The love given to Hopkins and the hate given to Calzaghe

How do I know how Calzaghe does against Hopkins resume? I'm not a mind reader :huh. He probably beats 95% of them, BUT that does not change the fact that Hopkins resume is better than Calzaghe's and he will be far more respected. Your acting like I'm a calzaghe hater, when in fact he's one of my all time favourite fighter's. Hopkins attitude is disgusting and he is a bore to watch, but sorry he still has a better resume, period.

 

In the eyes of many? Give me a break! Hopkins won 3 rounds max & got an extra point for knocking Calzaghe down. It wasn't close! Were the are these many with the eyes huh? At the school for the blind in Phillyatsch

 

In terms of record there is NO reason to hate B-Hop. He fought everybody and anybody and has proven himself against the best again and again.

It's strange how people ignore some of the **** he pulls, though: constant bitching and excuse-making and a seemingly offensive style. I'm still a fan.

 

You're trying to make Hopkins sound as if he was James Toney. He is not. All his fights, especially post MW, have been well calculated/selected opponents.

 

substitute 'many' with 'some' and secondly why should he give bhop a rematch after the way he conducted himself in the build up:blood:huh

 

Have to agree with you.

Both Hopkins and Calzaghe had long runs as champion in their respective divisions.

Most of the time Hopkins has challenged a fighter with a name, except for Tarver they have had to come up to his weight.

Trinidad, DLH, Wright, Pavlik and even Calzaghe.

And for all the people who deride Calzaghes victory over Lacy seem to on the other hand hang off the nuts of Hopkins for beating an even shitty fighter, who is less proven in Kelly Pavlik, and again even then Hopkins made Pavlik fight at a weight which wasnt natural to him.

Hopkins is a legend but so to is Calzaghe, just because he is European some Americans act as though he wasnt the goods when infact he was.

Oh on a side note, again Calzaghe gets slated for humiliating Jones, and people say he shouldnt of fought him, but yet get all excited when Hopkins plans on rematching him, if he had beaten Green.

 

I don't mind when anyone argues that Hopkins has the better resume, I just question it whenever people say there's such a huge disconnect between them because from where I stand, there's too many similarities for one to be vastly superior to the other.

-They both fought a shitload of mediocre to average fighters in their 20+ defenses.
-They both never really stepped up their competition until they were past their prime.
-Hopkins typically fought smaller men, and Calzaghe almost always had homefield advantage.
-Both had their biggest wins against younger fighters later in their careers and prompted the question "What if they'd pushed themselves harder, earlier?"
-Hopkins fought a few more champs, and also lost a few more as a result.

What I question then, isn't the preference- it's how vast the difference is between how amazing people say Hopkins' resume is and how bad they say Calzaghe's is. Personally, when I saw that poll a few weeks back about best resumes and Hopkins was getting votes over Holyfield, De la Hoya, and Pacquaio, that told me alot about how many people might be overrating it.

 

Tarver? Calzaghe? Pavlik? Ok, Tarver and Pavlik were over-rated, but Hopkins hardly cherry-picked them (especially the much bigger Tarver). And Calzaghe was a very high risk/low reward fight.

Wright is the only really arguable case of picking.

 

Pavlik was a master pick for Hopkins.

I was screaming, hoping Calzaghe would fight Pavlik as i think he would have done an equally good job.

Pavlik was a car crash waiting to happen, plus Pavliks main weapon was his size at 160, and Hopkins negated this by making him fight at light heavy.

Again with Wright he fough a 154/160 fighter, at 175.

Tarver good win.

Calzaghe was a close but clear win for Calzaghe imo, a fight where the tough man Hopkins tried to ***** in via his invisible illegal blows he recieved.

Why doesnt he fight Dawson? I know why because he knows he will be fighting a guy who will cause Hopkins style of fighting nightmares, and there is a big risk of him losing.

As i said Hokins is a legitimate ATG/HOF but people do go overboard with him.

 

I see what your saying, their is definetly a comparison between them. I see that Hopkins thought a lot of mediocre fighters as did Calzaghe, but you can't say their comparable resume wise just because of things like that. They both thought the best fighters when they were way past their primes, but look at the competition they did fight.

Calzaghe

Eubank (past prime)
Reid
Brewer (past prime)
Mitchell
Lacy
Bika
Kessler (Undefeated)
Hopkins
Roy Jones (Past prime)

Hopkins

Holmes
Trinidad (Undefeated)
Joppy
De la Hoya
Tarver
Wright
Johnson (Undefeated)
Pavlik (Undefeated)

 

calzaghe was high risk/low reward but he kind of backed himself into a corner with all that never let a white boy beat me talk. i don't think he would have taken the fight, but the media, especially on the internet, ran off with that stuff

 

Check what i was responding to, it's quoted below.

This guy makes it sound as though Hopkins was Harry Greb, he sure as **** wasn't and i think that statement is absurd.

I didn't say he was "cherry picking", i said they were carefully selected and i believe they were. They were fights & wins that look alot better than they actually were and Hopkins knew this going in. Lots of guys do it i'm just saying don't make it out like he was some warrior who fought everybody, anywhere, anytime like that poster claimed.

With Tarver you have to keep in mind that he was coming off that Rocky 6 movie he made where he got up to 220lbs, which he had to lose. I don't think that it's hard to believe that Hopkins knew that he had put on weight and that it'd be an issue losing it. I also think Tarver is overrated by alot of people. If it wasn't for the Jones KO nobody would be talking about him in 5 years from now.

And in general, Tarver isn't much bigger than Hopkins like you said, they're the same size. Hopkins started his career at LHW and it's clear that his frame & height are the same as Tarver.

This content is protected

 

Overall I like the post and agree that the resumes are closer then people think. However, the way the information is presented is way too loaded. Almost every Hopkins' accomplishment there has a negative qualifier. He beat Tito but he was too small ect. But behind Calz's notable wins you have things like Kessler goes on to win another belt. Doesn't mention that is was against a nobody and that Kessler got smashed when he next fought a live body. Like the idea of going over resumes this way but leave the bias out of it.

 

atsch Yeah, that's why Hopkins was a 4/1 underdog against Pavlik and many people thought he would get KOed huh? Yeah, Hopkins cherry picked Pavlik huh?

And the Winky fight was at 170, not 175.

As for Tarver being just a "good win"? You've got to be kidding. Like the Pavlik fight, many people thought Hopkins was done following a loss. He jumped 2 weight classes and beats "the man" at LHW and it's just a "good win"?

And let's also not forget HOW he beat these guys. Complete domination from start to finish. Like they didn't even belong in the same ball park as Hopkins when he was so heavily the underdog.