like this:

Hopkins
Jones (closely together, opposite order if you put more emphasis on skillset.

There are too many other boxers inbetween to mention joe in any representative fashion.

Good day sir.

 

no problem :good

do you feel that your stock has risen on esb today? :rofl:rofl:rofl

 

That is very stereotypical. This shows me you are incredibly uneducated. Idk why I have responded this much because you clearly can't comprehend anything without resorting to swearing, since you know no other way to get your point across.