Not exactly great though are they? Just ignore me buddy im tired and becoming obnoxious its time for me to go:good
Fair enough smiffy, but you cant tell me you werent a little nervous when you seen Hopkins floor Calzaghe with one punch, so early in the fight? I myself was shocked when it happend, as the fight got deeper Calzaghe started to gain the upper hand, it was a competitive fight none the less.
totally, i wasn't surprised because i recognise hopkins as a great fighter as i don't see a boxers ability as relative to the country where they're from, unlike some on here. the hopkins fight ended up closer than the kessler one, but at the end of the day joe won them both, some may try to take it away from him , but you can't rewrite history .
no he beat him, easily, as will happen when a great fighter like bernard hopkins fights someone pretty mediocre like howard eastman . calzaghe would have done the same if not more. i still say calzaghe , just. you ****ers on here saying joe beat an over the hill, shot hopkins forget or neglect to remember that hopkins is STILL in the the top 5 p4p fighters by boxing experts who have forgot more about the sport than you'll ever know and beat a recognised all time great in winky wright not long before . blinkered . call yourselves boxing fans ? i hope you have the excuse of youth , otherwise you're just plain stupid .
Bad styles match-up for Hopkins. B-Hop has always had problems against guys with fast hands, and was never a very active fighter, even in his prime. Joe wins it in similar fashion as their recent fight. Furthermore, Calzaghe sat on his punches more in his prime, so he would have hit with more power and done more damage. I have always thought that Calzaghe would have Hopkin's number.
Hopkins beat a sloppy out of shape winky that was fighting out of his weightclass, he beat a name. Winky was exhausted, have you ever seen Winky in those conditions before? Calzaghe beat an old Hopkins, we could tell who the better boxer was in the first couple of rounds when they were both fresh. You can't give Calzaghe full credit for beating a faded fighter. All the hype about the fight was because people wanted to see if Hopkins was still able to defy father time, and it was all clear that night that he can't do it anymore. It was like Hopkin's final chapter with his knockdown being his last moment of greatness.
It would have always been a close fight because both fighters are great all rounders with many strengths and few weaknesses. I would favour Hopkins to win a UD in a very competitive fight though. Calzaghe while not in his prime beat a faded version of Hopkins who had to alter his style to accomadate his failing body. Prime Hopkins was a very aggressive, physical fighter but also a very skillful boxer. The problem with Hopkins is a lot of the things he does are so subtle few can see it to appreciate it, which is why he was ignored and underrated for a lot of his career. While a prime Hopkins would have been more aggressive this would not have played into Calzaghe hands as many think. Hopkins is the superior fighter on the outside but also in close, he simply didn't have the workrate to compete with Joe when they did fight. Hopkins spent most of his middleweight reign outworking, outboxing, outthinking and outbrawling every fighter he fought, including Glen Johnson. I cant see any version of Calzaghe going at Glen Johnson as aggressively as Hopkins did and winning in a brawl in such an emphatic way. The best version of Hopkins is just too much for Joe. Hopkins proved how susceptible Calzaghe is to his sneaky right hand. While Joe did adapt and got in close to Hopkins, to take away the right hand prime Hopkins would have matched Calzaghe punch for punch in close, unlike the older version and had the skill and workrate to beat Calzaghe in close.
Hopkins something like 8 rounds to 4 or better. in terms of style matchups, Hopkins is a nightmare for Calzaghe, and Calzaghe is tailor made for Hopkins also, Hopkins in his prime could have fought 15 rounds on a bad night, at 43 he could barely go 12. and btw i picked Calzaghe to beat Hopkins when they fought earlier this year.
All of the evidence points to Calzaghe winning this fight. Do you know something everyone else doesn't?
Calzaghe is at his best when a fighter comes to attack rather than defend, the prime Hopkins was certainly more of an attacker than he is now & I believe the faster Calzaghe, with his solid chin & higher workrate (yes I know B-Hop had a great workrate in his prime but JCs was even higher than it is now in HIS prime sO you do the math.) Even if Hop wanted to switch tactics to fight more defensive, Joe would have did what he done in their recent fight & won ugly thru workrate & aggression. PRIMES - CALZAGHE W12 HOPKINS - Unanimous Decision. End of thread... Done & dusted. THE END. :hi:
Yeah the evidence like a 43 year old Hopkins arguably beating Calzaghe? If all your "evidence" points to a Calzaghe win why are most people going for Hopkins? And bear in mind Hopkins isn't the most popular fighter these days.
There is no agrument, unless you have a bias toward American fighters, Calzaghe won that fight decisively.