The Hopkins /Calzaghe debate once and for all....

Very good post :good

 

Calzaghe's hands were way past their prime. The version of Calzaghe that knocked down Eubank would have made a mess of Hopkin's face. The younger Hopkins who was more aggressive would have landed more and taken more shots as well. Hopkins could deal with anything except speed advantage in an opponent, RJJ, Taylor and Joe caused him the biggest difficulties in his career with their speed, no matter who you think won those fights.

 

This is never the debate "once and for all", the debate will never end, same as the Leonard-Hagler decision debate will never end. Personally I disagree with you, I believe Hopkins won by a point, but I can't be bothered explaining why, I've done so too many times already. I believe in quality over quantity, some don't, and that's why the debate will never end. :good

 

yep joes brittle hands were joes biggest downfall, he used to be a VERY heavy puncher, but bust his hand all the time! he admitted before the lacy fight he cannot put power in his punches as his hands are to brittle

 

2 clean KO's in 46 fights, both of them against journeymen, ZERO clean KO's in 23 world title fights, yeah he was a regular Earnie Shavers alright!! atsch

 

back then, hopkins is turned between moving up in weight and fighting jones via calzaghe route or waiting for de la hoya/ trinidad to move up...

and bhop made the right choice, he earns money and secured his lagacy without having to cross the atlantic and face calzaghe.

i feel then that hopkins needs to go through calzaghe before jones would entertain him...

 

32 KO'S in total. Since when did it ****ing matter how you stop somebody ?Is this a new stat in boxing ? Clean KO'S ? iTt doesn't matter one bit.

 

Top post that.:good

 

ya hops is a over a decade past his best. while joe might not be at his absolute peak, the amount he has lost could be measured under a microscope. joe still maintains his vigor, while hops has been reduced to punch and grab. one of the biggest misconceptions bout nard is he is now a much smarter fighter then he was in his early thirties.(this gives people the idea that the physical ability he has lost has been balanced out with ring smarts) all the stuff nard does now he could do then, its just he now HAS do this stuff. this version of hopkins is still good but still vastly inferior to the old him.

 

imo Hopkins showed in that fight that if you turn back the clock 5 or 6 years he would've won convincingly.

Calzaghe was a massive favorite by the way. something like 1/3 at the bookies. In 2002 the odds would have been the opposite. People knew Hopkins was past his best before the fight. Its not one of those hindsight things.

 

Not so past it that he couldn't run rings around the next big thing months later.
Joe did well,dunno why some people can't admit it.

 

Thats exactly my view on the fight... well both fights actually... I scored both Calzaghe & Leonard over Hopkins & Hagler... I thought Leonard`s performance was better than Joe`s tho but both won IMHO.

 

Here is as far as I got, it was too hard to keep reading after this.

 

No it doesn't matter when discussing how good he was as a fighter, you are quite correct, but of course it does matter when discussing punch power, which is what we were discussing. A guy with concussive single-shot power is likely to have a far higher clean KO ratio than a guy who stops people with cumulative shots, tis obvious. A guy with 2 KOs in 46 fights is not a VERY heavy hitter, as that dude suggested.

Stonerose, I'm not insulting your family, I'm not burning the Union Jack, and I'm not spitting in the Queen's face, so just you calm yourself. I'm making an observation on boxing which, were it being made about a non-UK fighter, you would agree with or at least see the validity of.

 

im tired of this debate score the fight how you usually score fights. Either way is acceptable because it was a close fight open to interpretation due to the fast difference in styles i dont care how you score it because its heavily reliant on the scorers mentality