Hopkins-Calzaghe in a different perspective.......

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by box3r86, Aug 11, 2008.


Page 5 of 7
  1. box3r86

    box3r86 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,506
    1
    Feb 8, 2008
    gamboa mainly wins by ko so cant complain. its only cos the tv picked up on his antics that he was caught out!! it may happen more than you think. at the end of the day he was caught out and the rest of the world saw.

    robin reid was clearly robbed in germany have you seen that fight"?
     
    box3r86, Aug 12, 2008
    box3r86, Aug 12, 2008
    #61
  2. Loewe

    Loewe internet hero Full Member

    5,479
    12
    Jul 15, 2008
    Yeah, he was. And what do you want to say with that? Felix Sturm was robbed in the states, Lennox Lewis was robbed in the states, Axel Schulz was robbed in the states. Does that mean the US is a corrupt country? Hell, no. It´s just part of that game boxing is as sad as it is.
     
    Loewe, Aug 12, 2008
    Loewe, Aug 12, 2008
    #62
  3. DINAMITA

    DINAMITA Guest

    This thread has very obviously, very blatantly and very crudely been set up as a bias comparison with an agenda to promote Joe Calzaghe as a better champion than Bernard Hopkins- which he was not. It is of no value whatsoever.

    There is only a similarity between Kessler and Taylor because you say there is for the purpose of your thread, there is actually no link between them at all. You have only chosen Taylor from Hopkins's resume because he lost against Taylor. It is a facile and childish analogy, which means nothing, as Hopkins's long title reign obviously means far more than fights he had at 40 years old. Ask yourself- would Calzaghe at 40 have beaten Kessler? Maybe then you could draw a legitimate comparison, but this is a pile of dog****.


    - Hopkins was unified and undisputed champion for 4 years

    Calzaghe was said to be undisputed after Kessler, but the fact is he never had the IBF belt. And even if he was the legitimate undisputed champion, he never defended once, why? Because he didn't have time at his age, he had to chase a first big fight in the US because he'd been dancing around the Cardiff Ice Rink for 9 years between 1997 and 2006 achieving zero except routine WBO title defences


    - Hopkins held WBC/WBA/IBF/WBO titles at the same time

    Calzaghe never did, not for 1 minute of his championship career from 1997 til 2007


    - Hopkins stopped the undefeated #2 p4p WBA middleweight champ,

    did Calzaghe fight even a top 10 p4p guy in his entire reign??



    - Hopkins stopped Glen Johnson, a better fighter than Lacy or Kessler IMO, who was 32-0 at the time. Hopkins is still the only man to have stopped Johnson, despite Johnson being in with Jones Jr, Tarver and Dawson at light-heavy



    At least if you compare their entire championship resumes, both men are being looked at equally. Picking a win off one guy's record and a loss off another guy's is as illogical as it is pathetic and reeking of bias and agenda.
     
    DINAMITA, Aug 12, 2008
    DINAMITA, Aug 12, 2008
    #63
  4. box3r86

    box3r86 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,506
    1
    Feb 8, 2008

    speeking of bias and agenda!! lol you obviously are adding your own.

    childish!? grow up!

    so the fact that hopkins was making his 20th defence in the weight division below and calzaghe was making his 21st, both against younger undefeated fighters. except kessler was a double world champion!? you think there is no parallels? educate yourself pal.

    hopkins was a young 40 m8, we all know that and joe and bernard were both late in their title reigns with similar amounts of title defences, even tho joe had more. you obviously are a hopkins fan pal so dont come with the bias **** with me!!!!!

    i picked both these fights cos they happened in close chronological time, similar in title reign lengths and against younger, legitimate and undefeated fighters.

    why? because de la hoya and tito were rated as high as they were due to the fact that they were incredible welterweights, not middleweights. and i was giving a different perspective. de la hoya lost against sturm and tito had 1 sole fight at 160. my point is that taylor and kessler were both top middle and super middles with legit claims to the throne, so to speak!

    ive obviously hit a nerve havent i!?

    do you think i or anyone else is stupid!!??? glen johnson was no way near as refined as he is now back then. he was no challenge to hopkins at that stage of his career, and he was stopped not ko'd so he was never out cold and was just a novice even at 32-0 he had no substance to his record. even so, roy jones beat hopkins and johnson finished off a washed up jones, so i dont see how you can compare the johnson of 10 or more yrs ago to recent times. plus his best weight by far is 175 not 160, just admit that you've never seen johnsons record at 160 or you wouldnt have mentioned it lol. as i said b4 he wasnt knocked out he was stopped due to his lack of experience and defence at his stage back then in 97!!

    and yes i believe jones v calzaghe is a ridiculous fight and he should be fighting pavlik or a top 175 fighter.

    jog on please.
     
    box3r86, Aug 13, 2008
    box3r86, Aug 13, 2008
    #64
  5. DINAMITA

    DINAMITA Guest

    1.Sven Ottke was better than Hopkins as well then, as Ottke won his 20th defence.

    2.Pernell Whitaker lost his first ever crack at the WBC lightweight title.
    David Diaz won his first ever crack at the WBC lightweight title.
    Diaz must be the better fighter then.

    3.Lennox Lewis lost his heavyweight title in his 4th defence
    John Ruiz won the 4th defence of his heavyweight title
    Ruiz must be the better fighter then


    These 3 points are obvious nonsense, but I make them to highlight that your comparison is ****. Hopkins at 40 v Taylor is a completely different fight to Calzaghe v Kessler, it doesn't mean anything to set them against each other. Maybe if they had fought the same guy, the comparison would have some value, but this is just picking a win off one guy's record and a loss off the other.

    If you want to compare them, use their full resumes and give both guys a fair and unbiased assessment. I have, and I think Hopkins's is definitely better. If you disagree, fair enough, but at least give them a fair evaluation instead of this biased fanboy garbage.
     
    DINAMITA, Aug 13, 2008
    DINAMITA, Aug 13, 2008
    #65
  6. Brighton bomber

    Brighton bomber Loyal Member Full Member

    31,237
    29,281
    Apr 4, 2005
    You can't compare Hopkins/Taylor to Kessler/Calzaghe. Hopkins was 40, closer to 41 when he fought the top contender while Calzaghe was only 35, a year younger than the Hopkins who dominated P4Per Tito.
     
    Brighton bomber, Aug 13, 2008
    Brighton bomber, Aug 13, 2008
    #66
  7. box3r86

    box3r86 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,506
    1
    Feb 8, 2008
    your just being ludacris and stupid now you know i have a point. seriously, you cant see any similarities??

    sven ottke was not considered no.1 at 168 and he did not take on the no.2 in a huge unification match. yes he did unify the wba and ibf but we all know its incredibly dubious and his record should be taken with a pinch of salt.

    as for your other 2 well your being sarcastic and resorting to stupid comments in order to ridicule my comparison, i.e. im trying to talk about the changing of the guard, so to speak. the older veteran no.1 against a younger, hungry talisman who was undefeated and wanted the veterans crown and scalp.

    im talking to a brick wall as you dont even try to reason with me. you arent debating about it just trying to ridicule. im done, as ive made my point and your just bringing other tangibles into something which was meant to be simple. comparing to similar types of fights.

    bye.
     
    box3r86, Aug 13, 2008
    box3r86, Aug 13, 2008
    #67
  8. box3r86

    box3r86 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,506
    1
    Feb 8, 2008
    they were both well into their careers. calzaghe had 20 defences whilst hopkins had 19. hopkins was a young 40 and started boxing late. calzaghe had been boxing since he was a child. tito had 1 fight at 160 against joppy who was not exactly the best middleweight ever. plus tito made his name at 147 and 154. so dont give me that please.

    taylor was not a champion but kessler was a double champion, does that make him a harder challenge?? tit for tat.
     
    box3r86, Aug 13, 2008
    box3r86, Aug 13, 2008
    #68
  9. DINAMITA

    DINAMITA Guest

    HOW IS THIS BE ANYWHERE NEAR AS VALID AS COMPARING THEIR WHOLE RESUMES?!??!?! How the hell can it be?!

    Utterly pointless illogical biased fanboy bile.
     
    DINAMITA, Aug 13, 2008
    DINAMITA, Aug 13, 2008
    #69
  10. joecaldragon

    joecaldragon Guest

    ps: a more intelligent debate would be whether the Calzaghe that beat Kessler age 35 would beat the Hopkins that beat Trinidad age 36, as this was probably both guys best wins
     
    joecaldragon, Aug 13, 2008
    joecaldragon, Aug 13, 2008
    #70
  11. joecaldragon

    joecaldragon Guest

    I am a big Calzaghe fan, but I don't really see the point of this. Choosing a fight that Joe won and a fight that Hopkins lost doesn't really enhance a debate about who was better. By that rationale, Floyd Mayweather is better than Sugar Ray Leonard because Mayweather beat Corrales and Leonard lost to Duran when they were both young fledgling champions and fought a dangerous opponent. Comparisons like this are meaningless and make us Calzaghe fans look biased, let's just stick to comparing the fighters, their abilities, and their records. I think Calzaghe was the more special boxer, but Hopkins losing to Taylor when he was 40 has nothing to do with that.
     
    joecaldragon, Aug 13, 2008
    joecaldragon, Aug 13, 2008
    #71
  12. box3r86

    box3r86 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,506
    1
    Feb 8, 2008
    because these two figters: kessler and taylor were legit and were the number one contenders to the so called throne! im not actually a fanboy.

    resumes of beating welterweights on one hand and nobodys on the other (b4 u get any smart ideas i meant hopkins best wins and calzaghes resume in general.

    i was comparing the two fights where they were both challenged by the 2nd best in the division and were both fully fledged middle and super middles. as in my eyes tito was never gonna beat hopkins, hes huge compared to someone who made a name at 147, i dont care if he's 5"10 or 11. his stature is so much smaller.

    at least taylor started at 160 and could not be bullied or have a way smaller reach.

    yours is a ridiculous comeback with stupid answers
     
    box3r86, Aug 13, 2008
    box3r86, Aug 13, 2008
    #72
  13. box3r86

    box3r86 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,506
    1
    Feb 8, 2008
    its not the loss im worried or concerned about. it was that hopkins finally came up against a sound, big fully fledged middleweight who was the main challenger. and so did joe when he fought kessler.

    joe was 20 defences in and bernard was 19 its a similarity.

    kessler and taylor were both the no.2's and younger and undefeated.

    except kessler was double world champion.

    im not the biggest calzaghe fan, i just thought it better represented the 2 than just mentioning tito, oscar, winky, blah blah blah.

    the day the man met a big middleweight was the day he found it hard.
     
    box3r86, Aug 13, 2008
    box3r86, Aug 13, 2008
    #73
  14. DINAMITA

    DINAMITA Guest


    For what bizarre reason do you think Taylor was the very first time Hopkins had fought a no1 contender who was a natural middleweight? Many of his defences were mandatory and v natural middleweights, and he won them all up until he was 40. Have a look at his record. Picking 1 fight he lost when he was 40 is absurd.
     
    DINAMITA, Aug 13, 2008
    DINAMITA, Aug 13, 2008
    #74
  15. joecaldragon

    joecaldragon Guest

    it was that hopkins finally came up against a sound, big fully fledged middleweight who was the main challenger

    But Hopkins did this many times before he was 40 and won??



    joe was 20 defences in and bernard was 19 its a similarity

    Include Sven Ottke then, if thats your basis. See, it doesn't mean anything



    I reiterate, I think Joe was the superior fighter, but your comparison actually discredits Joe rather than proving this. Look at their whole careers, not 1 fight when 1 guy was 40.
     
    joecaldragon, Aug 13, 2008
    joecaldragon, Aug 13, 2008
    #75
Page 5 of 7