Joe Calzaghe vs Bernard Hopkins - The Record Comparison

He had two of the titles you regard so highly. The two most signficant historically.

Perfect record hardly lost a round in his career. Beat a series of good high level fighters very convincingly. Achieved more at SMW than Trinidad did at 160 thats for certain.

Its a very good win. As is Lacy.

 

Lacy was on the exact same level as Jermain Taylor. The difference? Calzaghe destroyed his heir apparent with ease whereas Hopkins was defeated by his. Twice.

Who else could Lacy and Kessler have beaten to prove their status? They were the top contenders in the division at the time both undefeated and both highly heralded.

When Joe proposed moving up in 2004 to LHW people were saying that he was running scared of these two up and coming hit kids in the division. Why after they both became champions and Calzaghe faced them does he not get the credit he deserves? Its ridiculous.

Look at the second part of my comparison. I give Hopkins full credit for all that he achieved up until 2001 and gauged it. The achievements are simply on the same level as Calzaghes. From 2002-2004 he killed time waiting for a big money pay off with DLH rather than vigorously pursuing legacy enhancing matches with Calzaghe and RJJ.

 

So is Taylor. Very flawed. He just had the style to give Hopkins fits. Taylor might dispose of this psychologically damaged version of Lacy but 2004-2005 Lacy? Im not so sure.

To say that any boxer puncher beats Lacy in the manner that Calzaghe did is a stretch at best.

 

Trinidad is a legend. I gave Hopkins great credit for that win. Some might debate it, but it was huge at the time. Just like Lacy, not many saw it coming they are comparable wins in that sense.

It seems crazy now but most though Tito would stop Hopkins! Again revisionists downplaying the signficance of a win in hindsight. It seems nuts but Hopkins would have got more credit from the naysayers if he was put on his arse 3 times in the first 5th and 6th before coming back to stop Tito rather than the clinic he actually produced!

Thats how illogical boxing fans are at times.

 

This is a formidable argument. Ive not seen those fights for years but I do particularly remember him having a bit of a tough time with Sheika...though that was overshadowed by the twin destructions of Reid and Pemberton.

May I ask you however, how much credit you will give Calzaghe should he defeat Hopkins ?

 

I agree with your point that Hopkins has more to gain. People will whether I or others on this board, like it or not, cite Hopkins age as a factor in him losing, rightly or wrongly.

That it has happened at this stage is of course not exactly Calzaghes fault. Hopkins was the one who agreed to the fight before unreasonably doubling his demands just as it was about to happen in 2002...when Calzaghe had a little momentum at that time no less.

I am, however happy that its at least happening now even if Calzaghe still doesn't get the credit I feel he deserves after this one. He can't win anyway, if he fought and beat Dawson a load of people would say Dawson had only beaten Adamek overhyped prospect etc.

 

1 or 2. Yep I believe he would retire if he lost...he seems very set on retirement after this year in any case.

I see him fighting Woods for sure should he come through against Tarver. If he fails, a fight against Pavlik is wholly possible. If Tarver wins and faces off against Dawson(which I believe is the plan) then the clamour to fight the winner of that might see him have one more outing.

Bascially, its hard to say at this point. All will become clear following those two weeks in April.