Joe Calzaghe - Bernard Hopkins The Record Comparison Part 2

You can't argue with 21 title defences either.

Calzaghe didn't need two attempts to win his first title either.

 

Two very impressive but very similar resume's. Hopkins may edge on the famous names front, but when it comes to overral ability its shockingly similar. Calzaghes win over Hopkins will seal the argument.

 

and 20 legitimate title defences.

 

Personally, I judge boxers on their performance against other good (rated ) boxers. The ones that were 'brought in to lose' as you put have have little bearing on my overall assessment. If you are basing Calzaghe's performance next month on a few 'cans' then you are being a little naive.

 

Also, I think Hopkins has more British support than he gets back home. Not sure why tho'. Maybe the fact that Calzaghe is so disliked on here (by UK posters) should be more worrying/telling?

 

Are you kidding me? It's like an unofficial Calzaghe fansite on here. But seriously why does it matter if British people like Hopkins? I think the nationalistic element is mostly perpetrated by new fans.

 

Maybe the British fans (of Hopkins) appreciate his style, tactics, etc. more so than the more casual American fan? Maybe Calzaghe is disliked because of the nuthuggery that goes on around here?

 

I think if you are talking about hardcore British fans then you are probably right but I think most casual fans have watched the Lacy & Kessler fights & have decided Calzaghe is god.

My main gripe with Calzaghe is the inordinate amount of time he took to be recognised. A man of his talents should have done so much more & could have done so with a little more ambition & a little less Warren.

 

Right or wrong, Hopkins has been the underdog in a number of his biggest fights. In fact he's been the underdog for his last three, Tarver, Wright and now Calzaghe.

Serious question, I do not know the answer to it: Other than the Lacey fight where he was a slight underdog (11/10 to 4/6) which of his fights fights was Calzaghe the underdog in?

 

You're right it doesn't prove that Hopkins opposition was better than Calzaghe's. However what it does show is the lack of respect that Hopkins has had throughout his career. I may be wrong, because I cannot find a source, but I believe, if memory serves me right, that Hopkins was even the underdog when he fought Echols. The lack of respect that Hopkins has had throughout his career would explain why he is the way he is (personality).

Anyway another thing that it does show is that it is never a wise thing to count Hopkins out of any fight. I know that you are not doing this but so many people are. As history has proven, counting Hopkins out is never a wise thing to do.

I predict that this fight will be closer than many people are expecting and I also predict that Calzaghe's punch output per round for this fight will be the lowest it's been in years. I'm not going to predict a winner but I will have a small wager on Hopkins just because he is the underdog yet again.

The thing that sucks about this fight is that I'm actually going to Vegas on the 21st April, two days after the fight.

Oh well.

P.S. I did like your analysis of both fighters records, I would like to point out however that Taylor was a more accomplished amateur than Lacey. Also Taylor did win a bronze medal at the Olympics whilst Lacey got KOed. Whilst this does not translate into a better fighter in the pro ranks it does imply that Taylor was a more skilled boxer, at least when he started his pro career. Thus it is likely that it is more difficult to out skill a Taylor than a Lacey. That is not an attempt to demean Calzaghe's performance against Lacey (which was awesome) but more an attempt to defend Hopkin's performances against Taylor, which incidently I personally think he won both of them. (He was definately the stronger fighter at the end of both bouts, of course, that alone does not mean he won)