Calzaghe resume = Hopkins resume?

Hopkins fought and beat better fighters. There isn't much more to say. That seals the deal in boxing 9 times out of 10. Watch Hopkins vs Tito. That was a special fighter right there. All-round better than any version of Joe Calzaghe in my opinion.

 

I don't know if it works like that, you fight who you fight when you fight them. Calzaghe beat Hopkins, a good win, but it should be kept in context.

 

That is Hopkins' best performance. It was also against a blown up welter-weight. That has to be taken into consideration. Same as the victory over De la Hoya.

 

You can't compare the Trinidad win with the De La Hoya win, they are completely different. Tito was 40-0(34) and p4p#2 at the time, a heavy favourite going into the fight, and he had completely wiped out Joppy for the WBA mw title in his last fight, after unifying the lmw division. Oscar was 37-3, had lost to Mosley not long before, was nowhere near the top of the p4p rankings, had lost to Felix Sturm in a failed bid to prove himself as a mw (the judging was a joke), and was a massive underdog.

 

By that rationale Joe's best performane was against a blown up middle, and he barely won:deal

 

Put it this way, in a top 100 P4P dealing 70% resume and 30% ability (for when resumes are hard to split) B-Hop is at no.57 on my list.

Calzaghe doesn't feature in the top 100.

 

That's the point. What I posted was the context. Beating a 29 year old who is number one in his division and ranked number five pound for pound is exactly the same achievement as beating a 21 year old who is number one in the same division and ranked number five pound for pound in the same era or beating a 44 year old who is number one in the same division and ranked number five pound for pound in the same era or beating a 72 year old who is number one in the same division and ranked number five pound for pound in the same era.

That's a self evident truth that many people completely overlook.

 

There are many different factors that make up the context of it all.

So, granted, Hopkins was ranked all the things you said he was. But using that line of thinking, which I don't agree with, he immediately and undisputedly becomes JC's best win. Is that preferable?

I said earlier that it is definitely a double standard when it comes to aged fighters. If you lose, you have the stigma of losing to an old man(Pavlik). If you win, you beat up an old guy(Taylor, Calzaghe). But the old guy gets credit for winning as well as taking the fight at all. It is more win, win for him. He wins, his status increases. He loses, he was supposed to lose...... he's too old. He's got nothing to lose except putting an "L" on the record.

There will always be the issue that Hopkins was 43 years old regardless of his rankings.

 

nope Joe went up in weight against an opponent who had been in that division for a while

 

I have always considered Hopkins far and away Calzaghe's best win, so I don't have any particular problem with that.

Well, as I've said, I dismiss completely that as incorrect thinking. You can't say 'Hopkins was 43 years old regardless of his rankings' because the rankings already allow for his age. The 43 year old Hopkins was considered by consensus the best light heavyweight and top five P4P. Neither of those rankings were handicapped by age. The only issue should ever be how good someone is at that particular point in time. And, once that is established, how old they are is completely irrelevant.

 

Wow, another thread of people claiming Calzaghe's and Hopkins' resumes are alike.

Sorry, but Hopkins' resume >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe Calzaghe's overrated resume any day of the week.

 

B-hops record is miles better than calzaghes.