There is no way Calzaghe beats a Prime Hopkins!

No. I was pointing out that he did not land anything resembling a combination on rj, and additionally wouldnt have imo on a prime JC - one is not a logical progression from the other.

Calzaghe was never as fast a 24yr old Roy but he was always significantly faster than Bernard Hopkins. The style comparison is still apt - an inch is a mile an all that, and all the full sized middleweights with speed and similar talent beat Hops at different stages of his career:-
-Jones when he was 28 (physical prime but perhaps slightly pre-prime in terms of overall ring-craft)
-Taylor when he was 40 and at his peak career wise
-Calzaghe when he was ancient

 

Hopkins was a good fighter...but never great at anything. Jones was great at many things and so was JC. Hopkins made the most of his talents so fair play to him...but at no age or time would he have beaten Jones or JC.

 

Hopkins was a brilliant technical fighter, who had great defense, counter-punching, accuracy, and ring smarts. Calzaghe had great speed and workrate, also was great at taking others out of their rhythms. Jones was clearly the best of the bunch though.

You guys pathetically underrate Hopkins.

 

SweatPea you pathetically underate Calzaghe. He is one of the greatest fighters ever at adjusting tactics mid fight. If you have followed his carear (I dont know if you have) then you would of seen him go against all styles...whether they were known to us audiences or not. He may not of had the chance to prove his skills against Hop but thay t does not man he does not habe skills. He found an ugly way to win but he won! That the most important thing for any boxer.

 

Don't forget BBC Sports had Hopkins winning as well and Associated Press. Of the two corresponders for Setanta, one had Calzaghe winning by a point and the other a draw.

Clearly this "verdict from all credible sources in the boxing world has been unanimous" exists only in your head whether you choose to believe it or not. The Hopkins that put down Calzaghe in the first and nearly the 7th was just a shadow of himself of his younger years.

 

Why? Jones fought off the backfoot or countering for the majority of the fight, and was always a far better defensive fighter than Calzaghe. You're making the mistake of thinking speed=defense here, when that is not the case. Joe is far more open than Jones ever was, especially to Hopkins's bread and butter punch, the straight right. He wouldn't be teeing off on Joe, but he'd be landing a lot of punches, much moreso than he landed on Roy. The comparisons don't add up, because when you're considering speed, you're not considering styles and defensive skills, just assuming that speed would carry the day, no matter how open Joe's style leaves him.

Hopkins was quite fast in his prime, very underrated. Very good combinations. Not as fast as Calzaghe because of Joe's footspeed and workrate, but not slow, and not slow enough to be overwhelmed by Joe's speed in his prime. His trouble with Roy was in Roy relying on his speed and reflexes to counter so effectively, not in his workrate. Two totally different style matchups.

Career wise Calzaghe is at his peak right now, does that mean this is the best he's ever been? No, and I'd say Hopkins was higher regarded when he beat Trinidad anyway.

Hopkins was at his best when he beat Glen Johnson. Calzaghe was at his best when he beat Lacy two years ago, yet people seem to think he's become shot in the last two years. Hopkins's prime was basically in between the two fights you mentioned, when he put it all together.

 

Okay so I get to decide who's credible and who isnt then

 

I don't underrate Calzaghe. I consider him to be one of the best fighters head to head from 160-168 of all time, I just think a prime Hopkins beats him in a close fight.

I agree with everything you just said, but people who mention Calzaghe's spoiling tactics don't mention a couple of things about B-Hop, which are his technical skills and his own dirty tactics. Technical skills(defense, countering, straight punching, accuracy) can tame the best unorthodox fighters(as he showed early on in their actual matchup before fading late), and it's not like Calzaghe is going to be tearing Hopkins up inside, as Hops was a clever ******* as well.

 

well not the the 36 year old jc . but a prime JC beats a prime B-hop

 

as much as i have cheered calzaghe on for years...i can't disagree with this..
i think calzaghe should have got a UD...but like bronx says...a prime hopkins wins.

 

Why do people spend hours and hours thinking about this? All this fantasy nonsense is a bit overblown. Fighters fight each other when they do and I think it's a bit pointless to then suddenly start moaning about how things could have been different at another time. It's not possible to say.

 

great points . and it's too bad this fight didn't get made in 2000 or 2001 hell even 2002 would of been great

 

This is probably true but hardly helpful in evaluating a h2h matchup with JoeC - and thats mainly what you should use to judge - actual in ring experience.

*slight tangent* I predicted Calzaghe to beat Hopkins largely on the grounds that Calzaghe had faced and defeated fighters who brought the sorts of things to the ring that Hopkins did (albeit of a lower calibre), while Hopkins had faced and lost to fighters who brought the sorts of things that Calzaghe did (ableit of a higher calibre in Jones, and lower in Taylor). What it comes down to is how much leeway you give Hopkins for age and how far behind the likes of Roy Calzaghe lags, prime-wise.

 

1st of all I hate the slagging that goes on here...I love a proper debate between people of differnet opinions. You seem you to be knowledgable so it's good to talk to you as there are so many loonies and haters here.

So..I was there in Vegas and Hop would have been blown away if he didnt hold all the time. A decent ref would have thrown Hop out for his holding. It was nearly as bad as Akinwande / Lewis.

Joe in his prime was hugely fast / aggressive and intelligent...we'll never know hop Hop wouldn deal with it but the only reason for that is Hop backing out of the fight. Now that is a fact.

 

I agree Hopkins would of won. he's just technically a much better fighter, and very clever.