If Hatton retired at 43-0, is his resume better than Calzaghe?

yep

 

Can the mods **** off the Calzaghe threads, they are starting to get annoying.
The blokes been retired a long while, so how about his butt hurt fans take these type of threads to the classical section.

 

I think most people who think hatton has the better resume would say calzaghe was the better fighter.
To quote Hatton " he's the best we've ever had" talking about calzaghe

 

Hatton had a solid beard.

 

calzaghe had a better resume but people tend to exagerate. He won WBO and defended it for a long time but mostly against B level opposition while Hatton was defending a meaningless WBU belt agaist similar, maybe slightly worse opposition. Calzaghe then unified the belts against Lacy and then Kessler while Hatton won and defended the IBF belt. So in this respect Calzaghe has more accomplishments but if we simply compare the level of opposition the gap between these two is not that big. I rate the Hopkins win highly because 2008 version of Hopkins is like 90% prime Hopkins. But I dont rate the Jones win at all. That was like a 40% prime Jones. On the other hand I rate Castillo win highly. Castillo was coming off a great win over Corraless, won two more fights and was not considered shot, in fact I remember it was a 50/50 fight.

 

Hatton sought and fought the best guys and many of them were in their prime. Where as Calzaghe fought bums in his backyard. Calzaghe only dared to fight his rivals when they are old or shot, 40+ year old Hopkins and an old shot Jones.

Hatton is much greater than Calzaghe.

 

You are forgetting that Hopkins was coming off 2 wins against Tarver and Wright before facing Calzaghe. After Hopkins 20+ defences he lost to Taylor but it was debatable. Calzaghe was the first guy besides RJJ who beat Hopkins clearly. After that loss to Calzaghe Hopkins beat an undefeated Pavlik with ease. Won WBC title and recently IBF title. Despite almost 50 not only is he still relevant but he is on top of the division.

As for Roy Jones, yes he was old and that win wasnt as good but it was not a completly shot version of Roy. He was coming off 3 wins including a demolition of Trinidad.

 

Tszyu 202 rounds fought. KO ratio 73.5%

Hopkins 470 rounds fought, KO ratio 50%

And dickheads on here claim that Cal beating Hopkins is a better achievement than Hatton beating KT?

At any given time Ricky could have got Judah'd. Hopkins simply can't punch like that.

Also add in the fact that the gutless Hopkins didn't even WANT to make a fight of it with Joe, preferring to cry to Cortez all night, whereas Hatton's fight with KT was two way traffic, and the comparison is ludicrous.

 

If Hatton won every fight he was in, he would be a lock top 25.. Joe did win every fight he was in, and isn't even close to that.

But Joe's 46-0 is on a different level than Hatton.

 

No.

 

The difference between the 2 is, Hatton fought 2 great fighters in their prime and lost, Calzaghe fought 2 great fighters who were like 40+ years old and just about scraped by against one

Go figure.

 

Yes...go figure.

Calzaghe just about scraped by against a fighter who was only one place behind him in the pound-4-pound ratings, was considered the best Light Heavyweight in the world at the time and now considered an all time great Light Heavyweight, someone who is still winning world titles years down the line, someone who proved he was still an elite level fighter by dominating a fighter 17 years younger than him who had been the dominant Middleweight only one fight after losing to Calzaghe.

God only knows that Calzaghe's close fought victory over Hopkins must be run down and talked about as if it was worthless because Hopkins was over 40. A 40+ year old man cannot in any way still be capable of being a elite fighter. One wonders why Hopkins even bothers to continue fighting and didn't retire in 2005 when he reached that all important milestone, the one that means that no matter what he does or who he beats or how he performs he could never be a great fighter ever again just because he's over 40.

Seriously man. Ageism is insulting.

 

Getting a split decision against a 40+, the highlight of calzaghes career

 

And...it matters that Hopkins was over 40 why?

Was he not still a highly effective fighter? Was he not in the top five pound-4-pound ranks in 2008 and only one place behind Calzaghe? Did he not go on to beat highly rated fighters younger than Calzaghe after he lost? Is he not still a world level fighter winning world titles today?

Age is only ****ing relevant if it noticably effected the fighter in question. Jones aged very badly so his loss to Calzaghe is meaningless, Hopkins aged very well to the extent that old-man Hopkins is not noticably inferior to physical-prime Hopkins - in fact, old-man Hopkins resume shits all over physical-prime Hopkins one - so the running down of Calzaghe's win against him as if it meant little-to-nothing is totally unfounded and the act of either a) fanboys who cannot accept that Hopkins didn't get the decision or b) haters who refuse to give Calzaghe his due.