Joe Calzaghe fought in 6 different countries. Ward only 1

he did however beat Kessler more emphatically, whereas joe only led once Kessler stopped using one hand, halfway through the fight...before that he was facing a loss.

 

Hopkins was so "basically past it" that he was rated in the top 5 P4P when he fought Calzaghe, humbled and humiliated the world's top rated Middleweight the very next fight, became the top Light Heavyweight in the world again two years later, and was still defeating established world level fighters and winning World Titles five years down the line.

 

to be fair, once old, he was beaten badly whenever he faced an elite (kovalev n dawson and maybe Taylor).

Whereas with decent "world level" like Pascal and Calzaghe he was touch n go, hovering between win/loss.

He was however able to pick some world level fighters and outskill them with careful pacing and judgement.

 

To be fair, Hopkins was able to prove he was worthy of being recognized as one of the world's best Light Heavyweights at the time he fought Calzaghe and for years after that fight, and I do not understand why people seem to feel the need to talk down Hopkins' abilities and achievements just because he lost to Calzaghe. He did also lose to Dawson and Kovalev in far more decisive fashion, but that doesn't devalue everything else he did between those three fights.

Hopkins may no longer have been amungst the world's elite in the last few years of his career but he proved that he was still a damned good fighter capable of competing on the world stage and a long, long way from being "basically past it".

 

yes, the best way to put it was he was no longer elite after his terminal thirtysomething 2fold Taylor tussle. However he was still world class.


Perhaps the OP means that he was past doing what he used to do, that is to dominate a division. In his heyday I cant see him getting outgassed by calzaghe, marginally outboxed by Pascal or pounded around by dawson.

 

Very good point,mate!

I also like your argument that independent countries dont have to vote in a referendum to be independent like Scotland did.
Scotland,Wales,and N.Irland are just regions of GB,nothing more.
Calalunya or the Basque region are not independent countries either,and they have far more soveragnity over their territory than the Scots or Welsh.The same goes for South Ossetia or Transnistria-they even have their own army and police force and embassies in foreign countries.I havent heard of a Welsh or Scottish army so far,or of Scottish or Welsh embassies.

 

Indian reservations must follow all Federal laws, as well as their own tribal laws.
Now they don't necessarily have to follow the laws of the State they are in.