So then you can never judge any fighters except in the context of individual fights? Sorry, but 'styles make fights' is becoming the cop out phrase de jour recently. "I don't have a coherent argument, so I'll just say 'styles make fights' or 'just because a beats b and b beats c doesn't mean a beats c' and hope they go away. So, are you saying that you really don't make any judgements on boxers based on their form through a range of fights? Or, if you do, how do you rate Hopkins right now?
If you notice I do not say it is the be all, and end all. There are many factors but different styles plays a large part - especially when you have someone who is good but fairly one dimensional stylewise like Pavlik, and can't adapt. Look I've stated how I view the Hopkins win, how do you view it? It must be exceptionally highly if your ripping into my stated high opinion of it.
It's a win over someone who is one of the four best P4P boxers in the World at the moment. That's the bottom line. It's doesn't matter how old anyone was, we're not handicapping for age, it doesn't matter who had what style. It is what it is.
Hopkins victory over Pavlik at the weekend in no way highlights or detracts from Calzaghes win over Nard in april, and I am pretty surprised that some really intelligent posters on here are stating otherwise. Attempting to determine the actual quality of one fighters performance by extrapolating information from another fight is just pure folly, there are far too many intangibles involved for any proper conclusion to be reached.The exercise would never be attempted in any other sport as it would become rapidly apparent that there could be no validity in the end result. How stupid does this sound? Wigan Athletic beat Hull City 5-0, Hull City beat Arsenal 2-1 , therefore Wigan Athletic by dedfinition would beat Arsenal easily and further, because of the nature of their victory over Hull they do not have to play the Gunners to prove it as the end result is so obvious and self evident. We would never stand for this over simplified level of analysis in this situation but we are trying to apply the same basic rules to the fight game. Whether people like it or not, or accept it or not, styles do make fights and as such a comparrison of the type that some on here are trying to make between the two fights is essentially moot.
Disagree completely in one sense. That's exactly what we do all the time. If we just look at fights as individual entities without considering any of the other fights they have had then all we are left with is one unknown entity fighting another. Why would a win over Manny Pacquiao be considered better than a win over Graham Earl? The answer is because we look at all the other people Pacquiao has beaten and we judge him on that, and judge how good those wins of his were on the people they had beaten. In another sense, I agree with you. When fighters are as well known and well established as Hopkins and Calzaghe, that information should already be available. That's why my opinion of Calzaghe's win has not changed due to Hopkins win over Pavlik, because I appraised it honestly in the first place. What has been seen though is that a large number of people, seeking to follow their own agenda, tried to discredit that Calzaghe's win by denigrating Hopkins' standing at this point in his career. Those people have had the ground taken out from under their feet by Hopkins' later performance. Actually the exercise is used in all sports. If you are trying to analyise a match up of anykind, then performances against common opponents is one of the best benchmarks you can use. In the example above, absent any other information, who would appear to be the favourite to win? Obviously it is Wigan. Clearly, in reality, we have far more information than just those results, but that is a strong formline that would come into consideration. Look at horseracing, where you probably see more analytical use of formlines than any other sport. Common opponents are one of the strongest factors you would consider. The judgements in horseracing can be stronger than in boxing, because there is less effect on each participants performance from what their opponents are doing (though there is some), but the general principle remains.
I think the history books will make Calzaghes win over B-Hop a pretty heavy factor in Joes eternal greatness.
I think that's a pretty fair appraisal, though we have to factor in that anomalous results (such as the 0-5) and "off nights" are likely to play much more of a part in football. Simply due to the fact that football teams play twice a week and train for a couple of days for each match, whilst top fighters these days fight maybe twice a year and spend 12 weeks preparing for each bout. Sometimes styles do play a part, hence Hopkins who lost twice to Taylor schooling Pavlik who beat him twice. However, at other times it's just obvious that one fighter is not in the other's league, styles or not. Hopkins' win over Pavlik adds far more to his legacy than to Calzaghe's obviously. However, as per the above, the fact that it pulls the rug from this silly argument that Hopkins was somehow shot when they fought (despite his whoopings of Tarver and Winky) means it indirectly boosts Calzaghe's standing as well.
Thanks. I actually think you have this the wrong way round in terms of anomalous results though in terms of how they affect people's perceptions. Clearly in terms of numbers, one would expect a football team to have 'more' anomalous results than a boxer over a certain period of time. The fact that football teams play so many more games and play against all of their opposing teams in a league system make it easier for us to naturally spot and filter out the 'off days' and kooky results. Afterall, if Manchester United win the league and Stoke get relegated, we're not really going to debate who is the best team just because Stoke won a match against Manchester United sometime in February. Such a result in a boxing match is so much harder to spot, because the participants may only take part in two other events during the course of the year, against opponents who are not necessarily so easily comparable.