For all those who say Calzaghe would beat Hopkins no matter when they fought...

You offer absolutely nothing to this forum except with immature "slappy joe" insults.

Grow up.

 

Prime for prime, it is rather obvious that Hopkins beats Calzaghe...obvious to everyone but the Brits, it seems.

 

I don't see how it's obvious at all. You could make a case for it, but it'd be just as easy to make a case for Calzaghe winning as well.

 

Not all Brits mate. In fact most of us can see that Hopkins would win easily but I'll admit there are a few hardcore Calzaghe fans who think otherwise.

 

I expect Pavlik to beat Hopkins more convincingly than Calzaghe, but that doesn't mean that I think PAvlik is better than Joe C. Pavlik is 17 years younger than Hopkins.

Also, Calzaghe is tailor made for Hopkins, PAvlik not so much. Calzaghe beating Hopkins despite the style disadvantage counts for something, but he couldn't have done it if it was prime for prime.

 

I think Joe beats Hopkins prime for prime. Anyone who can't see that a case can be made for BOTH fantastic fighters however is clearly blinkered. Some facts that many have totally forgotten / ignored during this thread:

BOTH fighters were past their prime. Not just Hopkins.

It was BERNARD who pulled out of a prime matchup between the two, denying us the chance to see two great fighters go at it without a combined age of 78.

In EVERY single bout he has undertaken Calzaghe has found a way. This is too easily sneered at. Calzaghe is wonderfully adaptable.

Their fight was Joe's debut in the USA, debut at 175, and was challenger for the first time in 11 years. These are factors to consider in addition to Joe's own advancing years.

Joe Calzaghe WON the fight. No amount of snidey bitching will ever change this.

 

its not a simple argument by any means but its also naive to say joe wins because hopkins comes forward more which plays into joes hands and because joe had more snap back then which i have seen on this forum before (pugilist 64 TFFP).
i dont think joe having more snap makes that much of a difference as he'll only have the power when he compromises the speed and in the fight he landed very few of these power shots anyway because hopkins defensive skills didnt allow him to land any. He was only effective when throwing quick flurries which racked up easy quick "points" these punches had no mustard they were just to compensate for the fact he wasnt landing anything effective so take away the hand injuries it doesnt make much of a difference. Take into account its hard to find bernards chin (which is sturdy) anyway
I also think its hard to pinpoint calzaghes prime you go back a few years you have less injuries so more punching power but you dont have the IQ or adaptability.
If its a more modern version you have more adaptability and ring IQ but less power so it's pick your poision
I think B-hop wins a close decision

 

Great post :good

 

Watching their fight again, I thought JC only won through his work rate and by making clownish acts, (which make the judges think he was winnning the fight), but it gives you more clear idea on how ancient Hopkins really is and how overrated Calzaghe is.

Prime for prime, there is no doubt that Hopkins would have taken him to school, in a clear wide UD.

 

All this Calzage wins because a younger Hopkins opens up more - doesn't add up because Hopkins won the rounds in which he was more active and opened up more. Hopkins lost the fight due to inactivity - not activity - but won the rounds in which he was more active.

Hopkins won the rounds in which he was more busy and not gassing or faking low blows. A younger Hopkins is more busy and continues to win the rounds he won along with some others on top. No gassing - no faking low blows from the Granpa for a breather. Hopkins UD, or even a TKO, imo.