From peoples comments, ATG seems to be far fetched, and in reality, he was a decent fighter, who cherry picked and was amazing at self promotion. the latter being all too true with the fact he's convinced so many fans, he is actually an ATG, despite never sealing an ATG victory, despite numerous efforts. It is amusing how people use any topic to try cut down Joe Calzaghe, it is easier to spot a true ATG with the amount of haters he has simply because he proved the doubters wrong time and time again. I think this thread should now finish on this note: A-/B+ level fighter, lost all his important fights, cherry picked, but revolutionised PPV and promotion. Definately has more impact on promoting than boxing.
That ''doesn't'' not ''don't''. I believe I have already spent 3 pages addressing these farcical issues, anti Calzaghe fans are always the most deluded, regurgitating the same nonsense every post. Yawn The end Next.
Explain to me why you think Hopkins was in his prime at the age of 43 years old by the time he fought Calzaghe huh? Why cause as you say he was top 3 p4p? Are you that stupid? So you saying Hopkins at 43 years old was still in his prime but Whitaker who was top 3 p4p wasn't in his prime when he fought De la hoya? Man stfu. You got exposed as a Calzaghe bandwagon fan. The end. Next.
Why? because A: Hopkins destroyed Pavlik B:Hopkins game is all tactics and experience, not KO power, speed , so he had more experience at 43 C: Whitaker actually beat DLH, but Whittaker went on to do what after? D: Hopkins is still P4P 3 E:You're gay I win again The end.
He was a great boxer. A Hall of Famer and an ATG, even though he cherry picked his last few matches, he's accomplihments are great. He conquered 6 different weight divisions. Not to mention that his only clear lose was against Pacquiao and Hopkins.
A: Hopkins didn't destroyed Pavlik. Do you know what destroyed mean? Destroyed could be like what Pacquiao did to Hatton. B: Well duh. How can a 43 year old not have experience? C: Whitaker did not beat De la hoya. Well if you say so cause many thought Whitaker won well Many from ringside and from other boxing websites thought Hopkins beat Calzaghe. D: So? I personally don't think Hopkins should be top 3 p4p cause easily beating a middleweight should not get full credit of going up to top 3 p4p but since gbp owns the p4p rankings i can understand why. E: I'm gay? What are you 12? 11?
Biggest names Oscar fought (going by what's on record, not getting into whether you feel he should have won/lost): Julio Cesar Chavez x2 - W Pernell Whitaker - W Fernando Vargas - W Ike Quartley - W Genaro Hernandez - W Felix Trinidad - L Floyd Mayweather Jr - L Manny Pacquiao - L Shane Mosley x2 - L Bernard Hopkins - L 6 Wins and 6 Losses - different than losing to "nearly all huge names". People seem to forget Oscar's early career.
Yes and that record could easily be 8-4 if you add Trinidad and Mosley II as fights he should have won... though you can also make a case that he lost to Whitaker.
A: LOL 12 rounds sucking the fight out of Pavlik, and proving hes the better boxer is destroying someone. B: blah C: a few armchair Anti Joe fans said Hopkins won, hardly any critics or real fans said Hopkins won, the guy took maybe 3-4 rounds tops, and was about to be Ko'ed before Cortez saved him. Whitaker /DLH was a LOT closer, you didn't see Whitaker making a mcokery of himself rolling around on the floor or getting raped. D: Hopkins smashes a top 10 p4p bigger man to pieces and doesn't deserve to keep his position? yet Dawsons in the top 10 for beating up a has been in Tarver? E: Yes, you're very gay, now beat it gay boy. The end. now I am off for the night, Cheerio batty boy.