Who do you rate more highly: Joe Calzaghe or Bernard Hopkins?

Hopkins, although you have to give Calzaghe credit. Hopkins best wins have been late in his career when he was older, and Calzaghe beat him late in his career when he was older. Calzaghe was older also.

 

Impossibe for the National Front Disco to do so!!!!!

 

Calzaghe.

He is better H2H. He would not have lost to someone like Taylor. So he wins.

Bhop is amazing though, his resume is getting close to twice as good as Calzaghe's, and his longevity is something special.

I'm ignoring things like who was more known for dirty fighting, or ducking people or crap like that. If it went down to popularity then BHop will always win, and I'd vote for him just cause he humiliated Tarver.

I am basing my response on this:
Fighter A beats fighter B. Fighter A would also beat the fighters that B beat. Fighter A would have beat the fighters that fighter B lost to.

Fighter A is therefore the greater fighter.

If people are also voting on H2H then they will vote for Calzaghe.
If people are voting for better resume/accomplishments then they will vote for Bhop.
If this is a popularity contest then Bhop will win here, no contest.

I vote for Calzaghe, cause he was - without doubt - a better fighter.

 

Quite tight I think, I believe both fighters would have simlar wins on resumes if they swapped them if that makes sense? (although I think joe beats JT).

Achievements and legacy obviously Bhop.

I think Joe has more ability and his style beats bhop at any stage.

Overall, despite being a cal fan Bhop nicks it.

 

Mitchell and Brewer came over and lost, props to them. They both gave it a go. Hopkins and Jones wanted home advantage.

 

The poll result speaks clearly.

 

Is this a joke? There's a big difference between a very good European fighter who beats a ton of journeymen and then beats 2 legends at the end of their respective careers AND an established International Superstar, who defended his middleweight title 20 times against ranked talent.

Hopkins went toe to toe with Roy Jones when he was the real Roy Jones and came up a little short. Calzaghe blasted away a washed up shell of the Roy Jones Hopkins faced.

Hopkins as beaten Oscar De La Hoya in his prime, Tito Trinidad in his prime and undefeated at the time, Antonio Tarver by moving up 2 weight classes, Glen Johnson (who was undefeated at the time), Hopkins beat the dangerous and dodged Winky Wright, and then at the age of 44 destroyed undefeated middleweight champion Kelly Pavlik

Joe Calzaghe, portected for almost his entire career has a resume of nobodies. He beat Peter Manfredo of The Contender fame (big deal!). He beat Mikkel Kessler who is a big deal.... in Europe, but a nobody everywhere else. He beat Jeff Lacy, which was somewhat impressive.

Then, he comes over to the US and barely beat Hopkins by split-decision. Joe was 35. Hopkins 43. I do believe Joe won the fight, but this isn't a true indicator of who was better.

Then, Joe's supposed claim to suppremacy was dispatching 40 year-old, twice knocked out, and very washed up Roy Jones Jr. Even then, Jones managed to floor Calzaghe in the first and probably could've finished him if he had anything left.

 

Hopkins probably has the better resume.
Calzaghe never lost.

Hopkins won belts in the more prestigious divisions and has a lot more wins with the more prestigious organisations.
Calzaghe held a world title for 11 years.

Hopkins beat a bunch of smaller men and some not even worthy of sharing a ring with him.
Calzaghe beat a bunch of smaller men and some not even worthy of sharing a ring with him.

Hopkins beat the hell out of an undefeated banger in Pavlik.
Calzaghe beat the hell out of an undefeated banger in Lacy.

Hopkins unified the MW division.
Calzaghe unified the SMW division.

Hopkins beat the man who beat the man at LHW.
Calzaghe beat Hopkins.

I think that they're pretty even.... One thing that irks me about Hopkins is the two fights with Taylor. Those stain his record more than anything else. Taylor has gone on to do little to help Hopkins have some form of redemption from those bouts.

Overall, I would certainly listen to the arguement that OVERALL, all things considered, Hopkins rates higher. And maybe even marginally, I'd put Hopkins slightly higher in my list.

BUT I'd pick most forms of Calzaghe to beat Hopkins on points in close ugly contests.

 

had hopkins retired in 2002..my vote is still hopkins

 

hopkins had been the underdog twice and win in a dominant fashion
he was last the fighter who give roy jones(90s) more than two rounds lost in a fight. roy jones never lost more than one round in a fight except to hopkins

 

That doesn't convince me to consider changing any of my views.

 

No doubt!:good

 

Good post, except that I think that aside from H2H ratings, every other judgement on a fighter should be based on accomplishments. Vitali Klitchko is going to be amongst the very top H2H heavyweights, but no one could rate him higher than the proven greats because he just hasn't accomplished enough.

I voted Hopkins as his accomplishments far outshine Calzaghes