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

Anyone that hits as hard as Fits did has a shot at knocking anyone out at 175 on down.

 

Because Hopkins is better than anybody on Mayweathers resume.

How stupid are you?

 

I rate Mayweather's win over Canelo highly, but please don't say it's comparable to moving up in weight (without a catchweight) and getting win over Hopkins.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Why is Hopkins a bigger win than Oscar? Hmm let me think ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeRXCyzCX-U

 

At this point, yes.... Especially considering what Hopkins went on to accomplish after that fight. If Canelo goes on to have a great career Floyds win might triumph..... How many of Floyds recent opponents went on to have great success after he beat them? Ortiz, Mosley, Cotto, Guerrero? At the very least Calzaghes win is as good as any of Floyds best wins, but I would put it above any of his wins at the moment. Floyd obviously has the better resume overall though...... Calzaghe didn't prove himself really until the end of his career.

 

Please quit trying to troll me.

 

Not a chance. Even if Canelo went on to have a great career it still wouldn't be close to Hopkins because people would write Canelo's loss off as not yet being ready.

There is no ****ing way in hell Mayweather's victory over Canelo could ever possibly be considered on the level as Calzaghe's victory over Hopkins.

Its simply impossible.

 

Just as Roy's win over a 28 year old Hopkins gets written off because the higher rated Hopkins was not ready for a 24 year old Roy. Only hating fools write that **** off... If Canelo goes on to do great things, you can bet Mayweather's win will get better over time.

This statement is as foolish as it gets. Lets not pretend Hopkins has not ALWAYS had problems with certain types of fighters, particularly fast two handed fighters, Jones Jr, Taylor, Calzaghe... And lets not pretend like he has went on this rampage after Calzaghe beat him... There are certain fighters Hopkins can always beat with his genius yet controversial style.

He lost to Dawson, looked like **** against shot Roy, he could have very well been knocked out by Roy with a different judge..

Calzaghe had a great close win over Hopkins who was past prime but still elite due to Hopkins' dedication... But to say it "trumps" all of Floyd's wins, and the impossibility of Canelo being better after going on to do better things than Hopkins after losing to Joe, is just as dumb as I expect you would be to talk to in person.:good

 

Yes it trumps every single one of his wins and you cant name one that is better. You can argue he is a better fighter all you want. But dont try and say that he has a better win on his record than Calzaghe has over Hopkins.

The biggest difference in how the fights will always be viewed between Hopkins and Canelo is the simply fact of time. Hopkins went on to have great wins after his loss toe Calzaghe. One can make their own future, Hopkins did.

You cannot however go back in time and change the ****ing past. Alvarez does not have the history before losing to Mayweather. No matter how great he becomes the Mayweather loss will always be written off as him being too young and not ready. He's 23 ****ing years old. Nothing is going to change that. The mayweathe win will never get credit because he was too young.

NOTHING can ****ing change that! You can make your future but you cannot change the ****ing past. That is why the Hopkins win will always be greater than the Alvarez win.

This is why you are stupid.

 

Calzaghe beat a Hopkins who wasn't at his best since his trainer was freaking Freddie roach. Anybody with a brain can see that. And Calzaghe didn't win it impressively. Actually Dawson beat Hopkins a lot better, a lot more clearer then Calzaghe did.

 

No I didn't!

If you care to look I've always equated Broner to an even dumber Zab Judah.

Hans, you need to leave boxing sites and find one that cater to you Belgiums, like a waffle site or something cause you DKSAB !!! :--(

 

ROFL. People saying Calzaghe could've beaten E Charles? Calzaghe has a better win than Money? Good joke.

K leaving this thread, why do we waste our time with Brittards?

Here's a good post from SLOTHROP

You have to understand the British boxing fan's psychology. He lives in the ruins of a once-great empire that not too long ago covered fully 1/3 of the planet's land mass. It is now relegated to a tiny, dimly-lit island the size of the state of Oregon that is gradually but inexorably being taken over by Muslims while at the same time being eaten from within by the cancer of socialism. It's ****ed and everyone knows it whether they want to admit it or not. Boxing is a sport that fetishizes greatness and singular achievement like none other. The British empire no longer stands in the world pantheon, and Great Britain can produce few individuals who can stand in the pantheons of their respective fields. Joe Calzaghe is the only British fighter of the last generation who holds even a remote claim to greatness. In all reality, and by any objective analysis, he was one of the best fighters of his era, but not an all-time great. The hard-core British boxing fan thus completely ignores Calzahge's failings and magnifies his incredibly calculated achievements to the point where Slappy hopefully stands level with actually greats boxers. It's an intensely vicarious and an incredibly pathetic fandom. And incredibly annoying and transparent.

I like Calzaghe too but some Brittards are so dumb

:rofl

 

Where did that even come from in this thread?? What a dumb comment. And Calzaghe had Hopkins resorting to acting tactics. DESPERATE acting tactics to get a point deduction. I had Calzaghe ahead by 4 points. Clear victory.

Oh and Wladimir has taken on ALL top opponents and schooled them. Has Mayweather? Nope. One in particular that I don't have to mention. Too bad Floyd couldn't medal at the Olympics too

:yep