I agree with this. Six years ago I would give Hopkins a greater chance of winning, but also give Calzaghe a greater chance of winning by a bigger margin.
Correct. Hopkins resume isn't better than Joe's, if wins/losses are taken into account, it's worse. Calzaghe would win, because he's proved that he ALWAYS FINDS A WAY TO WIN unlike Hopkins and Jones
Good point. Hopkins had his chance when he was younger and he bottled it. Mind you, Hopkins has kept himself in such magnificent shape, I doubt he's deteriorated much since his prime. NB. Calzaghe's prime was about 6years ago when he fought Mitchell
My point was that B.hop's resume is far superior to J.C's. And since some one tried to devalue his wins over DLH and tito i brought the topic up.
Lacy and Kessler (still debatable) aside who has J.C fought? I could have compared alot of people on his resume.
the question should really be; would hopkins stop calzaghe? He possibly could. at 43 he knocked him down. at 33 he would probably knock him out.
A zero these days in boxing means very little cus when he was Defending his Warren boxing organisation belt in Wales, in your own words, 'his prime was against Mitchall 6 years ago' that means he fought no one siginificant in his prime. no? And as the perfect oppportunist waited for his rivals to age. I actually believe Calzaghe's ring age is still very near his prime.
I dont hold Haglers win over Duran too highly either, though Duran was a MUCH better middleweight than DLH! DLH isnt in the same level of oponent as Hearns or SRL.
Don't get e wrong, im no Calzaghe hater at all, he is a very good fighter. And clkearly has accomplished alot. BUT i hate the way his legacy gets absolutely distorted.