Could Joe Calzaghe still be undefeated if he fought Roy Jones Jr's opponents?

Your performance on this thread has been pathetic, you've been tooled consistently for page after page, and you know it. :smoke

This content is protected

This content is protected

,

This content is protected

,

This content is protected

,

This content is protected

,

This content is protected

or

This content is protected

,

This content is protected

,

This content is protected

,

This content is protected

,

This content is protected

,

This content is protected

I think I know who was prime and who wasn't, you daft trout :hi:

 

Crazy, or a moron...

:think

 

Actually, many consider Hopkins best win to be Tarver, which was two fights before Calzaghe. Though the Trinidad fight brought him the most recognition

As I said, you've already tripped yourself up

Right, so you think Trinidad was as good as ever? On the basis that he turned in one of his best performances directly before, and was rated very highly P4P

Okay, fair enough

So then applying your logic, how was Hopkins toothless when he turned in one of his most destructive performances right after the Calzaghe fight, and was rated number 4 P4P?

You can't have it both ways.

Either, Trinidad was very much close to his best and so was Hopkins, or neither were. If you want to give Hopkins credit, you have to give Calzaghe credit. If you want to take away from Calzaghe, you have to take away from Hopkins


Now, then answer why after Hopkins, Trinidad went 2-2 in his next four fights and retired

 

There is no blueprint on how to beat Joe

 

:smoke This guy must be about 8 years old FFS. Pitiful attempts at debating, cutting off the end of sentences in a horribly failed attempt to win an argument...

 

This content is protected

 

Yep, avoiding questions you can't answer again

 

I haven't tripped up at all you halfwit, because I've seen all of Hopkins's fights, whereas you clearly haven't.

Even in the wins over Tarver and Pavlik, Hopkins didn't look as good as he did earlier in his career. Hopkins fans know this. It's not our fault you don't.

Tarver and Pavlik made the mistake of allowing Bernard to fight at his own pace, and he thoroughly outboxed both of them (neither performance was what I'd call "destructive" though, so I have no idea why you choose that word. He outpointed both, and registered only one flash KD in 24 rounds. Not my idea of "destructive").

Neither performance was as impressive as the performances Bernard turned in against Felix Trinidad, Glen Johnson, the second Echols fight, or Keith Holmes, which all occurred in Hopkins's bona fide 97-01 peak.

Trust me, if 97-01 Hopkins had fought Kelly Pavlik, he'd have beaten the living **** out of him far more "destructively" than the toothless 08 version managed.

After Hopkins, Tito continued to be a wrecking ball against Cherifi and Mayorga, then ran into his nightmare (again), a naturally larger defensive stylist, I guess he lost heart after the Winky defeat. The Jones defeat matters not, a joke fight that has no credibility or relevance to anything.



This statement really puts the cherry on the top of your utter idiocy:

Why? Why is the peak of a 29 year old fighter inextricably linked to the peak of a different, 43 year old fighter? Because you want them to be to serve your shitty, biased argument perhaps?

You don't know anything about their careers, clearly.

Actually read the below, rather than typing off another **** reply, and see if you can understand it this time...

:hi:

 

Have already answered it, you're just too cross-eyed to understand the answer.

And why do you keep avoiding the fact you behaved like a ridiculous little baby, cutting off the end of sentences to serve your purpose?

 

Another reading comprehension fail for bottom-of-the-class ****-for-brains Knockout Artist...

atsch You seriously need to learn to read.

You've embarrassed yourself by misreading my point on Johnson vs Calzaghe then tried to hide it by posting my sentence with everything after the "or" cut off, and here you have also misread a sentence that has an "or" in it. It's bloody tricky, understanding these two-letter words eh?

 

Rubbish, the Pavlik win is considered one of Hopkins very best performances. That's the general consensus from fans. Take a look

[url]http://www.eastsideboxing.com/weblog/news.php?p=17603&more=1[/url]

2 of the top 5 best performances of Hopkins' career are Tarver and Pavlik here, both around the time he faced Calzaghe.

The Tarver win is the best of his career, he actually beat a top fighter at their best weight, not someone dragged up like Trinidad, fighting above his prime weight

The age argument doesn't hold much weight. Fighters peak at different times. Look at Ali who was in his peak during his 20's. Look at Wlad Klit who is in his prime in his mid 30's. Fighters peak at different ages.

Hopkins was ranked P4P number 4, and was on his best run of wins when Calzaghe beat him. If you want to give Hopkins all this credit for beating Trinidad, then fair enough, but you also have to give Calzaghe credit, because he clearly beat a very strong Hopkins who went on to regain the title at LHW, and turned in one of his most 'devastating and destructive' performances against Pavlik right after the Calzaghe fight.

That's pathetic, the crux of your argument is 'I guess he lost heart'. Surely reading back over that, you realise how pathetic it sounds?

 

I have studied Hopkins's career, you haven't. That is the difference between us on this subject.

Do not pretend you have watched the fights with Holmes, Echols II, Johnson etc, because you obviously haven't.

As I said, if the 97-01 Hopkins had fought Pavlik, he'd have beaten him up much worse. :deal

Honestly, you're just a fanboy waste of time. You're trying to pretend an older, more tired version of Hopkins than the one who lost to Jermain Taylor was still in his prime? An absolute joke. :-(

And I do think Tito lost heart after Winky, what other reason could there be for him retiring? He wasn't old and had performed well in his previous two fights. What other reason could be there be? You're an idiot.

 

Actually read the below, rather than typing off another **** reply, and see if you can understand it this time...

 

Can't believe I'm even arguing with someone so irrational that they'd consider a post-Taylor (post-stamina, post-power) Hopkins prime because he looked good against Pavlik. I am literally arguing about Bernard Hopkins with someone who never watched his fights, and has looked at boxrec to further his own agenda. This forum ****ing sucks.

 

Tarver was a better fighter than Holmes, Echols and Johnson (especially the green version Hopkins fought). That is Hopkins best win, and Pavlik is considered one of his best performances. It's not just my opinion, go look it up.

Me a fanboy?

You're the guy who keeps fapping over Hopkins 'Oh I studied his career'. That's pretty ironic.

Though, I do respect Hopkins a great deal, I don't like his style but respect him as a great fighter.

Taylor was a bad style match up, he would cause Hopkins nightmares at any point in his career. How was Trinidad in his prime as a MW?

Tito lost heart :rofl:roflatsch

That's your explanation for why he went 2-2 in his next 4 fights

The reason could be that Mayorga and Cherifi were hardly amongst the best Tito has fought! Before he faced Mayorga, he didn't fight for like 2 years, what does that tell you?

You can't provide a decent excuse can you? :deal