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

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by cuchulain, Nov 10, 2008.


  1. elguapo

    elguapo Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,525
    0
    Apr 25, 2009
    :good.........Calslappy can rest on his laurels,history will show him as having a fraudelent career!!!!!
     
  2. Gsand

    Gsand Active Member Full Member

    1,407
    0
    Dec 13, 2004
    calzaghes was an adaptable fighter with a wider range of skills and tactics

    jones was a little more durable and energetic

    all in all i think calzaghes was better but thats not to say either were his perfect prime
     
  3. Back Hand Slap

    Back Hand Slap Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,270
    1
    Jul 18, 2009
    I think both versions were great, but Joe's, although not in his pysical prime, was in his boxing skills prime, if that make sense. The pavlik fight showed he was still a devastating fighter too with decent enough stamina. I think if joe had fought the earlier version of Hopkins it would have been a nicer fight to watch though with far less spoiling, i personally think the best version of Hopkins was his mid to late 30's,possibly very early 40s too. He was before prime with Jones by a few years and perhaps after a few years with Joe, so i give the prime version of B-hop the same ability as those two P4P personally. Hopkins was really incredible in his prime. The Bhop Joe fought is the slightly better version imo.
     
  4. gorgse

    gorgse Active Member Full Member

    1,393
    0
    Oct 20, 2008
    The fighter Joe fought was much better, The one the Jones fought had not yet meet a single fighter of recongnition yet and was quite inexperience. I mean Jones was the first fighter that he ever fought that was of champion caliber. The one that Joe fought had many year behind him, much confidence and knew how to control the ring.
     
  5. Clinton

    Clinton Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,234
    6,499
    Jan 22, 2009
    The 28 year old Hopkins that fought Jones was a little green,but ranked just under Jones-1 and 2 in the middleweight division.In those days,he boxed and moved,throwing punches from various angles,etc.He had stamina and athleticism.The Hopkins that fought Calzaghe was a thrower of 1-2 punches at a time and then grab.How easy it is to forget that the Hopkins that Calzaghe fought was the same one that had already lost twice to Jermaine Taylor.Does anyone out there believe that the Hopkins that fought Jones would have lost twice to Jermaine Taylor?I didn't think so.All the Pavlik fight proved was how one-dimentional Kelly was.If the Bhop that fought Joe was that good,does that make Taylor an ATG?Of course not.
     
  6. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,540
    16,026
    Jul 19, 2004
    That tends to reflect my views on this.
     
  7. pngo

    pngo #1Contender Full Member

    7,543
    1
    Apr 24, 2007
    I'd take a 28 version of Hopkins rather than the 43 year old version.
     
  8. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,540
    16,026
    Jul 19, 2004
    Why?
     
  9. 1lehudson

    1lehudson Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,789
    2
    Jul 27, 2004
    Saying that Hopkins wasnt in his prime at 28 when he fought JOnes is purely moronic...Hopkins was a better fighter then, problem is no one would fight him so he didnt get a chance to prove how good he was. Hopkins was ****ing 43 years old when he fought Calzaghe...The lack of knowledge here or nut riding or Hate here is unreal....
     
  10. 1lehudson

    1lehudson Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,789
    2
    Jul 27, 2004
    Because at 28 Hopkins could actaully do more then KNOW what to do, he could actaully still do it...At 28 or even 38 Hopkins would have beatten Joe.:good
     
  11. 1lehudson

    1lehudson Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,789
    2
    Jul 27, 2004
    Oh, I just noticed the date of this thread....Nevermind, it was shortly after the fight between Joe and Hopkins, so it would be somewhat understandable that many lessers would have voted so heavily for Joe....:patsch
     
  12. Silver

    Silver The Champ is Here Full Member

    5,382
    404
    Jul 16, 2005
    how can you say that when he had already been beaten twice by taylor? hopkins over the years, was relegated to throwing one punch at a time? while he wasnt as great defensively around the time he fought jones, he was much better offensively, thowing combiantions, putting punches toghether, although he wasnt able to do that against a much qucker jones. and he still gavce jones a decent fight. jones during those days was knocking people out or barely losing 1 rd.
     
  13. CarlesX7

    CarlesX7 Shit got real! Full Member

    13,209
    291
    Sep 23, 2008
    I scored it the exact same way. First four to Hopkins and the 10th, only difference is that for some reason I also gave him the 6th and not the 7th. :blood
     
  14. Farmboxer

    Farmboxer VIP Member Full Member

    86,106
    4,096
    Jul 19, 2004
  15. gorgse

    gorgse Active Member Full Member

    1,393
    0
    Oct 20, 2008

    2 problems with this, first the 28 year old wouldn't "KNOW" how to do it because he didn't have the experience, look at Pavlik, he doesn't "KNOW" how to do it because he doens't have the experience that Hopkins does. And second are you arguing that a 38 year old Hopkins would win againts todays Joe? woudnl't it be better to argue if they both meet 5 years ago when both where more in their prime? If so, then you'd have a Joe that was younger as well, and that Joe would punch much better even though his hands were starting to brake down around that time.