Why I Rank Calzaghe Above Hopkins

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by trampie, Nov 22, 2009.


  1. horst

    horst Guest

    Am I the invisible man on this thread or something?!

    You guys took a position:


    And I have repeatedly called you on it, and been completely ignored:


    Can either of you gents directly confront this issue??
     
  2. trampie

    trampie Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,230
    3
    Oct 18, 2008
    Hopkins and Jones well passed their best when they fought Calzaghe, yes what about Joe wasnt he well passed his best also ?

    Hopkins had beaten Antonio Tarver and Winky Wright prior to losing to Calzaghe and since the Calzaghe defeat Hopkins has schooled Kelly Pavlik.

    Roy Jones was on a run of 3 straight wins before losing to Calzaghe the last of which was Felix Trinidad, after losing to Calzaghe, Roy Jones has beaten by stoppage Sheika and Lacy.
     
  3. lefthook31

    lefthook31 Obsessed with Boxing banned

    20,862
    138
    Jul 6, 2007
    See with a post like this its impossible to reason with you. Ill bow out here and just say I disagree.
     
  4. trampie

    trampie Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,230
    3
    Oct 18, 2008
    Popkins you will be glad to hear you are not invisible, you have already been told that there was a clause in the original post so that for example the Terry Norris's of this World would not be ranked above the Sugar Ray Leonard's of this World.
    If boxers are perceived to be of a similar standard then whoever won in the ring would receive the higher ranking.
    Asking for my rankings for certain boxers is a leading question and its easy to pick holes in anybodies list, therefore in the interest of fairness you should put your list out ?

    For your info, my ratings were done after the Hopkins v Calzaghe fight, so they are 18 months out of date, hence Pacmans rating, but here are the results of your questions :-

    Pep #10 - Sadler #24
    Griffith #37 - Napoles #42
    Duran #5 - Hearns #41
    Hoyfield #47 - Lewis #39
    Holmes #34 - Mich Spinks #52
    W.Gomez #56 - Az Nelson #149
    DLH #83 - Trinidad #98
    Pacman #119 - Morales #144
    Turpin #190 - Sugar Ray Robinson #1
     
  5. horst

    horst Guest

    Then this post is completely contradictory to your earlier point, is it not?

    Griffith and Napoles are ranked only 5 places apart, so they are clearly of a similar standard. Yet Napoles defeated Griffith when neither man was shot.

    There is no argument for stating that Napoles is to Griffith what Terry Norris was to Ray Leonard.

    You have also contradicted yourself somewhat with your placings of Pep and Saddler, Larry Holmes and Michael Spinks, and several others.

    How do you explain this? Either your initial statement was bull****, or you yourself do not adhere to it when making your lists, which then raises the question of why you made the statement in the first place.
     
  6. horst

    horst Guest

    I don't have a list, I'm not much of a list-maker dude.

    I just take exception to your belief that a top guy ranks higher if he beat another top guy, coz I think there are so many, many clear excpetions to that rule.

    (for one thing, I am a big Evander Holyfield fan, and he lost the trilogy to Bowe, but while Bowe is definitely a top guy and not a Terry Norris, Holyfield must rank higher surely? You see, it doesn't make any sense to me)
     
  7. trampie

    trampie Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,230
    3
    Oct 18, 2008
    You dont have a list , well with respect you have no right to comment then do you.

    I have Holyfield at #47 and Bowe at #197, because Holyfield is in a different league, get it :roll:
     
  8. horst

    horst Guest

    Have you ever won a professional world boxing title? Well with respect you have no right to comment on professional world boxing champions, do you?

    Oh wait, you do. Because this is a boxing forum...

    No, I don't get it at all.

    You said that if two fighters of a similar "standard/quality" fought then the winner would be ranked higher.

    Bowe and Holyfield were of a similar standard/quality as heavyweight boxers, and Bowe won the trilogy.

    So by your statement, Bowe ranks higher.

    But by your list, Bowe is light years behind.

    I do not get it at all.

    Also, why did you reply to my second post only, and not this one?

     
  9. Addie

    Addie Myung Woo Yuh! Full Member

    42,502
    401
    Jun 14, 2006
    Any list outside of a top 100 is completely pointless!
     
  10. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Not too mention Calzaghe was the number two at smw as long as Ottke was active. Ottke has a better resume during the time both were active and unified the belt then. Calzaghe was his number one contender and they never fought.
     
  11. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Well but his comments make more sense than your´s. :good
     
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,075
    48,252
    Mar 21, 2007
    ????????????????
     
  13. essexboy

    essexboy The Cat Full Member

    4,063
    4
    Jul 12, 2009
    Hes right, your wrong, why dont you just admit you made a stupid remark and move on. As it is your just digging deeper and deeper.
     
  14. trampie

    trampie Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,230
    3
    Oct 18, 2008
    18 months ago, read the posts !!!!!
     
  15. trampie

    trampie Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,230
    3
    Oct 18, 2008
    Holyfield was a Cruiserweight , Bowe was a Heavyweight when the two fought Bowe outweighed Holyfield by about 30lbs, even so Evander still managed a win over Bowe.
    That is why in the eye of this list maker they are not in the same league.