Calzaghe resume = Hopkins resume?

Threre resumes are not equal but the quality of victories for both fighters are the same.

 

I have no love for Hopkins so i won't dispute that, but it doesnt really matter. We'll never know what woulda happened had prime Calzaghe met prime Hopkins. But what does it matter, in the end. You fight who you fight when you fight them. There are tons of reason why fights don't get made, that one may have been on Hopkins, others may have been on Calzaghe. But the record books only say who you fought, not who you could have fought.

 

i would disagree, he fought smaller fighters at times. but for a career middleweight to fight the middleweight champ in pavlik when he was only what, 3 fights removed from the division, is not a big deal. let's be honest, the size difference was not that big at all...it wasn't schmeling/walker here. tito looked magnificent at 154 and 160 so dthat can't be held against him. winky fight was ****, in both the quality of the fight and match up. same with oscar: it counts for very little. tarver was two divisions higher and a top 10-20 pound for pounder who was virtually shut out. you're being selective in your criticism a bit.

 

i disagree. that **** follows you far past boxrec. dempsey is STILL remembered for ducking harry willis, everyone is still remembered for ducking burley, and more recently, bowe is remembered for ducking lewis. fans, and historians, consider these when assessing place in history and all time great status

 

i suppose its how you look at things

lacy win - undefeated champ was a big favourite to beat calzaghe

kessler win - undefeated champ who many thought would beat joe

hopkins - no1 light heavy, ranked top 5 p4p, fighting in hopkins backyard with cortez reffing, at light heavy for the 1st time - i view that as a good and under-rated win

eubank - not prime but that is also a very under-rated win, eubank was tough as ****, i think most people in britain thought eubank would win that.

reid - olympic bronze, former champ, very under-rated fighter, good win imo

jones - fighting in jones back yard, jones at his peak , one sided beat down

bika - decent win

woodhall - decent win.


im not saying its great but i think its better than most people give him credit for.

there is always gonna be 'what if questions' which is a shame cos i think he would have proved a lot of his critics wrong.

 

Its funny how you don't mention it, but Taylor was undefeated when Hopkins fought him no? And stayed that why for quite a bit after if I'm right. So, if you're going to do backflips to tip Calzaghe, at least be fair there. Also, Hopkins was 40 years old when he fought 20-something year old Taylor. Just for perspective.

 

exactly though. i rate the body snatcher high because he fought all that was presented and has some seriously solid wins on his ledger. as you pointed out, people remember that and it factors in that he was underappreciated and ducked. much like burley and langford, his stock goes up based on the fear he elicited in the elites

 

That's fine Banger, those are not horrible stretches you're making there. But if you apply the same logic to Hopkins' fights, this discussion is dead in the water.

 

its another lassic thread that clearly dosent have a point

onl calzaghe nuthhugers will argue his side

calzaghe very very good but hopkins and jones for that matter were simply better

 

i agree. i think he would have won some of those fights that he couldn't get, which would have worked WONDERS. like you say correctly, he has a number of good wins. just very few great ones. and even in winning, he was ugly but effective. john ruiz resume looks good to but when you watch him, you don't see greatness

 

i know what your saying but joe didn't spend his career calling out lighter fighters.