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

Huh ?

How is it anything like that ?


You implied that a win against a 27 year old Hopkins would have been a feather in Calzaghe's cap.

You mentioned that other than perhaps Kessler, none of Joe's wins wwere as good as a win against a 27 year old Hopkins.

My point is (and this is also the point of this thread), a 28 year old Hopkins was not a particularly
great victory on a resume. Good, but certainly wouldn't have ranked as Calzaghe's best, or close to it.

 

That would be a patently foolish assertion.


Why don't you list all of his wins up to Lacy and Kessler ?

In fact, you don't even need them all. Just list those from Eubank to Kessler.


And then compare those with the list I just posted for Bernard up till Jones.


The two lists aren't REMOTELY comparable.

The first list is vastly superior to the second.



And as for Saturday night, you must have me mixed up with someon else.

I said before and after the Calzaghe fight that Calzaghe would probably win and that it wouldn't alter my view much of either fighter.

I have also stated (again, both before AND after Saturday night) that IMO, prime Roy beats any version of Joe, both at 168 and 175.

 

The question becomes, what made him gas ?


Did Calzaghe's style have anything to do with it ?



He looked fine against Taylor's two-time daddy, Pavlik.

He took every round and was the fresher of the two at the end.


And Pavlik was touted as the next big thing.


Maybe Joe was the difference ?

 

Undoubtedly.

It's not like the dude above you (Tito) says, clearly or without a doubt or some such.

It's a reasonable question. (Only 1/3 of posters so far felt Roy's version was better, not that that necessarily decides the matter.)


My other point was just in response to a hypothetical 27 Hops year old being one of Joe's best wins.

The Hops he actually fought was one of his top four wins. The 27 year old wouldn't have been one of his top ten (assuming Bernard had quit at that point).


I myself put less stock in his Hopkins win until six months later when Bernard shut out Kelly convincingly. Clearly, he had something left, and that elevated Joe's win a bit in my eyes.

 

Bernard had skills, no doubt.

He was 22-1, even if the opposition was less than stellar up to that point. IMO, he didn't have enough skills to deal with the Calzaghe of 1998-2006.



As to whether or not the post makes sense, I think so.

It's a bit of a paradox, but no more paradoxical than:

Taylor beats Hops (narrowly) twice.

Pavlik beats Taylor twice.

And Hops embarrasses Pavlik.