Prime for Prime(At their best) Who is winning? Bernard Hopkins or Joe Calzaghe I make this thread, because a lot of people are saying that a younger Hopkins would had been beaten more easily because he was less intelligent, not as good as counter puncher that he is at 43(In my opinion that is ****in false, just watch him at at the end of the 90, and early 2000..He was a ****in beast..that's a no brainer for me, Joe Calzaghe wasnt a his prime when he beat Hopkins by SD, I KNOW THAT, but just want to see your points of views.. Who is taking this at their BEST.???
I concur that a younger Hopkins would have fought differently, not resorting to "dirty it up" tactics. This would have been to his disadvantage. Calzaghe would have cruised to an easy UD winning a minimum of 8/12 rounds.
Well, id say B-Hop in his prime in my opinion (Trinidad - DLH fights?) Would have beaten Calzaghe.. Yeah he was still "old" for most fighters, but that was his best IMO.
Hopkins did that back in his late 90s/early 00s days too (Allen 2, Echols, Vanderpool, etc....). He always fought differently based on his opponent, like versatile fighters should.
Hopkins would have been demolished if he had used any other tactic than he did against Calzaghe. I don't care if he was 28 or 43. Hopkins stayed at the top for so long by being smart. And he was at his smartest in the end of his career. Younger Calzaghe might have lost, because he made stupid arrogant mistakes.
demolished??? one of the biggest and intelligent fan of Calzaghe on this forum just said that would be to tough to pick(TFFP) and that Hopkins has an advantage stylistic..
So what I can form my own opinion. Unlike you I don't draw conclusions on some consensus or media attention - much less on individuals ideas other than my own.
Yes. I think at best Hopkins would have fought a similar ugly fight, and would have lost in the same manner.