There is no way Calzaghe beats a Prime Hopkins!

So, was Hopkins a busy combination puncher in either of the Taylor fights (which he DID lose you know...?)

You shouldn't be so sure; the verdict from all credible sources in the boxing world has been unanimous - Calzaghe won fair and square.

And this is relevant...how? Does it suggest to you there was ever a 'version' of bhop that would have fought a prime JC in a significantly different fashion to the 43 year old one?

Doesnt to me - all the evidence suggests the contrary; against fast, skilled, similarly sized boxers (at various times of his career) bhop always resorted to spoiling tactics, and always lost.

 

Actually, that story has been disputed by Hopkins and other people as well. According to what I read at the time, Hopkins had agreed to a deal and it was Showtime who said at the last minute that additional costs were going to come out of Hopkins purse, rather than being paid by the King or Showtime. He then raised his purse demands and the deal fell through.

 

Some people dont realise that JC is shot now. I have watched him for years and his prime IMO was when he fought Reid, Mitchell and Brewer.

 

Your right. He doesnt just beat him, he destroys him!!!!

Now let me explain why. Everyone points out that Hopkins is ancient. However, he is still the second best in the division. His style allows him to fight to a old age. Throwing 10 punches a round, and holding 20+ times a round. And hes used this style for a long time!

Jo on the other hand, cant last very much longer at this age. He has a very high workrate, which he cant keep up for much longer. So at this point, we can see that Calzaghe is actually a little farther past his prime than Hopkins. (because of the styles used) What we saw in the last fight, was that Hopkins was a little bothered by Calzaghe's speed. Now, that is after about 5 years of deterioration. Calzaghe's speed around 2004 is phenomenal!

At 168 Calzaghe grinds out a brutal pounding, an 8-4 UD

At LH, Calzaghe 7-5

This is assuming that they are both in they're respective primes.

 

And you're questioning my knowledge of Calzaghe?

I've seen more than 2 of his fights. While chasing isn't his strength, he is known as an aggressive fighter, and he doesn't neccessarily do better against those who come to him, but rather those who are in range.

I didn't realize Malignaggi was an aggressive fighter, as I pointed Joe out to be. He has always been an aggressive, high workrate type of fighter. Used to have a good punch as well yes, but it doesn't change the fact that while he was great in mid range, he wasn't a fighter off the backfoot, and is more skilled at being an aggressor.

Nor does it change the fact that Hopkins wouldn't be coming forward and getting tagged up as if he was some brawler, like the other guy implied and you seem to agree with, seeing as you're furthering his point.

 

Why do people assume Hopkins used to fight like he does now? You guys remind me of the people who say Hagler was a brawler because of watching his fights with Hearns and Leonard.

 

I'd rather have $6,000,000 than $3 as well.

 

Thats completely wrong...I've talked to both Frank Warren and Jay Larkin about this and they were both in the tele-conference. Hopkins agreed to $3m and the very next day backed out of it.

Of course Hopkins would pay King out of his purse...just like joe would pay Frank out of his potential $2m...it's called a promoters fee!

Hopkins bottled it, plain and simple.

 

I've pointed out the examples of Jones, Taylor x 2 and Calzaghe - all similarly sized capable fighters against whom Hops turned into John Ruiz - if you have some examples of when he was a fluid combination puncher agaisnt opposition suitable enough to warrant comparison with Calzaghe I'd be glad to hear them.

Don't believe you.

 

People who make that assumption are either too biased to admit otherwise, or they only saw Hopkins against Winky and Joe C. They not only didn't see Bernard in his prime, they didn't even see him against Trinidad.

 

Calzaghe could beat a prime Hopkins.

But my money would be with Hopkins in a 7-5, 8-4 type decision.

 

joe calzaghes not shot

 

What kind of bull**** is this? First of all, he fought a very good fight against Jones, using pressure to try and rough him and bull him against the ropes, as he wasn't going to get anything done in the middle of the ring(though he did land some straight rights), and won 3 or 4 rounds off him. Of course, Jones was Jones, and Calzaghe was never a Jones.

He was past his best against Taylor both fights, and still managed to arguably win both fights, he just started late in them, which is something he didn't do in his prime. In fact, he was known for being a fast starter early on. By the time of the Glen Johnson fight he was at his overall peak. Watch that one to see what a prime Hopkins is.

I don't think anyone would dispute that he was damn near shot against Joe. Joe was not the same athletically either, but style-wise he fought the same. Hopkins on the other hand has deteriorated both physically and stylistically, becoming a much more limited fighter than Joe has become, though Joe is not what he once was either.

 

If you had read my entire post, you would have noticed I said, "for a long time"

 

You're rapidly losing credibility here. If you believe he fought like John Ruiz against Jones, you've not seen the fight, plain and simple. I just rewatched it a few days ago.

I'll say the same of your opinion of Hopkins. I'll assume you've seen him vs Wright and Calzaghe, and perhaps clips of his fights with Taylor, Tarver, etc.