Greater Fighter: Bernard Hopkins or Joe Calzaghe

You need to check in for therapy to realize that your opinion is not always infallible. Hopkins was a superior fighter, has a superior resume, superior achievements. It is folly to think these two fighters are comparable simply because they met in the ring once when one of them was over 40. They are not comparable, there is a clear gulf between them... as this poll of Classic Forum posters demonstrates.

 

He had a special ingredient that allowed him to always come out on top against the guys he fought - but what a bunch they were. Of course beating Jeff Lacy and Mikkel Kessler and a past-prime Hopkins who had already lost to Taylor and a collection of other smw mediocrities does not prove he could win against any style.

He didn't fight every style, and he didn't even fight one single HOF class fighter who was in their prime.

To say that someone can beat anyone they're set against because they were never beaten is something I'd expect a 12 year old novice fan to say. Did Rocky Marciano have the special ingredient to beat any heavyweight? Of course not, because he didn't fight every style and he didn't fight anyone as good as guys from history that he never had the chance to fight. Common sense.

Do you ever consider why a lot of things you say are "ESB blasphemy"? It's not because you are some sort of outspoken daring genius Bill, it's because most of the time they are very short-sighted and biased statements based on personal likes and dislikes only, and the majority of ESB see that. As I've said before, your posts on boxing often pale in comparison to your exceptional posts on MMA. Why are you able to be analytical and knowledgable about one thing, but irrational and ill-informed about another?

 

I agree Hopkins has the better resume, achievements and is the better fighter, but not by a large amount, I think its close. In resumes it is pretty close imho

Original Reigns: Eubank, Kessler, Lacy, Reid, Mitchell, versus Trinidad, Holmes, Joppy, DLH, Glen Johnson. Both unified and made around 20 defenses

LHW comp - Hopkins/Jones v Tarver/Winky/Jones/Calzaghe/Pavlik

Not much in it, Hops has more depth of quality though. Head to head when they fought it was very close, could of gone either way, Hopkins was years past his prime, but Calzaghe was past his prime to, just not as much. Calzaghes hand speed and workrate always give Hops problems though

I think old snaggletooth is thought of more fondly on this forum, especially with people with 'Opkins' in their username :yep

 

All you've done there is show why Hopkins is clearly better, but book-end it by stating that it's close. If you look at it objectively, considering ability, resume and achievements, it isn't particularly close between them.

 

vastly Nard. If Calzghe had gone ahead with paying Bernie what he wanted instead of running away and riding on Hopkins name, he would have got his arse kicked back in 2002. Joe did the right thing to stay undefeated.

 

Still feel the same, except Hopkins is probably in the 36-40 bracket nowadays.

 

Hopkins by a mile.

Joe was somewhat of a wasted talent. Even if we don't blame him for the ottke and beyer fights not happening, he had a lot of meaningless fights in his prime. Never really number 1 until Ottke retired and even then it was kinda by default as most favoured other fighters over him.

Proved his talent in the twilight of his career and he is an ATG without doubt. But he is not in the league of Hopkins.

 

Bernard Hopkins. Too much depth there.

 

Calzaghe was the superior fighter.

 

calzaghe ran from kessler when mikkey was uninjured, but as soon as Kessler is injured he said OK!! but only at home for me.n and Kessler said OK I FIGHT YOU ANYWHERE, I DONT CARE ABOUT MY INJURY.

and then ran from a rematch with uninjured Kessler.