Is it fair to say now that Calzaghe's win over Hopkins trumps any win Mayeather has?

Joe Calzaghe, one of the greatest boxers who ever entered the squared circle. Grossly underestimated by most American fans and so-called experts. Why? He is British and has the wrong skin pigmentation. Chris Eubank who actually fought him still talks about his speed and crazy power. His hands were sound back then. Eubank admits he underestimated Joe because of his appearance. Marvellous Marvin Hagler who rarely praises any fighter thought Joe was one of the best he had seen. He stated that in two separate interviews. He did want Joe to fight Chad Dawson before retirement but Joe had had enough.

 

you need to grow up if you really believe that last sentence

 

yes, Hopkins was destroying joe early in the fight till he gassed out, its clear an nongassing Hopkins would have torn joe apart. no wonder at 43.

 

Not recently, three years prior. His two most recent fights prior to Calzaghe was wins over the LHW Champion and the #3 P4P. Why dwell on two disputed MW losses three years previoiusly and not his two most recent fights at LHW?

 

anyone being fair would consider both sets of data plus the loss to joe.

so that's 3 wins,three losses during that period when he fought joe.

hardly the form of a sterling athlete. He was clearly no longer an unbeatable guy, in fact clearly beatable via lungpower.

 

by a mile.

 

- You can't use Joe's win against Hopkins against Joe.

-And 4-0-1(bs draw) in his next 5 after Joe. Again, since Hopkins move to LHW from 2006-2011 and re-entered the top 5 P4P, Calzaghe was the only man to have his hand raised in victory against him in that 5 year period.

-Hopkins finished stronger than much younger men Taylor, Pavlik, and Dawson.

 

I see you are intent on looking at only a portion of the evidence.

no,young padwan, you must look at all the data if you are to provide a complete picture assess a boxer.

we are not assessing joe calzaghe, we are assessing Hopkins., the whole man during any given time period, not Hopkins left armpit or his right nostril..

it is you who picked that stretch in resume. I have no problem with expanding it. But if you want to criticise the choice of stretch ofreume, you are criticising your own choice. I didn't want to criticise you for it, I am too nice to do that, but now you pointed out your error, I am glad to agree with you about it.

but once again, wrong to read just a portion, Hopkins beaten by several fighters in this time of ageing.

 

but who is more the fool, the FOOL or the FOOL that follows?

as some famous person once said (maybe it was Mr T)

 

watchoo talking about FOOL

 

-This is about evaluating Calzaghe's win. Using Calzaghe's win to discredit Calzaghe's win is too irrational to even contemplate. Joe Calzaghe doesn't deserve credit for beating Bernard Hopkins because Joe Calzaghe beat Bernard Hopkins...:nut Such a line of reasoning would render it impossible to ever credit anybody for a great win.

-No, it is not me. I was responding to Madpuppy and you gave your two cents by zeroing in on this stretch.

 

No, Calzaghe's win over Hopkins is controversial.
Floyd has far much better career than Calzaghe.
You don't even compare Calzaghe to Pac and May or even JMM and Cotto, you need to compare it to the likes of Froch, very good but not great but still HOF worthy

 

Even Calzaghe himself knows Floyds better than him

 

calzaghe slapped that boy silly

 

Hopkins is better than any single win on Mayweather's resume.

But...it is foolish to judge fighters by their single best individual win or even several. If that ws the case Joey Maxim would be the GOAT. Calzaghe has other strong wins like Kessler but overall, Mayweather has the better resume.