I don't think you can have it both ways. If Hopkins in a ATG, Calzaghe has to be considered in his league. Hopkins certainly has a deeper resume but head to head, obviously Joe is his match. The Hopkins I saw last night was better than I've seen since the mid-90's. By the way, I just rewatched their match. Joe won, almost handily. Sorry folks.
Yes Calzaghe won clearly. He was however a natural light heavyweight beating a middleweight who had stepped up to light heavy who was older than himself. Calzaghe will be regarded as a great fighter while Hopkins will be regarded as a legend. Incidentaly I dislike Hopkins and like Calzaghe.
Actually, BOTH men were natural middleweights for 99% of their career, but Hopkins had actually jumped weight lightheavy a fight or two before Calzahge did. Hopkins had at least beaten Wright and Tarver before fighting Calzaghe. Joe hadn't fought anyone above super middleweight. And incidently, Calzaghe, though younger was no spring chicken at age 36.
Not to mention that he's a low-power swarmer (perhaps like Greb?), and they usually don't have long careers. Not taking anything away from Hopkins' fantastic performances post-40, but obviously his style has preserved his body somewhat.
Calzaghe was a big super middleweight. He had to work to make the limit. Hopkins was a middleweight who filled out to 175. I think Calzaghe did have some physical advantage. On the age issue I think we should give Calzaghe some edge.
Not true. People scoff at Roy's competition during his prime, but Hopkins's opponents around the same time make it look like a murderer's row. He's definitely the more accomplished of the two, all Hopkins has going for him is longevity in a comparison with Jones.
Calzaghe never was a particularly devastating hitter, but rather a man who like you say relied on speed and volume over the long haul. Age combined with ascent in weight can often lead to losses for a fighter of this sort, and especially at the stage of career that he is in. I give Joe full credit for maintaining his "0". The fight with Hopkins was a great effort for both men, considering their perspective ages. Bernard gave a galant performance against Calzaghe, but I have always disagreed with those who believed the fight to be a robbery. Bernard certainly landed some meaningful shots, and even had Joe down at one point. But, Calzaghe's level of activity when looking at both punches thrown and landed, was overwhelming. In fact, it was right around double the output of Hopkins.. I know that volume isn't everything, however if I were a judge, I simply could not award a decision to the less busy of the two, with such a monumental defecit.
It will be interesting to see if changing attitudes are forthcoming. (They definitely should be) Hopkins deserves credit for what he has accomplished.
I agree with both you and Janitor, that Hopkin's detractors should review his whole career to date, and reevaluate their position on his standing. Sadly, being a boxing fan for most of my life, I can take a fairly good guess at what the outcome of it would be. These historians and critics are more likely to make the classic argument of " well, Pavlik just wasn't as good as some thought, " rather than to reverse themselves. Human ego has a way of over shadowing truth....
Oh, it was not a robbery but it was a very very close fight. I had it for Hopkins, like I wrote earlier 114-113, but you could also say that there was no clear winner in this fight. I think this fight is up there with Leaonard-Hagler in terms of controversy and discussing stuff
I don't have any problems at all giving Joe consideration for his abilities on a H2H basis. Joe has proven himself in his last few fights for certain. I had Calzaghe the winner by two points myself, if I recall. Close fight though in my view.
1. No Calazage isn't better head to head, Calazage was facing a 43yo man he is 6years younger than, Hopkins is way past his prime 2. The only thing clear is your scoring Calazage's missed punches, because he missed the majority of his shots
It's too bad...but you are problably right. After the fight, I was in awe of Hopkins' performance (at 43!!!!) It was incredible. I had orginally thought Hopkins would give Pavlik major trouble stylistically when it was first announced...But as the fight drew near, I thought there would be no way Hopkins could keep pace with Pavlik and his workrate. But he certainly proved he could...and did!!! We witnessed some history last night. I felt a little more humble after picking against Hopkins last night. I would like to see fellows like Jim Amato and Mike Casey step up to the plate and give credit where it is rightfully due. Hopkins has earned it. Regardless though, Hopkins' accomplishments are speaking for themselves.
Calazage isnt a swarmer, hes an accumulation boxer whos taken F All punishment partly because hes very good and partly because hes been protected