Why I Rank Calzaghe Above Hopkins

So you admit there are more factors to take into consideration than merely the two meeting in the ring before either man was shot, in direct contradiction of your earlier statement???

And I'm still waiting on you to confront this though mate:

You said:

And I have said:

So I shall repeat the main point in the hope that you will, at last, directly address all parts of this post:

 

Popkins owned you. Thanks for acknowledging it by stealing yourself out of the discussion. :good

 

Mönchengladbach? Never been there and I don't wanna go there outside beating Borussia at home of course.

So, you have two guesses left

 

I honestly don't understand why you are reacting like this towards me. You laid out a criteria on a public forum, and I am questioning your use of that criteria. You have repeatedly ignored my questions (such as on the Griffith-Napoles issue), and are now withdrawing from me completely. Why??? Have I offended you in some way?

 

...Who is this man? ...Impostor.

 

Resume - Hopkins
H2H - Calzaghe.

Simple as that, except neither man was in his prime, Hopkins probably being further past it than JC.

 

Nope, sorry to dissappoint you.

 

Ridiculous thing to say Calzaghe is above Hopkins. You can make a case that Hopkins is above Jones lets alone Calzaghe.

You should also note that Reid, Woodhall, Eubank, Mitchell, Brewer had all!! lost their titles before Calzaghe fought them, now a couple of those guys lost fights they should of won but the fact remains that all took a hit confidence wise and had seen better days, particularly Eubank who had lost to Collins twice, arguably should of lost to Dan Schommer before losing to Collins, Eubank went on to lose twice to Carl Thompson after losing to Joe.

Brewer was never that good to begin with and he gave Calzaghe a tough fight, this is the same Brewer that a near 40 year old Herol Graham was outboxing. Robin Reid won his title off Nardiello so you can see his pedigree as a great fighter. Jeff Lacy is not worth talking about unless you want to make out he is great because of misplaced perception before he fought Joe. Its always what you find out about a fight after that matters, we now know Jeff Lacy is average win. Kessler win is self explanatory after the schooling he just took from a green fighter.


I dont think you can use Nard's win over Pavlik because Calzaghe never even beat Hopkins as far as im concerned, that fight should of been a draw because neither fighter did enough to win. All that fight proved was that Hopkins would of beaten Calzaghe comfortably in his prime. Calzaghe was 37, Hopkins 44 if i remember right, but when you get past 30 every year is huge!! so even though people like to say he was not that much younger, he actually was, 6 years is huge! when you are 44 and the other guy is only 37.

 

:hey Common sense really. Good post!

 

Go back to general.

 

I'm not interested in comparing lists, I'm not a list-maker. I've never seen your lists so I can't criticize them and I haven't criticized them. My issue was with this statement:

And it seems now that you have indeed backtracked on it somewhat, by now amending it to include the size issue since I brought up the Bowe-Holyfield example. You initially did not mention size, stating only that if two people had fought when neither was shot then that was all that counts. I am glad you have seen the folly of that statement now. There are various other factors to consider other than h2h.

It is also encouraging that you have recognized that the placings of Griffith and Napoles that you posted on this thread are in contradiction of your statement.

Do you therefore, accept that the statement was in fact bull****??

Because there are so many examples of fighters who were of comparable size and quality, but the one who did better in the h2h confrontations between them should still definitely rank lower in all-time terms, and these still either cannot or have not been explained by yourself with regard to your h2h statement:

How can you stick to this in the face of these examples:

(I can remove examples like Holmes-Spinks now because you have changed your criteria to incorporate size after I cited Holyfield and Bowe, but your statement still has many glaring flaws which will be further highlighted by more examples)


Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler

Vernon Forrest and Shane Mosley

Eder Jofre and Fighting Harada

Roberto Duran and Thomas Hearns

Roberto Duran and Wilfred Benitez

Alexis Arguello and Aaron Pryor

Carlos Ortiz and Duilio Loi

Carlos Zarate and Lupe Pintor


Obviously if you reply and say things like "Duran was past-prime and above his best weight when he fought Hearns and Benitez" then you are only further proving how silly this statement was:

Because best weight and prime years are yet another two factors in addition to size that your statement kicked to the kerb.

And another reason why your statement makes little sense is that how do you decide who is of the same standard/ability as anyone else?

OK, we can rule out Douglas and Tyson as a freak result, but how about these examples:

Juan Manuel Marquez and Freddie Norwood
Juan Manuel Marquez and Chris John
James Toney and Montell Griffin
Marco Antonio Barrera and Junior Jones
etc
etc

OK, the pairs in this group are not as close in terms of greatness as the earlier group (Pep-Saddler etc), but Norwood, John, Griffin and Jones were close in terms of achievement to Marquez, Toney and Barrera at the time they fought and were not journeymen, they were world title level operators at the time of the fights.

Mate I just don't see how you can cling to your statement in the face of such evidence. It was a very silly thing to say, has been proven wrong, and you should retract it now.