The love given to Hopkins and the hate given to Calzaghe

The first fight with Allen was 3 rounds he then KO him in immediate rematch with that overhand right

Which Echols fight u talking about the one where Echols won less than 3 rounds, or the one where he got KO

 

I'll answer your questions.
But here goes...... Q #1... yes JC would be great, but I notice u didn't throw Tarver in there. All that would have sealed the deal for Joe. Q #2.... No. Those wins would not have pushed Hopkins over the top. In fairness, beating Jones would have been more beneficial to him than to Calzaghe, because he was older and had already made his bones among the best. But, it would have been just another feather in his cap.
I do not like Bernard Hopkins.... he burned his opponents flags and and is very disrespectful..... but he is a great fighter, and has had quite a career.

I think 1 thing that would clarify this argument would be this..... if you were to list the names of each fighter in their prime that each guy fought, and combined them and then ranked them, the top of the list would be overwhelmingly in favor of Hopkins.

 

I don't know why you are acting like you have hit on some infallible masterplan with this puerile and ill-informed point, people probably ignored it because it was too stupid and childish to even bother pointing out the glaring errors contained within:

If you "honestly" think this excerpt appears as anything other than a fanboy's twisted biased masturbatory fantasy then you are sorely, sorely mistaken.

If Calzaghe had beat Oscar and Trinidad, it would have been viewed as not much, considering Calzaghe was a natural supermiddleweight, and that would've meant Tito going above the last weight he performed effectively at (mw) and Oscar going 2 weights above the last weight he performed effectively at (lmw).

A rather obvious and meaningless point to make on your part.

If Calzaghe had shut-out p4p#5 and mw king Kelly Pavlik, it would rightly have been viewed as a superb performance and achievement, though probably not quite viewed as great as it was for Hopkins considering Hopkins was a clear underdog for that fight while Calzaghe would have been a slight favourite I imagine, considering their situations at the time.

If Calzaghe beat Wright, it would have been viewed the same as Hopkins beating Wright, considering the weight that the fight was at. A good win over a very good fighter who had performed effectively at middleweight, and who had not lost for 8 years, building up a reputation as one of the best defences in boxing.

You neglect to mention Antonio Tarver and Glen Johnson in the question you take so much pride in. I don't understand why, considering they are two of Hopkins's best.

Hopkins came off two losses, jumped 2 weight divisions at aged 40+, and dominated the consensus number 1 lightheavyweight in the world at the time. He was rightly showered with acclaim for a magnificent victory and achievement. Had Calzaghe been the one to defeat Jones's conqueror, he too would have received deserved adulation.


If he had dominated and stopped Felix Trinidad (who was 40-0(34) at the time and the p4p#2, who had demolished WBA mw champ William Joppy in 5 rounds in his last fight, who was a 3-weight world champ, who had taken the zero of the big, strong, highly rated (and possibly 'roided) Fernando Vargas to unify the lmw titles the fight before, and

This content is protected

) while producing one of the very best all-round performances of the decade, then he would have received the credit for that. Felix Trinidad was not Jeff Lacy or Mikkel Kessler, he was already a p4p high flyer and HOF-secured elite fighter before he fought Hopkins. He was proven quality, at mw and other weights, and he was dismantled in brilliant fashion.

If Joe Calzaghe had done all of this, if he had became middleweight champion in 1995, unified all the major belts by 2001 (after 6 years as a champ in the division), defended the unified title numerous times in a reign which coincided with him becoming the p4p#1 fighter in the world, he would be viewed as great as Hopkins.

If he jumped 2 weight divisions and utterly dominated the number 1 lhw in the world, knocking him down and generally embarrassing him while hardly dropping a round, he would have got the credit for that too.


On the other hand, if Hopkins had held the WBO title for 9 years, never held all 4 titles at once in his division and therefore never reigned as indisputed champ making defences of all 4 major titles, if his best wins at his best weight were over an overhyped and undertalented C-class fighter who almost lost to Omar Sheika before he even fought Calzaghe (Mr Left Hook Lacy) and Mikkel Kessler, the Super Six favourite who was soundly outboxed and stopped by the relatively inexperienced Andre Ward in his first tournament fight, you are right, Hopkins would not be viewed as great as he is now.

If he had won the least prestigious major title against a semi-retired version of Chris Eubank who had only had 2 exhibition fights in the previous 2 years and took the fight on short notice, then defended it at home for 9 long years against some of the worst fighters to ever compete for a recognized world title, you are right, Hopkins would not be viewed as great as he is now.


The truth of the matter is that Hopkins is not viewed as greater than Calzaghe because of some global conspiracy. He is viewed as greater because he compiled a greater resume by beating better fighters, because he achieved more in his longer and better career, and because he was a superior all-round fighter at his peak to the effective but flawed Calzaghe.

You may like Joe, but he was not on Hopkins's level.

 

Calzaghe has looked more in trouble against Reid, and Kabery, than Hopkins did against Allen and Echols

Hopkins was scored 119 - 109 on one scorecard against Antwun first fight, and u cant be judging 3 rounds for a championship fight

 

Great breakdown.....but you sound just like a narrow minded American according to some.(Not you Bailey)

 

I'm not American, and if you check today's Classic you will see that my favourite fighters aren't American either. :good

 

I know it, I've seen your postings before......plus the "UK" gave it away.

 

So what is the point of this thread

are you trying to say:
Calzaghe has a better resume than Hopkins? :-(
Calzaghe fought the better opposition than Hopkins? :-(

Or you trying to say
Hopkins and Calzaghe should be equally respected?

The reason why Hopkins is given more praise and Calzaghe gets bad press is because

Calzaghe's rating by delusional fans >>>>>> his resume

while
Hopkins rating by majority (more or less) = his resume

I think most people will agree Hopkins is top 50 boxer of all time or thereabouts some say top 40. And his resume can justify that he is more or less around that mark

But Calzaghe being called a top 40 boxer of all time cannot be justified with his resume and lack of opposition. Some people say Calzaghe is not in the top 80 boxers of all time and can use his resume to justify that more or less. Thats why Calzaghe is given the bad press and Hopkins gets the praise.

 

how would people view it if calzaghe had lost to jermaine taylor twice?