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

cuchulain · Aug 4, 2009

ed7890 said: ↑

Thanks man, I always enjoy your posts, no loving or hating, just talkin about boxing. :good

.
Click to expand...

Go raibh maith agat !

(Cuchulain KO'd Medbh at Culaigne :yep:yep:yep)

KCD · Aug 4, 2009

**** i misread the question.

I voted Roy's but i meant Calzaghe's

cuchulain · Aug 4, 2009

KCD said: ↑

**** i misread the question.

I voted Roy's but i meant Calzaghe's
Click to expand...

No problem.

I thought this thread was over months ago

The proportions are still about the same, with about a 3:2 ratio favouring the Hopkins who faced Joe.

Clinton · Aug 4, 2009

ed7890 said: ↑

Yes i think so. Pavlik never forced the issue and was throwing very few punches on Hopkins. Calzaghe was in there round after round making Hopkins work very hard and this gassed him out very quickly.

Hopkins was forced into his spoiling tactics, grappling and wrestling and faking low blows to give himself a breather.

Also on the style thing, Pavlik just didnt have the footwork and movement to go against Hopkins, Calzaghe did. I just dont think the Pavlik fight says much about Hopkins. Pavlik just doesn't have the toolset for Hopkins.

Maybe not, i know what yer saying. Both versions of Hopkins didn't have the full set of tools. Young Hopkins didnt have all the skills, old Hopkins didnt have the stamina.

IMO to say which is better depends on who their fighting. Old Hopkins had the skills to take on people who gave him time and space. But old Hopkins didnt have a chance against Joe, young Hopkins would have had a chance, who would have won it i wouldnt say.
Click to expand...

:goodWell said,Ed.

Clinton · Aug 4, 2009

DemolitionDan said: ↑

The fight before Jones, Hopkins looked decent against some journeyman fighter, a five fights later he was knocked down twice against the great Segundo Mercado and ended up getting a draw. (Credit to Hopkins though for beating him the next time they fought, still he shouldn't have gotten knocked down twice and getting a draw)

While the older Hopkins gained more experienced and was more polished in the ring. Also those losses that you are talking about were very very close against Jermain Taylor and could have gone either way.
Click to expand...

The first Mercado fight was held in Quito,Ecuador,about 5000 feet above sea level.In the rematch,Bernard knocked him out convincingly.And Taylor has proved over again that he's not elite.I wouldn't be surprised to see him retire before the end of the tournament.

Rumsfeld · Aug 4, 2009

cuchulain said: ↑

No. That's NOT what they're saying.

They're saying that the Bernard who fought Jones in 1993 was not as good as the Bernard who fought Calzaghe.

Completely irrelevent to the thread question.

The question is not comparing 1993 Jones to 1993 Hopkins.

It is comparing 1993 Hopkins to 2008 Hopkins.

Whether or not Jones was prime, or pre-prime is NOT the question.

Again, you're comparing 1993 Hopkins to 1993 Jones. That's NOT the question.

(And not doing much of a job with the comparison. Jones had a stellar amateur career, leading to an Olympic medal that everyone agrees should have been gold. Bernard's amateur career and coaching was not remotely on the same level).

Again, what he did from 1990 to 2005 is irrelevant to his standing in 1993.

You need to look at what he did up to 1993.

To assist you in this matter, I'll tell you what he did prior to facing Jones.

He fought 23 fights, losing one.

Of his 23 opponents, 10 had winning records. That's 43 % of them.

The total of his opponents records comes to 233 wins v 183 losses.

That's hardly stellar opposition.

His best opponent was former welterwight, Wayne Powell.

That's right, THEE Wayne Powell !

He had lost TWO fights when he met Calzaghe.

Both close controversial decisions to the same guy.

And AFTER Calzaghe, he shut out that one guy's two-time daddy 12-0.

Not completely clear, but the compelling evidence and opinion is reasonably clear, Calzaghe.

Does the futility of that statement completely escape you ?

The fact that he had such an unremarkable record PRIOR to meeting Jones, and then went 15 years without a loss, against 31 much more challenging opponents, thirty of which had WINNING records (That's 97 %) who had a total win/loss record of 859 to 83 (That's 91 %), is evidence THAT HE WAS BETTER IN 2008 THAN IN 1993 !

These victories included Tarver, Wright, DelaHoya, Trinidad, Eastman, Joppy, Hakaar, Holmes, Echols, Vanderpool and Glenn Johnson.

Again, you miss the thread question and answer something different.

Nobody disputes that Hopkins wasn't at the top of his game. He was past prime.

And he was PRE-PRIME for Jones.

The question was: Which version of Hopkins was better ?

To summarize for you:

Bernard's Opponents up till he faced Jones:

A total of 23, of which 10 had winning records that combined was 233 to 183, or 56 %.

No memorable names.

Bernard's opponents between facing Jones and Calzaghe:

A total of 31, 30 of which had winning records that combined was 859 to 83, or 91 %.

Names included Tarver, Wright, DelaHoya, Trinidad, Eastman, Joppy, Hakaar, Holmes, Echols, Vanderpool and Glenn Johnson.

(And this period included more than twenty title fights.)

Don't you think it's just possible that Bernard learned a thing or two between the Jones fight and the Calzaghe fight ?
Click to expand...

That was quite a thorough schooling.

:smoke

janeschicken · Aug 4, 2009

I would like the idea of this comparison thread if the manner of "victories" achieved were even remotely on the same level.

Time to start a new thread : Which was the better Bernard Hopkins? The one who lost to Jermain Taylor twice in close fights, or the one who is Taylor's conquerer's "Daddy"? A = B = C DOES NOT WORK IN THIS SPORT, so whatever angle you're trying to give us as far as Calzaghe's greatness over Jones is pretty spurious at best.

cuchulain · Aug 4, 2009

Rumsfeld said: ↑

That was quite a thorough schooling.

:smoke
Click to expand...

:good

Powerman55 · Aug 5, 2009

Hopkins is past his physical peak but as far as his boxing skills and intelligence go he IS PEAK PEAK PEAK! and that's why he beat Pavlik. The guy knows all the tricks to win now, whether that's holding on, faking lowblows or using his huge bag of tricks.

The Hopkins that Jones beat was physically prime but mentally green. Anyone can be physically fit so I place the 'old' Hopkins above the young one. The guy is a legend doing what he's doing at 43.

So I say Calzaghe beats the younger Hopkins as it was Hopkins tricks and intelligence that gave Calzaghe problems.

Log in or Sign up

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

cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

KCD All aboard. Full Member

cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

Clinton Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Clinton Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

janeschicken hard work! deadicayshin! Full Member

cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

Powerman55 Well-Known Member Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

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

cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

KCD All aboard. Full Member

cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

Clinton Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Clinton Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

janeschicken hard work! deadicayshin! Full Member

cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

Powerman55 Well-Known Member Full Member