Which was the better Hopkins ? Calzaghe's or Jones' ?

Yes it was down to Joe (credit to him for exploiting it), but the fact is Hopkins failed because his old man body gave up.

 

It's pretty clear that most aren't willing to be objective on this one. In one fight he was 27, in the other fight he was 43. The answer is clearly the fighter that fought Jones.

 

Does Taylor x2, and Calzaghe beat the 27 year old version of Hopkins, Jones beat?

 

you could say hopkins was a little green when he fought jones.

 

Most people think Glen Johnson is a better fighter aged 39 than he was aged 29.

Can we just state ages and say it's 'obvious'?

 

No, but no boxer is better at 43 than they are at 27. Furthermore, if you've ever watched B-Hop and compare him to the current version, it's pretty clear which one was better. Hopkins has been 1 punch and hold for the last few years. Conserving energy is now a part of his strategy. This certainly wasn't the case back in the mid 90's.

 

Calzaghe beats the 27 year old Hopkins.
Hopkins aged like a fine wine, his ring craft now far surpasses what he had against jones and imo more than makes up for age factor.

 

There's no way the Hopkins who lost to Roy possessed the ring smarts that he did when he fought Joe but then you could say he was fitter then. But Hopkins has retained his physical condition remarkably well and look what he did to Pavlik - he didn't look short on stamina there and hasn't gassed in any fight other than JC. On balance, I'd say the Hopkins that fought Joe was a better all round package

 

Conserving energy certainly is part of Hopkins' strategy, but he wasn't 1 punch and hold against Pavlik, or Tarver, as far as I recall.

No boxer is better at 43 than at 27? I want to agree, but then what other boxer could be considered one of the top 4 fighters in the world at 43? If someone can be better in their late thirties than in their late twenties then, logically, why not into their forties.

I still have the nagging feeling that Hopkins aged 43 would beat Hopkins aged 27.

 

Watch the Tarver fight again. For most of that fight he was hitting him with one punch and then held. He didn't do that against Pavlik, but then again Pavlik is probably the most basic fighter he's fought in years. All he had was power.

Ok then, what about their 50's or their 60's? Where does it end? There aren't really any fighters that are better in their late 30's than the were in their late 20's. You could say Johnson, but he's been losing close decisions in other people's backyard his whole career. The only exception was the Hopkins' fight.

I highly doubt that.

 

Where do you think most of the people voting for Joe's Hopkins are from?

 

Going by recent threads: So far the Hopkins Joe fought seems to be overwhelmingly better then the one Taylor fought - how does that work. :huh

 

Perhaps...

Pitty theres not a win that good on his record.