So Calzaghe was the first fighter where Hopkins gassed? How convenient. So after Hopkins lost to Calz he dusts himself off, puts his hat back on, and replays his fight with Calz., then acesses where he's at in his career, and then decides he wants to fight again. After much soul searching he decides that his next opponent will be Kelly Pavlik! So you are telling me a guy who was so gassed in his fight with a 36 year old past his prime Calz. would choose to take on a guy with as high a workrate as Calz., in his prime, larger frame, with moose parylizing power, underrated fundamentals and speed, and a high % of accuracy? Is Hopkins crazy? The upcoming fight will tell us a lot about Hopkins stamina and wisdom or lack of wisdom.
Not true!! Many posters have said Calz. is past his prime. The night Calz. fought Kessler a round by round was done by the imfamous Calzaghe fan "Blocky", and he actually did a good job. Blocky on the night of that fight emphatically stated that he thought Calz. was 70% of his peak which was around the second Veit bout. Seriously, if you want to go back and check some of last years threads, you will find many if not the majority believes Calz. was past his peak the night he fought Kessler.
Perfectly put. As I said earlier, both Calslappys knew they'd lost that fight, and the obviously biased British commentary team thought he'd lost too. Where all this "Calzaghe obviously won and anyone who says otherwise can't score a fight" bull**** comes from I don't know. Fanboys I suppose. Oh and yes, Hopkins even from 2-3 years earlier would have beaten Calzaghe handily. The 37 year old that fought Trinidad, well I dread to think how bad Calzaghe would have looked had he faced that version of Hopkins.
He's looked bad in the past against lesser fighters than Kessler. Obviously at 36 he's not prime but he's got hardly any wear and tear due to years of taking easy fights.
IMO Hopkins is a pretty bright guy, so if your claim are true WHY is Hopkins now choosing to fight Pavlik?
You're not listening. Hopkins hasn't had legs for some while now. His previous fights didn't show it as much because (a) He's a defensive whiz who don't get hit (b) He wasn't recently in any fights where he fought at such a high pace. I gave credit to Slappy for point (b). He kept on B-hop, in his usual awkward pitty-patty style... and the great 'Nard gassed. His faking low-blows are a testement to that. As was his inability to find his own corner and chase the ring girls on 4 seperate occasions. :nut Saying that he was buying time b/c he was afraid of being decked by Calzaghe is just stupid. What fight were you watching? At NO point did Slappy Joe look to be in such a dominant position. That's part of what is fuelling his detractors right now -- at times he was made to look amatuerish. A younger, more fresher B-hop could have and would have in all probability exposed that. As it was, he stuck to throwing a handful of punches per round, because The Executioner was (as he put it) "pacing" himself :verysad As for your Q to why he'd go after Pavlik, there could be a slew of reasons. Money. The need to prove himself, especially on his way out. To make sure his legacy isn't tainted with a loss on its final spot and to take the feather of a young upcoming champion in his cap. If what you're trying to say is that he shouldn't take this fight as it poses serious risks for himself and his legacy, then you won't find me arguing with you. But let's not try and make it reflect the fact that a prime Bernard Hopkins wouldn't beat a prime Joe Calzaghe. :nono
I can honestly say I don't have a ****ing clue :think Does that have any relevence to this argument though, in all honesty? Hopkins may be a bright guy but he's always been a bit delusional. I can provide examples if you need them but I'm hoping you don't.
All fighters reach their peak at different ages, it isn't true that everyone is at their best in their late 20s, everyone's body is different. JM Marquez reached his peak in his early-mid 30s, Prince Naseem Hamed in his early-mid 20s, Bernard Hopkins in his mid-late 30s, Ricky Hatton in his mid-late 20s. The way to determine when someone's peak was is to determine when they turned in their best performances, obviously. A 1 round KO of a journeyman is obviously not as impressive a performance as a split decision points win over a p4p#1 undefeated legend- standard of opposition is crucial to determining best performances, and therefore determining a boxer's peak. The best opposition Joe ever fought was easily Lacy and Kessler. Both performances were stellar. Therefore, that was his peak.
Complete poppycock. The Manfredo and Bika fights showed signs of slowing, the Kessler fight pretty much confirmed it... the Hopkins fight confirmed what we saw in the Kessler fight. I've said this all along. Calzaghe will always have trouble with a defensive boxer; pre-prime/prime/past prime.
But let's not try and make it reflect the fact that a prime Bernard Hopkins wouldn't beat a prime Joe Calzaghe. :nono[/quote] I certainly won't say that Hopkins beat a prime Calzaghe. Could happen but I'd lean toward Calz.
1 word. EGO. Most boxers do suffer from it as they get older- there are millions of examples of guys who won't accept they aren't what they used to be anymore taking fights on that they shouldn't- MILLIONS.
Then I guess you rate Slappy's abilities far higher than I do. I just can't justify a statement like that.
Bad answer. I saw your other post and it was unsatisfactory also. If your assesment of Hopkins being so gassed vs. Calz. is so plain to you then how do you see the Pav. Hopkins fight play out?