What I don´t understand about people criticizing Calzaghe...

Ha ha, couldn't stop myself!!

 

Yes, Hopkins was, as you say, almost as good as he was when he was a bit younger. The 'almost' part is because he lacked the stamina/fitness/workrate necessary to fight 12 fast-paced rounds. Calzaghe makes up for a lack of power and technique with speed and fitness. In my opinion, those are not the attributes of a great boxer. Had Calzaghe bothered to fight one great boxer in his career (who was not 43), he would have been exposed.

 

Exposed actually is the correct word here, as he is viewed as an elite level boxer just now, but I think if he had fought a true elite level boxer he would have been exposed as not being elite level after all. I have seen many of Calzaghe's fights when he was younger. That changes nothing.

 

I said the exact same thing on the start of my post 'Calzaghe: The End' and got SERIOUS abuse for it! Check it out! I have to go now, later.

 

He could KTFO jones in the first and nail him to the canvass but ******* and a few others would still claim Jones shaded it.

 

No you got abuse for failing to acknowledge that JC has fought a few more than 3 half decent opponenets in his career.

 

Yeah, Joe isn´t his prime himself but did Joe give you any evidence he had solved the puzzle Hopkins is? No, he did the same he does in everyfight coming forward thorwing punch after punch and hoped his fast hands and workrate would win him the fight. Hopkins showed he KNEW how to beat Joe. He had the plan just not enough left to execute it till the finish. I know who i would pick.

 

What´s going on with him? There are some guys who are hatimg him and there are some guys who talk like he´s the second coming. Both are wrong. Great fighter, one of the best of the last 10 years but not in the class of guys like Jones, Mayweather and Hopkins - where he could have been. Nothing to be ashamed of.

 

Jones and Money I'll give ya. Hopkins is very comparable in terms of resume and acheivement to Calzaghe and both can be as easily criticised as the other.

 

Right, he can´t fight till he´s forty but hes 36 and proved by beating the very good young Kessler that he he is still very good, although a bt past his prime, but while Hopkins can still fight very good at age 43 it is obvious that he isnßt as good as even 2 years ago or even one year. Do you think the Hopkins of the Trinidad fight, age 36 like Joe is now, would have the energy problem Hopkins has now? Or the Hopkins of the Tarver fight? I don´t think so.

Correct. Calzaghe could have never been exposed because he is also great - he just started to prove it too late.

Well, you´re totally right here. We are only differing here on few things. Imo he lost to Hopkins and would lose even clearer to a younger version and than that he didn´t fullfill his potential.

Well, i rate Hopkins and Jones on the same level, if Hopkins beats Pavlik i would rate him higher but i can´t see this happening he should hang them up. Mayweather finishes third. Maybe Pac gets him if he goes on like this but i don´t think he will.