Calzaghe vs Hopkins

Regarding the proposed fight between the two (RJJ and JC). Did JC decline the fight?

 

While your there compare the two resumes. I was referring to his safe haven of the 168 division not the logistical element.

 

Nah JC never chased it, presumably because he was happy making money defending the WBO at home under the pretense of a great fighter. Joe seemed to think the worlds best should come to him despite having never heard of him.

 

No, your are perfectly correct

Roy Jones loves the home cooking too. Just like St Bernard. Well actually, the saint has left Yankland a whole twice so we shouldn't be too harsh. Not like that Eurobum Calzaghe, I mean he's only left his safe haven...wait for it...twice

Theres no way they should be judged by the same standards mind :-(

 

Regardless of resume, do you think he is a great fighter? Do you regard Hopkins as a great fighter?

 

That wasn't the basis for my argument. Read the posts. I'm still waiting for reasons as to why Joe never stepped up. Jones didn't just talk, he acted. He soon realised 168 was a barron wasteland so stepped up to 175, won all the proper belts there, then even won a heavyweight belt. An offer was even put on the table for a fight with Lewis but Lennox had already decided he was going to retire.

Meanwhile weight drained Joe kept defending the WBO while talking about being a great fighter.

 

It's interesting that when JC fanatics run out of answers they go on the attack. I still have no answer as to why Joe never stepped up despite claiming to be struggling to make weight. I'll answer your question if & when you answer mine.

 

Why is he being compared to Roy Jones anyway? As far as I know, Joe ain't fighting Roy Jones. Everybody knows old china chin has a better resume, he was incredible in his prime

If we want to talk about stepping up, and resumes stick to Hopkins. I don't blame you for attempting this illusion though, since Joe/Mary's resumes virtually mirror each other

 

What illusion? Hopkins stepped up to light heavy & beat who was considered "the man". He also already fought Jones & lost. He'd beaten Glen Johnson a man Joe couldn't bring himself to fight because he was too busy crying about the wife he cheated on. He also twice beat Antwun Echols, a middleweight who starched Brewer in three who's fight with Joe is considered one of his defining fights.

 

No one but Joe knows the reasons for not stepping up sooner but hes hinted at the past at wanting to unify 168 before doing it. In fairness he's stuck to his word there even though the unification took a long time to happen.

What is your opinion on Bhop ducking Calzaghe also? You state that Calzgahe is doing now what he should have done years ago, the same must go for Hopkins over this fight also right?

 

He lost against Roy Jones, he got completely dominated. Congratulations. Kudos for taking the fight, but he got whooped...next

Glen Johnson was a nobody at the time. This is one you look back on and it looks decent, Kessler will be the same. Even so, Glen Johnson is nothing special. Decent win

Antwun Echols is a better win than Eubank/Lacy/Reid? He beat Brewer, but the guy that got whooped by Anthony Mundine, a fringe fighter at 168? We can both play the discrediting game

He did fight Robert Allen 56 times though. Plus he lost to Jermain Taylor, a very sloppy fighter. Or do we just forgot about losses?

This all comes back to what I said. The resumes are similar. Loads of defenses in mediocre divisions. A few defining wins, Trinidad/Tarver/De La Hoya vs Eubank/Kessler/Lacy

Nothing in it

 

Yup it's regrettable the fight never happened. The risk/reward ratio was poor for Hopkins here. A fight away from home, for a crap belt against a highly skilled opponent. The fact Hopkins will face him now at 43 makes it all less relevant. And before any of you zealots say a word, YES I WILL GIVE JOE FULL CREDIT IF HE WINS.

If Joe had really wanted to unify before he could have done. I don't understand this theory. It's not as if he knew one day better fighters would hold the belts. What would he have done, sat around waiting for better opponents to win the belts forever while at the same claiming to be p4p?

 

Sorry for my question seeming like an attack but I really am interested in your view. It seems that to qualify as a great fighter, to you, you must win multiple divisions. I just happen to disagree with you theory, that's all. Don't take it personally, I am not the keeper of great boxing wisdom!

I often wonder why the UK has failed to produce more, multi-division champions. I really don't know the answer but I am open to suggetions that may explain it.

 

He didn't get dominated. Have you even seen the fight? I might watch it again now actually.

You don't know Kessler will go on to do anything, Johnson has.

The point is Echols wasn't a 168 fighter & neither was Brewer but Joe sure made a meal out of beating him.

I still believe he won the second Taylor fight as do most others.

De La Hoya & Trinidad are two truly great fighters & cannot be mentioned in the same breath as Lacy & Kessler. A hype job & a maybe man.

 

On the contrary. I am well known for my dislike of the divison hopping fad, however, it was Joe himself who talked about moving division. Like many of you have said on numerous occasions Joe was "the man" at 168 despite not unifying so he really had nothing to prove & could have stepped up years ago. Plus he had also said he was struggling to make weight so the move seemed logical.