Comparing Resumes: Hopkins & Calzaghe

No Beyer, or even Ottke wouldn't have been BIG in real big fight terms, but at least there would be titles to unify and at the time the WBO that Joe held was virtually completely disregarded by America, so a WBC or IBF title would have increased his value. It would have been a significant step in building himself up to the bigger names, making him a more attractive proposition.

I agree with you about the Ottke/Germany thing, but at the same time Joe was pretty reluctant to leave his own back yard too. If Warren can spend a fortune on getting Kostya Tszyu over here for Hatton, McCall for Bruno, etc I'm pretty confident he could have somehow found the cash to entice Ottke.

 

Calzaghe isn't and certainly wasn't anywhere close to Hatton in terms of popularity at the time. A deal has to make business sense for the promoter, there is only so much money in the pot. PPV boosts that immeasurably, but Calzaghe wasn't a PPV draw, and certainly not to face Sven Ottke.

So he couldn't really go hell for leather offering Ottke obscene amounts. I heard they had talks but I'm not sure the details of it and what the sticking points were.

 

Ottke, publicly, refused to acknowledge Calzaghe's existence. Quite amusing when you think about it.

 

Its Hopkins by a country mile for me. He beat an unbeaten Glen Johnson and is still the only man to stop him, stopped an unbeaten Felix Trinidad (I know, I know DLH did beat him really), nearly broke DLH in half and got comfortable victories over Tarver, Winky Wright and Pavlik. Calzaghe just cant compete with that.

 

So everyone thinks,including myself,Hopkins resume is better.....Everyone knew that so whats the point of this thread then?

Another oportunity for people to knock Calzaghe?

His chin being sniped at is ubsurd and some of the names people are banding around that would've improved his legacy,some of them mean nothing. If he defeated Ottke do we really all believe this thread wouldn't still be here?? Yes he should've fought Jones/ Hopkins earlier but the fact he did later and beat them pisses off fans of there's,I understand that but Give him a break-he's the best Britains had to offer for some considerable time(even Lewis IMO)

Also the Hopkins Calzaghe did beat,albeit not convincingly,was not some faded fighter(like Jones),I think he was in terrific shape and IMO the older version of Hop would beat the younger Hop.

Tho maybe the younger Hop would've had a better chance of beating JC.
(confusing myself here-point being Hopkins,tho not at peak certainly wasn't shot)

 

That long WBO "reign" will always be held against Joe because he made little or no effort to change that situation.

 

i really do hate these threads now, their just full of biased opinions EITHER way so nothing actually gets anywhere

 

yeh but these threads are made every freakin month and if you already know the answer why make a thread about it, oh wait its a calzaghe hating thread, how original.

 

so why make the thread if you know calzaghes cant compare to hopkins

I find the fact that you have repeated a much talked about subject in which the answer has been found quite pathetic really.

Why cant people let the subject rest:-(

 

I dont deny that hopkins has the better resume (now) but i will argue the point that calzaghe was just as good a fighter as b hop and would have beaton the guy prime for prime.

Im not trying to dictate what subject are talked about and what isnt, but this one subject has been done to death and it really has got boring and always without fail strays into knocking calzaghe instead of praising hopkins.

what is with the allegation that i only see calzaghe in a good light when other posters are doing the exact same thing with bhop, its a little cheap to criticise me for defending calzaghe when others refuse to see hopkins in a bad light am i not right.