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

You said Hopkins was 'toothless' when he lost to Calzaghe, now you admit that right after he turned in one of his finest performances and recorded one of his finest wins. So Calzaghe deserves a lot of credit.

You've watched Hopkins-Calzaghe 'many, many times'?

That's very sad, it was a ****ing awful fight! I've seen it twice and have it 115-112 Calzaghe

Why would you subject yourself to that 'many, many times'!?

And no Hopkins didn't win

 

there really isn't much difference between the line of guys Roy fought at 175 and the guys Calzaghe was fighting at the same time period. HBO was furious with how Jones tricked them they gave him that sweet deal because they thought Jones was going to eventually step up and have a big fight. It never happened. When John Ruiz is your best opponent in that time frame something is terribly wrong.

 

Lewis must still rank higher than Calzaghe though Bill. His resume is much stronger, his achievements are better, and he was just a better fighter IMO. I consider Morales to be on the same level as Lewis, alongside Barrera, De La Hoya, etc, the second-tier of the last 20 years or so (behind Jones Jr, Pacquiao, Mayweather, etc). Calzaghe ain't close to that level, not with his resume.

 

Bernard was toothless, that's why he couldn't even register a KD against Pavlik (who we saw badly hurt by Taylor) despite landing hundreds of clean shots on him.

'Toothless' doesn't mean 'shot' you ninny, 'toothless' means someone who hadn't scored a KO since 2004 and would never score one again. He still had skills and experience, he was just blunted physically by age, curbing his power and stamina.

I find it an interesting tactical battle. I like analysing this type of fight. Hopkins was a clear winner IMO. Landed considerably more flush, hard, significant shots over the course. :hi:

 

I think this is a good post as it is how I feel as a fan. I'd recognise, though, that this view makes more sense 'as a fan' than it would do to any of us were we in the same position as Joe Calzaghe at the tail-end of his career. Take tough fights against younger fighters who would train like it was the world cup final for less money? Or fight veterans in an exhibition style showpiece for multi-million pay packets. No brainer.

Going back to the OP who got slated by some for his 'logic' being flawed. Well, I suppose it is flawed logic in the same sense that looking for any pattern of what makes a fighter great is hard because of various exceptions. So for example, Buster-Douglas isn't a HOF fighters because of one massive stoppage on his resume, but does that mean looking for exceptional events like knocking out a HOF fighter is stupid or shouldn't be used to judge how fighters stack up (which is subjective anyway)? Of course it should.

 

Now your losing the plot a little bit mate, seriously.

I`ve seen you post on numerous occasion`s that you had Hopkins by ONE POINT.

Then again, I remember you says you scored the second JMM-pac fight to JMM in a close fight, then a while later says something like you never scored any of the three fights to JMM.

Bizarre.

 

Whatever suits his agenda :huh

Why is why you can't take him seriously

 

Yes it's completely psychotic to re-score a fight and come to a different conclusion to the one you came to when you watched it originally. I should check into a psychiatric hospital now because neither you nor any other sane person could ever change their score years later on a fresh viewing. :nut

I can post scorecards for any fight you want, and fully justify my cards. :good

 

Yes, whatever suits my agenda, coming from someone who cuts off peoples' sentences to win a petty argument, and argues that Hopkins was in his prime at 43 after losing twice to Taylor!!

 

It was one of those boxing matches that come along every so often where if you ask two different questions you get two different answers.

"who won the boxing match"? = Joe Calzaghe. You can understand how accumulation of shots landed, including pitter-patter trademark flurries, might well have had him a couple of rounds up over the course of the fight.

"who won the fight?" = for me the answer was Hopkins. I thought he out-foxed Calzaghe, looked the stronger man for all his years, landed the shots that looked the more telling, frustrated his opponent, looked in control. At the end of the fight, I'd rather have been Hopkins than Joe.

I'm a Calzaghe fan, watched the fight live on TV and got no sense he won at the time, in fact the opposite, and nor did I have the feeling that if the fight went on for another 5 rounds he would have won. Hopkins looked the more likely to hurt Calzaghe in my opinion.

I've never seen Calzaghe comment on it, but I think he was rapidly declining over his last three fights and I think he was lucky to get away with it.

 

I see where you're coming from, fair post :good

 

That`s ridiculous & a complete insult to Erik Morales :verysad

 

I don't think so. I'm a fan of both guys. I'd rank Morales higher, but they're in the same tier/ballpark.

You seem to underrate Lewis. He cleaned out a division, forging a deep, strong resume in the process, beat many many dangerous guys. He defended as a unified champion, and his best wins (Klitschko, Holyfield, Ruddock, Tua) are solid. He is one of the best heavyweights ever IMO, ability-wise. Beat every guy he ever fought.

This guy is far closer to Morales in terms of greatness than he is to Calzaghe, who is way below.

 

Its not so much that you had different scores than the first time, its the fact that the fighters you liked much better did a lot better in your scoring second time around. Maybe that`s just coincidence though.

Also, 1 point to 4 points is a bit of a jump (IMO)

:good

 

How on earth can anyone say with a straight face that Hopkins beat Calzaghe with all the clinching, grabbing, holding, wrestling, and faking low blows Hopkins did? Based on being such a ***** to fake low blows is awful. Can you imagine any of the other Light Heavyweight ATG's doing something like that? :roflatsch