The love given to Hopkins and the hate given to Calzaghe

yes he was.

Super mid, and middle.

 

Kessler just got beat by Ward, an inexperianced green fighter.
Lacy lost to a **** Roy Jones lol, that sums him up.
Manfredo lol

 

We appreciate that but you were rather sparing with the facts you chose to give. You include some absolutely redundant pieces of trivia to discredit Hopkins victories but ignore much more relevant ones in Calzaghe's.

A little convoluted, but okay...

Really? That's all? No mention of Jones Jr's debut at 154, moving all the way up to HW, rapid decline, 2 knockout losses since attempting to settle at a lower weight again? No mention of him being handled so much easier by Danny Green a couple of fights later?

"...who spent the majority of his career at 160, getting knocked down and visibly buzzed a few times in the process against a guy who's already got 4 losses on his record."

See how silly it looks to dress up facts that should speak for themselves?

You can't expect to be taken seriously when you present your "debate" in such a simple, one-eyed way. Please do not cite Rick Thornberry as a notable win on Calzaghe's record. He is not, and no amount of silly factoids will convince anyone otherwise, especially not the weak one you put on it.

You also need to let go of the angle that Hopkins was a "natural" LHW. He debuted there, lost, then came back nearly a year and a half later as a MW. Hopkins, like most professional boxers (including Clazaghe) found it more beneficial to boil down. Case in point: he stayed at 160 for 15 years. His transition to LHW was extraordinary, he was older and smaller than Tarver, leap-frogged a division and put out an all-round beat down on him. There are really no negatives to draw from that performance, but you still managed to include some guff about backing out of fights with Jones and Calzaghe.

And I will say again: Hopkins and Jones Jr were undisputed champions. They each cleaned out a division. Calzaghe on the other hand didn't hold a legit world title 'til Sven Ottke retired. Even on his brightest day at SMW he still had some joker named Alejandro Berrio chucking the IBF strap around.

 

:good Agreed. Hopkins does have a better resume but not by that much.
People exagerate Hopkins wins greatly.
Calzaghe beats anyone Hopkins beat And Taylor as well.
But **** it some less-than-intelligent people will always **** all over Calzaghe & suck Hopkins nuts. Nothing can be done. Doesn't bother me.

 

You're being just as biased as him in an anti-Calzaghe way.
If you honestly believe Hopkins resume is a million times better than Calzaghe's you're an obvious Hater/Hugger

 

Bhop
height6′ 1″ / 185cmreach75″ / 191cm

Tarverheight6′ 2″ / 188cmreach75″ / 191cm


im sorry but they almost the same height with the same reach and at the weigh in they scaled the same (174lb)

 

No my friend, I'm really not. You won't catch me trumpeting Hopkins' successes over weak opponents, citing oddball bits of info to justify it. My post was based on facts. Read over it and check. Hopkins' record really does speak for itself, and if you think his fans (Obviously I'm one of them) exaggerate you obviously weren't there when they happened. Hindsight grants us all 20/20 vision, but I won't build up Hopkins' victory over Morrade Hakkar any more than I'd try to discredit Calzaghe's victory over Lacy (And it was an amazing victory).

 

A million times better? :blood Please, quote me officially on that, I don't remeber writing it.

 

Maybe it looked that way because every post of yours I saw was anti-Calzaghe/pro-Hopkins. It seems you were trying as to discredit Calzaghe as he was to discredit Hopkins.

 

I just said IF YOU DO because I couldn't see exactly what you stance on the subject was. BTW do you think Hopkins resume is a little over-rated by some?
Which is sometimes highlighted more by people under-rating Calzaghe's?

 

I think that the two most significant, and related, differences between Hopkins and Calzaghe are:

• Hopkins clearly has a better resume. He fought a higher level of competition throughout his career and has, at the very least, a couple more great wins on his record than Calzaghe, whose resume is, frankly, mediocre and shallow.

• Secondly, the nature of Calzaghe's best win was a Split Decision over a 43 year old Hopkins. Preceded by a competitive win over Kessler - who has since been shown to be nothing more than a good fighter. The Lacy win is barely worth mentioning these days. Whereas Hopkins best wins include being the first man to beat and stop a prime Trinidad, as well as badly schooling the linear Light-Heavyweight Champ in a prime Tarver, and embarassing the unbeaten Middleweight Champ in a prime Kelly Pavlik.

So yes, I have more love for Hopkins than I do Calzaghe. Simply because Hopkins was a better fighter, with a better record and more significant accomplishments. Calzaghe was a good title holder, Hopkins was a great champion.

 

Im just surprised you didnt come into this thread as 'HOYA-UK' or 'DINAMITA' to come and discredit Calzaghe.(as you've done in the past).:good

 

U could also say: Trinidad was a WW & over-rated, Tarver was lame, over-rated for beating a past prime RJJ, is Pavlik any better than Kessler? Hopkins lost twice to Jermaine "nothing special" Taylor. And Calaghe beat HOF legend Hopkins when he was still in everyones p4p list. Hopkins lost to a "slapping joke who nobody will remember". I'm not trying 2 bash Hopkins but you can spin **** either way.

 

Well some people will always over-rate some things and other people will always under-rate others. Yeah, I'm a total 'Nard **** (Am I the first one to use that phrase here? :hey) but I'm always (At least trying to be) objective. My problem with bailey's opening post wasn't the fact that he thought Calzaghe deserved praise, it was the comical effort he put into down-playing Hopkins greatest wins and building up some of Calzaghe's crappiest.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't rate Hopkins' record as a million times better than Joe C's but I fight tooth and nail on these forums for people who act like Calzaghe's is way better because he beat Hopkins to a close, unconvincing decision.

 

I'm sort of the opposite. Calzaghe fan, not a huge one but I probably look like one because I defend him against the mountains of hatred he gets from ESB. I fight against people who say Bernard was way better because of resume when I believe Calzaghe would have beaten anyone Hopkins beat & beat the guy he lost to twice.