Ok let's finish with this

Funny that, when Hopkins beats Tarver, he is a great fighter in almost all peoples p4p list, but if he loses to a European, he is shot and way past prime.

@Romane, so 40 is a much better age than 43. The threshold of greatness is at 40 and 221 days 10 hours 32 mins and 21 secs.

 

Firstly, forget The Ring title. That means nothing. Now, Hopkins was shot by his standards. Remember he had lost twice to Taylor about two years before! Sure he could still hold his own against some of the best fighters in the world but we're comparing him with what he used to be, not the other fighters about today.

 

so i guess Tarver and Wright are superior boxers??? Then how come Hopkins beat them both.

Hopkins has been looking bad since before he lost to Calzaghe, because he is old

You think a prime hopkins would have done anything but beat Jermain Taylor handily?

 

I bet we'll be having this same argument after Calzaghe has beaten Roy Jones.

 

No offence, but this is turning into a Bernard Hopkins Excuses For Losing Thread

 

I don't know, not many are giving RJJ a chance here. B4 the Hopkins-Calzaghe fight, the polls on here favored B-Hop

 

No they didn't. That reminds me a bit of the Calzaghe fans' post-Lacy fight claims that 100% of people predicted Lacy to win.

 

No excuses here. It was common knowledge that Hopkins was 43 before the fight, it couldn't be helped and can hardly be used as an excuse. But you're arguing that Calzaghe could beat a prime Hopkins.

 

Seemingly so. These are the same people that hailed Taylor as the greatest thing - til he lost. The same people that hailed RJJ til he lost.

If PBF had lost to Cotto they would also say he never was anything. Despite them routinely put him at #1 spot p4p without accepting arguement of resume or lack there of. No wonder fighters try to hold a zero...

 

He'd lose some fans, but who else would the pinoys support?

 

lol if you and your friend are gonna make up bull**** to prove a point then there's no point discussing is there

Hopkins was favored to beat Calzaghe???

Look at the poll: http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38541

and "These are the same people who praise Taylor and Roy Jones till they lost?"

I never praised Taylor, before or after he lost, and I always praised RJJ, before and after he lost.

You are the one who is impressed by Calzaghe's 0, not the ones giving explainations as to why although Calzaghe beat an old Hopkins, he would lose to a prime one

Mike is right, if Calzaghe beats this faded version of Roy Jones, alot of people will use that as an argument to say he would beat a prime RJJ. And apparently even if its not a convincing win

 

It boils down to this - BHop is a good counter puncher with limited stamina, JC a 12 round swarmer with a rock solid chin.

Say what you like but its very hard to get a decision with more accurate work vs a guy that throws twice as many punches as you even if many miss and few are thrown with real venom.

Anytime they fought it would be the same. Calzaghe on points.

 

:rofl at that poll. That doesn't help El whatever's case much.

Calzaghe is a decent fighter but his "o" flatters him. It has been the product of very careful matchmaking. To compare him with a Hopkins or Jones is ridiculous.

 

Prime BHop's stamina is out of this world.

 

It has already happened, since many thought he lost to another great fighter, JMM. In stead of just saying "WOW - this was as close as we had hoped", they just say "Pacman isn't all that". However, they still put Pacman high on their p4p lists, because Ring magazine dictates them to do so...