Calzaghe top 10 perfomances

Can I remind you Calzaghe was hardly a spring chicken at this point. Hopkins is a good win. Hopkins was a p4p fighter. and still is.

 

no i'm right about you.

you're not a fighter and never have been.

people who are dismissive on this board have rarely been in the game.

you just referred to kessler as an 'easy' win for hopkins, and even though i agree hopkins would win this, anyone who is this dismissive doesn't respect a fighter's skillset.

you're not a fighter.

 

You can't provide ay evidence why Calzaghe didn't fight Hopkins in his 'prime'.

All i have ever heard is that hopkins doubled his price overnight back in 2001 or near that time.

It was hopkins who jumped 168 after all to fight an old fighter in tarver.

Lets not forget Calzaghes age either and how many fights he has had and when he started boxing.

People seem to forget he's no spring chicken either.

 

I really don't want to clog up a thread for fans of Joe with me talking about Hopkins, it's not fair, but one final Q to you before I disappear - in your opinion, could Bernard Hopkins move up to cruiserweight and beat Adamek or Banks in his next and possibly final fight? Is he capable of winning a world title fight at cruiserweight this year?

 

sure but calzaghe caught both hopkins and jones on the slide and could have courted fights against pavlik and dawson instead but never did that, did he?

 

You're not being reasonable at all with this garbage.

If I had said Pavlik would have been an 'easy' win for Hopkins before that fight, would you have made this same attack on me?

Would you have apologized after it?

Pavlik WAS a relatively easy win for Hopkins, it is perfectly feasible that Kessler would be too.

This "not a fighter" talk is dog****.

 

You can pick holes in his resume all you want, I have. But the fact remains that Hopkins is a good win. RJJ was nothing more than a money making scheme, but theres credibility in that Hopkins win for me. Especially as Hopkins showed he still had it vs Pavlik. That win was key.

 

if you want to fight a fighter with a proven reputation who has gained his notoriety on the world stage then its th job of the fighter who wants his scalp to chase it - this is the way boxing has always worked.

why do you think guys like witter and sturm, who are both skilled, will be forgotten easily in time, and guys like pacman and hatton who chased their dream made their dream fight happen.

the 'evidence' is in the choices that legitimaite fighters made to make their defining fights happen.

 

Cheers for the response, you evil non-fighter you

 

i agree with you the hopkins win is credible.

 

I just want to say that I disagree with Mcgrain, I think Hopkins could fight and beat Adamek, making it look relatively easy in the process.