Calzaghe Update

It's debatable if he was more "live" than Dawson but he was certainly more "live" than Johnson. JC is a big time Calzaghe zealot though, so his credibility can be brought into question also. No doubt he'll have an expletive filled rant for me saying that, but it's true.

 

Reading comprehension. I said they would be the more live opponents, which doesn't necessarily make them the better from a risk/reward standpoint. Hopkins--an aging legend who looked every one of his years his last few fights and holding The Ring title was a better choice from a risk/reward standpoint, but he was in no way, shape or form a more live opponent than either of those two.

 

How do you define "live" just out of interest?

 

So what did you see in Johnson's wins over the aforementioned two shot to bits light heavyweights and one bulked up shot welterweight that convinced you at the time that he was a more 'live' (whatever that means) opponent than Hopkins?

Even after the fight no-one was talking about Dawson, all talk was that Calzaghe should fight Pavlik - you know, the guy who you say was too 'green' for Hopkins win over him to be notable despite him being a lot more experienced than Dawson...

 

You going to have to break down this word 'live' because im not understanding you at all.

Hopkins is a more dangerous oponent than Glen Johnson whatever the weight and whatever the year! As for Hop - Dawson that is up for discussion but id be putting my money on Bernard if the fight was made, Dawson proved his limitations and against the technically limited Glen Johnson, Hop would have a field day with Chads weak defence, lack of concentration and questionable chin.

There is simply no way Dawson or Johnson were better fights than Bernard Hopkins - it even sounds ridiclous as I type it!

 

They both looked like they had far more in the tank than did Hopkins. Anyone who says that Hopkins looked good--and I don't mean entertaining, I mean looked like a fighter who shouldn't be seriously thinking abut retirement--in any fight after Taylor I and before Calzaghe needs their head checked. He just looked like a shadow of his former self in those fights and looked like he should have gone to pasture. I was surprised by his showing against Calzaghe and certainly against Pavlik.

 

Yeah. You willingly don't want to understand so I am done wasting time with you.

I didn't say that Hopkins' win over Pavlik wasn't notable. You have to try to twist my words to suit your purposes. What I said was that Pavlik was tailor-made and still a green fighter. He is STILL a green fighter, and I have been following him for years! Fact of the matter, Hopkins put on an amazing performance, albeit one against a young, one dimensional fighter. What I am saying and what you are failing to understand, purposely or not, is that Dawson and Johnson were both more dangerous opponents at the time, and both could say that THEY should have been fighting Calzaghe, Johnson because of the fights that fell through, and Dawson as the up-and-comer and a beltholder at 175.

 

So was the Pavlik fight then? Very selective mate.

 

I fail understand it because quite frankly it's not believable.

If Calzaghe had beaten Dawson then you could be sitting here telling us how Dawson was green and tailormade for him and had never been tested.

If Calzaghe had beaten Johnson then you could say that Johnson had been fighting stiffs and had lost his last serious test against Woods.

No doubt in either of those scenarios you would be telling us that Calzaghe had ducked Hopkins who, obviously, would have been a far more 'live' opponent (just look at what he did to Pavlik!).

It's funny how these things can be worked out in hindsight.

I'm not going to call you a liar if you say that, in March 2008, you were advocating Johnson or Dawson as more live opponents than Hopkins. You wouldn't have been in particularly big company though.

 

Hopkins-Pavlik? Extraordinarily meaningless. What exactly did that prove, other than that KP had no business above middleweight--which I think the Taylor fight also showed--and that Hopkins can take apart a one-dimensional fighter. Cause, you know, he'd never proved that before...atsch

 

Some might; I wouldn't. I was sold on Dawson as the goods since Adamek.

Again, you presume what I 'would' say. I would be more inclined to say that Calzaghe tied up that loose end.

You are right, I was in short company. After Kessler and when he announced that he was fighting Hopkins I thought it was a poor fight for moving to 175, and I stand by that. Johnson or Dawson were both better opponents from every angle aside from money--Johnson because of the loose ends angle and Dawson as the up-and-comer. Based on what I saw at the time, Hopkins looked like he was just old, fighting a minute of each round, holding more than he ever did, even though it worked against Tarver and Winky.

 

But even after Calzaghe beat Hopkins, you didn't think that Dawson or Johnson were the best opponents for Calzaghe, you thought that Pavlik was.

You thought that Pavlik would go to LHW, stop Calzaghe in the later rounds and become the first person to hold linear titles in three divisions at once.

This is the same Pavlik that you now describe as 'green' and say that he you already knew at that time that he 'had no business above middleweight' :?

You'll forgive me if I don't really believe that you were advocating Dawson and Johnson as harder fights for Calzaghe prior to the Hopkins fight...

 

Yeah I did think that, at the time. Pavlik has since shown that he can't deal with a great boxer, which Calzaghe is. We can't always be right.