Hopkins: Joe Calzaghe was more difficult an opponent than Roy Jones Jnr

Read between the lines. He was saying, If the Hopkins who fought Jones had fought this Calzaghe, he would have gotten smoked.

 

Was it a US or UK clip?

 

And I just said I agree with that all. My point is that the comparison between the two (which was the point of this thread) is useless given the circumstances in which he fought the two of them.

 

...and also lost twice to Taylor.

 

It's his perception based on the versions he faced at the different stages of his career that he faced them, therefore to base a prime for prime comparison of the two on what Hopkins said is useless. That is my point, not that Hopkins's opinion was useless, but that people are taking it out of context by trying to compare the two based on what he said.

 

Fair enough Pea. I don't think Hopkins' awnser is useless though as it's an honest one and can't be discounted entirely at all IMO based on the cirumstances. But I guess you bin it based on the unfair comparison with the stages at when Hopkins' fought them both, etc.

 

Hopkins was holding faking a foul and looking for rest vs JC.....Calzage dont rest and some of his punces are light but the one that ripped open Jones eye was not light....and B-hop was not reckless vs Joe....Roy said It did not feel like pitter-patter to me

 

Yeah, the thread had an ulterior motive. It's also tough to do much better finding fodder for such a thread than a direct quote from the only guy to have fought both of them.

You consider it useless because you disagreed with the outcome of the interview, the motives behind the thread, or both. You're doing quite a sell job to try to make it look like you're being fair on it, but let's be completely honest here- if he'd said Jones was the tougher matchup, you wouldn't be trying to discredit the entire thing by questioning Hopkins' perspective.

 

That pretty much goes without saying. Had he said it the other way around I wouldn't have agreed with the circumstances in which he presented the argument, but I wouldn't have any objection with his answer, therefore I likely wouldn't have taken the time to make a post about how inept the comparison was.

Either way, do you really think the comparison works? It's Hop's opinion based on the two circumstances in which he fought both, not on who was the better fighter prime for prime or the more difficult fighter to deal with prime for prime. Similar to what Robbi said earlier involving Ali with Liston and Spinks. Obviously Spinks was the more difficult challenge at that stage, but it has no bearing on a comparison between Spinks and Liston at their best.

 

I would call it useless. Its coming from a guy that picked Jones to beat Calzaghe when he was clearly shot, stating that he was on a different level to Calzaghe. Its also a stupid statement considering Jones must have been a pretty difficult opponent considering Hopkins got dominated. Whereas the Calzaghe fight was much closer.

 

Was it hard to hear Bernard?? I could barely make it out

 

ROY never stood a chance...he was SHOT getting in the ring. Didnt everybody, except the CALHUGGERS, know this?!?!