Joe Calzaghe - Bernard Hopkins The Record Comparison Part 2

Discussion in 'British Boxing Forum' started by Beatboxer, Mar 22, 2008.


  1. Calroid

    Calroid Active Member Full Member

    682
    1
    May 2, 2006
    Good talking to you.:thumbsup
     
  2. Beatboxer

    Beatboxer Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,937
    2
    Mar 4, 2006
    Cheers :good

    I would have went for it in the main forum but seeing as the vast majority of posters there are ignorant idiots I felt it would be better recieved and debated here, where the majority actually know what they are talking about and are most importantly, objective.
     
  3. JonOli

    JonOli Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,352
    2
    Nov 4, 2007
    How do you feel Joe's split win over Hopkins, and Hopkins win Pavlik has affected things?
     
  4. Beatboxer

    Beatboxer Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,937
    2
    Mar 4, 2006
    This old thread is back! Haha...

    Yeah, I addressed the former in another thread titled 'Arise Sir Joe...' where basically to cut a long story short I said that I believed that Calzaghe now had the superior resume having beaten a fighter the quality of Bernard Hopkins whom I did not consider 'shot' and whom I considered to be the best fighter in the world at 175, Dawson had not proven otherwise at that point.

    Hopkins beating Pavlik doesn't really change things greatly for Calzaghe from my perspective: it simply proves to all the haters that Hopkins was not in any way 'finished' or 'shot'. It simply vindicates my viewpoint more than anything and it does enhance Calzaghes legacy among boxing fans in general I think....people made out Joe won on activity alone but I think it's clear that it took a hell of alot of skill as well.

    I think I also overrated Pavlik somewhat, I really like the guy and had actually wanted JC to fight him...I picked him over Hopkins. Guys a good fighter but his limitations were cruelly exposed by Hopkins and my hat goes off to people that saw that coming and a fair few on here did.

    However, we must give Hopkins his due: this was a huge victory. I believe however, that Calzaghes win over Hopkins though it was officially split, is the bigger scalp given how good Hopkins truely is...no doubt that Pavlik was a massive, massive win for B-hop that improves his resume signficantly but it's clear that Joe beat a modern day legend that was still at a high point in his game, a truely great achievement.

    For me, Calzaghe has a very slight edge resume wise on Hopkins after this year...very slight.
     
  5. JonOli

    JonOli Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,352
    2
    Nov 4, 2007
    I disagree, but cheers for the reply. :good
     
  6. Beatboxer

    Beatboxer Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,937
    2
    Mar 4, 2006
    No problem, all about opinions :good
     
  7. icemax

    icemax Indian Red Full Member

    27,158
    2
    Apr 24, 2008
    In two sentences you have hit the nail on the head for me. Joe Calzaghe is and was a decent enough fighter without having to pad his record with the Sobots, Staries and Pudwills of this world.
     
  8. Redondo5

    Redondo5 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,703
    16
    Nov 11, 2007
    Good posts Beatbox...

    I still think Hopkins-Calzaghe should've been drawn or Hopkins win.... but either way, it was a close fight. One thing against JC, he was calling out Pavlik all over the place before his fight with Hopkins (see youTube videos of his interviews in US) but later decided Pavlik was not worth a fight and seemed to be avoiding what many would've said at the time was a dangerous Pavlik. ...Hopkins on the other hand jumped at the opportunity to fight Pavlik. For me There last two fights say it all..... Calzaghe wins a very debatable split decision and choose Jones.... Hopkins (at 43) loses very debatable decision and then schools what many experts thought would be the final nail in the coffin.... If a rematch with Calzaghe was offered to Hopkins to fight in Wales... I would put money on a Hopkins win...
     
  9. GazOC

    GazOC Guest Star for Team Taff Full Member

    61,460
    37
    Jan 7, 2005
    From that Jones interview on Bunces Boxing Hour I think a major force in JC-Jones getting made and not JC-Pavlik was that both Calzaghe and RJJ were both free agents and that way money had to be spread around less people rather than Calzaghe worrying about how good Pavlik was.
     
  10. TFFP

    TFFP Guest

    Hopkins is probably ahead now. And not because he beat Kelly Pavlik in itself, but because of the level he's competing at still and immense longevity. The fight opened my eyes to this. I still had doubts over how good he was with the styles mess and cheating against Calzaghe, and the win over another old guy in Tarver. But he's put that to bed.
     
  11. Redondo5

    Redondo5 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,703
    16
    Nov 11, 2007
    Also, Calzaghe has categorically said in many interview post Kessler fight.... he will not fight Kessler again....and he rates Kessler as a future great..... Best interviews to see confirmation of this....is post fight conferance with Kessler and the Calzaghe Interview on the Jonathan Ross show.

    Mentally, I don't think Calzaghe is as strong as BHop. Once JC panicked when cut and he is too concerned about protecting his undefeated record for my liking. Calzaghe is a smart fighter especially in the ring, he learns and adapts like a true champ....but I think he would struggle if he fought a more intelligent Kessler. And I think he knows this, that's why he would never rematch Kessler or BHop.
     
  12. GazOC

    GazOC Guest Star for Team Taff Full Member

    61,460
    37
    Jan 7, 2005
    Ignoring the money, from Calzaghes point of view rematches are pointless at this point in his career. He's already beat the guys, winning again doesn't prove anything new and a loss just means he has to go begging for a rubber match at age 38 and loses control of his own career.

    The bottom line is he's beat Kessler and Hopkins and some people are still insisting he does it again because Kessler might get more intelligent or Hopkins might improve his punch output, how about a rematch with Lacy because Lacy might learn some basic boxing skills?
     
  13. Redondo5

    Redondo5 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,703
    16
    Nov 11, 2007
    Well done to him for beating Kessler but surely Hopkins should be given a rematch considering he's said he's willing to fight in "England"... I know it won't be a very good fight for Calzaghe to end on.... but for his legacy it would be great to convincingly beat Hopkins - but then again I don't think that's possible...SO that will never happen.
     
  14. GazOC

    GazOC Guest Star for Team Taff Full Member

    61,460
    37
    Jan 7, 2005
    I'm no Calzaghe fan but he DID beat Hopkins convincingly in my book (as convincingly as you can beat Hopkins). IMHO a rematch is an entirely optional fight to take as far as his legacy is concerned.
     
  15. JonOli

    JonOli Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,352
    2
    Nov 4, 2007
    Isnt that the case with all rematches? If the fight is close or disputable you rematch it? How is joe some how different?

    If it's a close decision you rematch... the one who won often has something to lose by rematching.

    Lewis not rematching Vit... is still debated, as is Buchanan not getting a rematch.. if Hopkins moans enough (after his invigorated display last night) - he deserves that rematch! imho