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

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by El Cepillo, May 8, 2009.


  1. ApatheticLeader

    ApatheticLeader is bringing ***y back. Full Member

    10,798
    3
    Jul 20, 2004
    Yes, but 154 is not 160. Above 154 he was poor.
     
  2. unclepaulie

    unclepaulie Run like an antelope! Full Member

    6,002
    1
    Aug 14, 2007

    Kessler--Former JMW/MW
    Hopkins--Former MW
    Eubank Former MW


    3 of Calzaghe's best wins. Probably in some order or another his 3 best. All smaller guys.
     
  3. unclepaulie

    unclepaulie Run like an antelope! Full Member

    6,002
    1
    Aug 14, 2007
    Still had a belt though, plus I think he means a payday too? Can't fault Hopkins for this fight one bit.
     
  4. ApatheticLeader

    ApatheticLeader is bringing ***y back. Full Member

    10,798
    3
    Jul 20, 2004
    You're being ridiculous. Seriously, those examples are awful.
     
  5. unclepaulie

    unclepaulie Run like an antelope! Full Member

    6,002
    1
    Aug 14, 2007
    How are they awful? Explain...

    EDIT--Awful in that they aren't Calzaghe's best wins or awful in that they were smaller guys?
     
  6. FrochPascal

    FrochPascal Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,682
    0
    Dec 6, 2008
    Yawn. Hopkins was a big middleweight. Hes best win at middleweight was vs a former welterweight:rofl:rofl!!! Calzaghes best win at SM was kessler-a big strong SM. Continue to hate because you make less sense every time.

    Keep hiding behind the amount of posts youve made. You should be proud.:lol:
     
  7. Jeff M

    Jeff M Future ESB HOF Full Member

    27,003
    132
    Nov 22, 2008
    How the hell did Calzaghe get 24 votes over Hopkins????
     
  8. ramalinga

    ramalinga Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,229
    8
    May 7, 2007
    Kessler smaller than Calzaghe? What planet are you living on? Kessler is the most massive SMW ever, he looks like a freaking cruiserweight. Hopkins is naturally more muscular than Calzaghe and the same height and he was more experienced at LHW than Calzaghe.

    Hopkins beat fighters who were better at lower weights. Eubank and Kessler peaked at SMW.
     
  9. ApatheticLeader

    ApatheticLeader is bringing ***y back. Full Member

    10,798
    3
    Jul 20, 2004
    Kessler has done almost all of his significant fighting at 168, and Eubank is the same at the same weight. Granted Eubank was better at 160 than 168, but by the time he fought Calzaghe his biggest problem was making 168. As for Hopkins, he actually achieved something at 175 before Calzaghe fought him, which means he is proven to be a good scalp at that weight - in the same way that Trinidad crushed Joppy, and so was proven to be at least very useful at 160.
     
  10. ApatheticLeader

    ApatheticLeader is bringing ***y back. Full Member

    10,798
    3
    Jul 20, 2004
    Awful in that you're apparently stating that they are smaller guys.
     
  11. unclepaulie

    unclepaulie Run like an antelope! Full Member

    6,002
    1
    Aug 14, 2007
    That's my point. You get it. Some don't. The double standard applied to Calzaghe vis a vis Hopkins and weight classes is ridiculous. Illustrating the ridiculous with the ridiculous.
     
  12. unclepaulie

    unclepaulie Run like an antelope! Full Member

    6,002
    1
    Aug 14, 2007

    :patsch
     
  13. cableguy

    cableguy Active Member Full Member

    725
    112
    Jul 19, 2004
    Hopkins has beaten the better names...but most of these 'names' all had to move up weights to fight him.

    On Calzaghes plus side...he never lost a white boy
     
  14. El Cepillo

    El Cepillo Baddest Man on the Planet Full Member

    17,221
    4
    Aug 29, 2008
    'Fabously deceiving' or not, its still better than Calzaghe's.
     
  15. FrochPascal

    FrochPascal Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,682
    0
    Dec 6, 2008
    youve changed your tune!!:rofl

    :yep