Rank these top brits

Actually, when I think about it, Eubank's resume is probably slightly better than Hatton's. The bulk of my opinion on Eubank is based on some of his truly, truly godawful defences as champion. But regardless of how it came about, he does have a win over Watson. And also over Benn, Rocchigiani and the criminally underrated (by most) Wharton.

What Eubank and Hatton's resume have in common is a shocking lack of strength in depth.

 

How many 'A level' wins does Calzaghe have in your opinion?

 

Two.

But then he has a lot more B levels below that, which increase the depth. I'm being generous calling some of Hatton's better wins B's. Urango and Maussa are probably C's in reality.

 

Give me a list of Calzaghe's A's and B's. I'm struggling.

 

A's are Hopkins and Kessler.

B+ Reid, Eubank, Lacy.

 

What defines an A?

Kessler's best wins were Mundine, Beyer, Andrade... they're decent opposition, but that's the level he was proven at.
Hopkins was 2-2 in his last 4. Taylor beating him twice at middleweight. And we can't forget 43 years old.

I'm not saying that an 'A' win needs to be against a proven fighter at the top level, who is in his prime/or at least hasn't been losing to less-than-great fighters himself. But maybe it is.

 

Yeah, and Kessler dropped 3 rounds against all those fighters. B's like Mundine and Andrade. And probably 10 in his entire career before Calzaghe. That gives us a firm indication of his level. He was an undefeated unified champ at his prime.

Hopkins was unlucky against Taylor anyway, and looked a lot better at LHW. He was reinvigorated against Tarver, beat Wright easily enough before losing to Calzaghe. Since then he's proven he's still a top 10 p4p with the win over Pavlik. It's a top win, no way this can be placed as a B level.

 

However he beat B's (debatable) and C's are still only wins over B's and C's. Which is where he was proven.

Yeah, Tarver is the one, Hopkins at 41 beat the champion at light heavyweight. Impressive stuff, but still the only non-middleweight Hopkins ever beat.

 

Other than Trinidad and DLH

 

And what are we trying to imply here? That Hopkins somehow isn't a good win because he's not beaten that many light heavies, and therefore he's small and unproven above middleweight? :nut

Hopkins is a legend of the sport, a phenom. He has just proven so, and I imagine he's on all p4p lists. Calzaghe only beat him a few months ago. It's never anything less than an A- win at worst.

 

Anyone bigger than middleweight, i meant.

 

No, I'm saying Hopkins is good. That he only beat one light heavyweight is still one light heavyweight. It's impressive.

Negatives are losing twice to Taylor and being 43.

Tarver is, on paper, probably his best win. 41 years old, beats the light heavyweight champion of the world.

 

Exactly. So if thats his best win, it wasn't really very long ago. Not by Hopkins standards anyway, he's been fighting forever.

There is no noticeable decline between the Hopkins that whooped Tarver, and the one that fought Calzaghe. Other than how much more difficult Calzaghe made it for him. I think the Pavlik fight would back that up.

 

Hmmmm..........

The tactics Hopkins used for Calzaghe didn't really work - I feel he underestimated Joe's output to a degree. The main thing he got right was the fact that Calzaghe doesn't like chasing a fight too much - he would have been best served trying the Kessler tactic of going toe-to-toe early before then retreating to keep Joe guessing.

Where Kessler lost it in the middle, Joe won it.

That said, Hopkins had a handy lead at the midway point and lost it, so......

God knows!

 

So what people are saying is that Joes win over a 43 year old Bernard couldn't be bettered. Unless you have A+ A++ etc, catagories.

Outclassing and totally UD'ing a prime RJJ = same grade as beating a recently twice beaten 43 year old, by contentious split decision.