What does Hopkins has to do to be ranked above Joe Calzaghe?

Eubank lost to Collins, retired, comeback, and had exhibitions in the middle east. All at above LHW, then fought Calzaghe at SMW.

Tarver was fight top LHW before and after.

looks like you keep getting caught up into all the hype and dont study the tapes yourself. The RJJ back in the early/mid 00's still had decent level of footspeed, handspeed, reflexes. Obviously it was a shadow of his former self, but the one today is nothing like the one that beat Tarver.

The kind of fights Eubank had, he probably didnt even need to train for them hence why they were at CW. They were that easy. If you went into the bookies, and put a grand on Eubank to win, you probably get back 1001 pounds 23 pence.

Tarver definatley needed to train, and if you had put a grand on him you would have got way more than 1001 pounds 23 pence.

Eubank wasnt the same after destroying Watson. And he had seen better days. Do you disagree with that?

You need to lay of the boxrec, the magizines and the chit chatter you have with ur buddies coz you all get caught up into the bandwagon and cannot spot a hypejob like Prince.

Dont get caught up into the hype

The difficulty was as you know. Tarver gained weight for Rocky 6 then had to lose it fast for the Hopkins fight. If you deny that and cant get your head round that, then you just cant debate the subject.


Based on a magazine .
So when Hopkins was semi retired after Pavlik, did you rate G Johnson above Hopkins when Hopkins was fighting Ornelas? I doubt it
This is where you are trying to debate about something you are Boxrecing .
Did you see when Thompson won his world title in Germany? Of course you didnt.
Why dont you tell me how Hopkins lost to R Rocchigiani first time around. You can Boxrec it.
Thompson also went on to KO Rothmann who was world rated and D Haye and that cant be denied.
The fact that you are reffering to Thompsons early losses tells me you dont really know. Tell me about the Ashley loss and explain why it was a bad loss
Of course I get it. But you are comparing someone who only had 2 more fights against a world champ 2 weights higher to a fighter that has had several fights at his regular weightand built up some of those numbers with easy fights

:think So Eubank at 31 is a faded veteran for a debated away loss and a SD away loss to one fighter whilst Tarver at 37 and a half and having lost to Harding, faded Jones and journeyman Johnson was still good . Cant recall Eubank losing to anyone as bad as Harding[/quote]