Who do you rate higher McCallum or Calzaghe ?

Hopkins has an informed, intelligent style for the most part. Boxing "experts" like to pat themselves on the back by recognizing these subtleties and scoring for him, even though his output can be abysmal. Their backing of him affirms their intelligence, so they think. However, sometimes, talent and output do win the day. Calzaghe had tremendous reflexes, anticipation and judgement of distance. He certainly wasn't hitting air according to CompuBox... I mean it wasn't even close. He was landing lead lefts and rights in flurries over the last half. And Bernard was looking for an out as he was getting beat up in the later rounds... thus, the bull**** faking of a low blow.

 

Oh sweet jesus christ!!!! McCallum and its a no-brainer

 

I know, and it was not a shot at you. Think it´s entertaining and paints a picture of their opposition. I don´t think so, you can judge quality of opposition on that. Some of your comparisons aren´t really that great though.

Word.

Yeah, exactly that´s what they do. But you know different right? To affirm your intelligence?

 

Or some of us value clean effective punching? Missing punches and not landing while another man is means you lose the clean effective punching point, missing punches mean you lose 'effective aggression' too

I had Jermaine Taylor beating Hopkins but had Hopkins beating Calzaghe on my card after watching numerous times

For Hopkins-Calzaghe though I think there should be a double loser award where both fighters lose and are ordered to fight the following week for free to get their pay. I'm no longer a fan of Hopkins, I'm an admirer of his skills but as a personality and as a cheat, I'm not a fan, still had him winning down to clean effective punching

 

This.

Their resumes are just too far apart for it to be even debateable.

 

I know the truth hurts.

The fact that noted Hopkins shills ringside scored for Calzaghe going away should say something. The fact that he outlanded Hop almost 2 to 1, even with a reasonable margin of error, speaks volumes. And the fact that Hopkins needed to call a lengthy time out as he was getting tagged from ring post to ring post pretty much closes the argument.

The fight wasn't even that close.

 

this isn't even close. McCallum winning 5 rounds against a faded Kalambay is better than anything Calzaghe ever did.

 

Mccallum and quite clearly. Better record by some distance. H2h is a bit closer though. JC h2h is a handfull for most great fighters from 168-175 and I felt he beat Hopkins when they met, which has grown in importance due to Hopkins exploits since then. An excellent win. It just depends on weather you think he deserved the verdict.

 

Your truth, not mine, grumpy old man.

 

True dat.

 

I didn't see Calzaghe land a single solid punch all night.
Arguably, Hopkins, after winning the first round with a KD, managed to do even less than Calzaghe.

Thinking about it, both guys deserved to lose.

 

British commentators on SKY box office TV (Calzaghe-lovers all the way) had Hopkins ahead.

It wasn't a fight.
It was a steaming pile of ****.

 

Said like a boss. Excellently put and rings true.

 

McCallum and H2H he'd whip Calzaghe too.

Joe was decent for his time but lets get serious people. His quality of competition doesn't even put him close to Mike McCallum.

Calzaghe would never beat a prime Jones or Hopkins. Don't even think he'd last half a fight with Moore, Charles, or Yvon Durelle for that matter. Bob Foster would flatten him in a couple of rounds.