Re: Calzaghe and Hopkins go at it about who's got the better resume
Ice, you have to add Sheika to Calzaghe's list, he beat Johnson, that means he's better than Johnson, Calzaghe beat Sheika, that means he's better than Sheika, that means Calzaghe's win over Sheika is better than Hopkins win over Johnson.
It's the law.
Re: Calzaghe and Hopkins go at it about who's got the better resume
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bx730NY
Put your money where your mouth is. That's all I gotta say.
He did not beat Winky no matter what the score cards said. I'm taking any and all sig bets.
Let's go this is easy money.
I never said Calzaghe wouldn't win i think he will win by close decision, thats got nothing to do with who has fought better opposition which Hopkins clearly has.
Re: Calzaghe and Hopkins go at it about who's got the better resume
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
The resume LOOKS better for Hopkins, if he actually were a Light Middleweight or lower. What are these BAD losses you're talking about that Calzaghe's opponents had? Eubank very narrowly lost to Collins (and went on after Joe to brawl with one of the hardest hitting cruisers in history twice), Reid was hardly battered by Malinga, the Mitchell fight would have been an unifaction if he wasn't mugged in Germany by Ottke, if you actually watched the Woodhall-Beyer fight you'd see Richie only lost cause he got careless early and handed the other guy knockdowns, Beyer was hanging on by the end, these were hardly career destroying defeats. You rate Eastman as one of Hopkins' better opponents, yet he could barely hang with Ashira 12 months later, a guy (rightly) considered a joke opponent for Joe.
We could go on all day bashing each guy's record, it's rather pointless though, the fact remains that BOTH guys will be legends of the sport once they retire, and rightly so.
Ok here are the examples.
Robin Reid shortly before Calzaghe fight was outboxed by a 40+ Thulani Malinga.
Richie Woodhall shortly before Calzaghe fight was dropped 3 times by Markus Beyer.
Charles Brewer shortly before Calzaghe was stopped in 3 by Antwun Echols.
Chris Eubank was a late replacement and only had a very short time to lose the weight and get in fighting shape, roughly about 1 week wasn't it ??
Re: Calzaghe and Hopkins go at it about who's got the better resume
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lyle
At 168 there really was no one for Calzaghe to fight before Lacy came along...sure he beat the Robin Reid's and Omar Sheika's but Jeff Lacy had some weight behind his name when he fought Joe.
Bernard Hopkins has fought high calibre fighters for a longer time but before Trinidad he had a tough time finding good competition himself.
Exactly, both careers seemed to kick on late. Can't fault either guy IMO on their careers.
Calzaghe got stick for a long time about his opposition, but he was ducking no one, Lacy Kessler and now Hopkins called him out and he's obliged them all. Same can be said of Hopkins.
Re: Calzaghe and Hopkins go at it about who's got the better resume
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Ok here are the examples.
Robin Reid shortly before Calzaghe fight was outboxed by a 40+ Thulani Malinga.
Richie Woodhall shortly before Calzaghe fight was dropped 3 times by Markus Beyer.
Charles Brewer shortly before Calzaghe was stopped in 3 by Antwun Echols.
Chris Eubank was a late replacement and only had a very short time to lose the weight and get in fighting shape, roughly about 1 week wasn't it ??
Did you actually read my fucking post????????? you said the fighters were coming off from BAD defeats, I address those losses (I'll give you Brewer). And you come back with this.
The Woodhall fight is a solid example of how boxrec isn't the be all and all on how to judge someone's career, Woodhall fought back to make it damn close and finished the stronger, it was a fight crying out for a rematch, but as happens so often, Beyer took his belt to Germany and buried it in his grandma's backyard.
Hopkins' and Calzaghe's careers are actually very similar, they both dominated mediocre divisions before finally getting the opponents to test them late on.
Hopkins' may have the more famous names on his resume, but can you really say with a straight face that the likes of de la Hoya and Trinidad posed more of a threat to a top middleweight than the likes of Reid, Woodhall, Eubank, Michell did for a top SM?
Re: Calzaghe and Hopkins go at it about who's got the better resume
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
Did you actually read my fucking post????????? you said the fighters were coming off from BAD defeats, I address those losses (I'll give you Brewer). And you come back with this.
The Woodhall fight is a solid example of how boxrec isn't the be all and all on how to judge someone's career, Woodhall fought back to make it damn close and finished the stronger, it was a fight crying out for a rematch, but as happens so often, Beyer took his belt to Germany and buried it in his grandma's backyard.
Hopkins' and Calzaghe's careers are actually very similar, they both dominated mediocre divisions before finally getting the opponents to test them late on.
Hopkins' may have the more famous names on his resume, but can you really say with a straight face that the likes of de la Hoya and Trinidad posed more of a threat to a top middleweight than the likes of Reid, Woodhall, Eubank, Michell did for a top SM?
Oh please Reid and Woodhall did have 1 fight after there bad losses, but they were gimme fights against journeyman fighters. They were still coming off bad losses unless you count Reid's win over 8-6 fighter or Woodhalls win over 29-9 fighter :rolleyes:
And i did see Woodhall vs Beyer and yes it was reasonably close, but the fact that Woodhall was dropped 3 times by a non puncher like Beyer spoke volumes that Woodhall was past his best and his punch resistance wasn't there anymore, and plus he didn't looked good at all, even Woodhall himself said he performed terrible.
And if you actually watched Reid vs Malinga you would know Reid looked terrible and it was embarrassing how he was easily outboxed by a 42 year old wasn't it ??
And yes i can say with a straight face that Tito at that time was a much bigger threat than Reid coming off losing to a grandad, or Woodhall coming off being dropped multiple times by a non puncher, or Eubank coming in as a late replacement, or Mitchell going life and death with Manny Siaca twice. Tito was a top 10 P4P fighter and if you actually look back without hindsight i think your find Tito was the big favorite, remind me was any of the Calzaghe opposition you mentioned favorites ??
One last thing i don't need boxrec because i have Calzaghe's career set, and i've seen pretty much all of his fights.
Re: Calzaghe and Hopkins go at it about who's got the better resume
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Ice, you have to add Sheika to Calzaghe's list, he beat Johnson, that means he's better than Johnson, Calzaghe beat Sheika, that means he's better than Sheika, that means Calzaghe's win over Sheika is better than Hopkins win over Johnson.
It's the law.
Sarcasm Right ?? Thats logic,that does not apply in this great sport ;)
Really though, If I remember right that "Win" for Sheika was a hold up job.
Re: Calzaghe and Hopkins go at it about who's got the better resume
Re: Calzaghe and Hopkins go at it about who's got the better resume
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Sarcasm Right ?? Thats logic,that does not apply in this great sport ;)
Really though, If I remember right that "Win" for Sheika was a hold up job.
yeah just joking ;)
Although a shocking omission from Calzaghe's list was Pete Manfredo.
Re: Calzaghe and Hopkins go at it about who's got the better resume
Hopkins has a better resume, but honestly, neither has as an impressive resume as many fans of either fighter would have you believe. IMHO, if Hopkins beats Calzaghe, it will be his crowning achievement. Same if Calzaghe beats Hopkins. You can make legit criticisms of both fighters' resumes, and you can nitpick depending on which one you support.
Anyway you slice it, Hopkins biggest wins did come against naturally much smaller men and Antonio Tarver coming off filming Rocky. The weights do matter a bit. But Hopkins 2nd tier of opponents, like Eastman, Joppy, Echols (better at MW), and Johnson are much better then the Mario Veits and Charles Brewers on Calzaghe's resume. On the other hand, if Hopkins had beaten Kessler, it would it go right near the top of his best wins.
Either way, both guys have fought more than their share of soft opponents.
Bernard's talk was really interesting, though. He said a lot of the things we all talked about a little while ago in a thread about Hopkins longevity. I guess people around here might know a thing or two about boxing :cool:
Re: Calzaghe and Hopkins go at it about who's got the better resume
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Oh please Reid and Woodhall did have 1 fight after there bad losses, but they were gimme fights against journeyman fighters. They were still coming off bad losses unless you count Reid's win over 8-6 fighter or Woodhalls win over 29-9 fighter :rolleyes:
And i did see Woodhall vs Beyer and yes it was reasonably close, but the fact that Woodhall was dropped 3 times by a non puncher like Beyer spoke volumes that Woodhall was past his best and his punch resistance wasn't there anymore, and plus he didn't looked good at all, even Woodhall himself said he performed terrible.
And if you actually watched Reid vs Malinga you would know Reid looked terrible and it was embarrassing how he was easily outboxed by a 42 year old wasn't it ??
And yes i can say with a straight face that Tito at that time was a much bigger threat than Reid coming off losing to a grandad, or Woodhall coming off being dropped multiple times by a non puncher, or Eubank coming in as a late replacement, or Mitchell going life and death with Manny Siaca twice. Tito was a top 10 P4P fighter and if you actually look back without hindsight i think your find Tito was the big favorite, remind me was any of the Calzaghe opposition you mentioned favorites ??
One last thing i don't need boxrec because i have Calzaghe's career set, and i've seen pretty much all of his fights.
That's the point I'm Making, they weren't BAD CAREER ENDING LOSSES, Woodhall said he performed badly yet still pushed a future long reigning champion all the way. Calzaghe was taking these fights against Reid, Woodhall, Mitchell who were coming off close decision losses or robberies at world title level, they were all high risk fights considering how little he was payed compared to the much lower risk de la Hoya fight for Hopkins.
Tito was favourite due to fan ignorance, just as Lacy was. The warning signs were there, Trinidad dropped by welterweights and Lacy 1 dimensional, yet the majority (me included) sub concsiously ignored this due to their exciting fights. Anyway the 'favourite' discussion is irrelevant, it all depends on perception of the fans at the time of the fights, while Trinidad may have seemed risky to the fans, Hopkins and his camp didn't see it that way.
Anyway, I'm leaving this discussion now, I'm a big fan of both fighters and I see no point in disparaging their resumes, you can pick holes in every single resume in history if you choose to.
Re: Calzaghe and Hopkins go at it about who's got the better resume
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
That's the point I'm Making, they weren't BAD CAREER ENDING LOSSES, Woodhall said he performed badly yet still pushed a future long reigning champion all the way. Calzaghe was taking these fights against Reid, Woodhall, Mitchell who were coming off close decision losses or robberies at world title level, they were all high risk fights considering how little he was payed compared to the much lower risk de la Hoya fight for Hopkins.
Tito was favourite due to fan ignorance, just as Lacy was. The warning signs were there, Trinidad dropped by welterweights and Lacy 1 dimensional, yet the majority (me included) sub concsiously ignored this due to their exciting fights. Anyway the 'favourite' discussion is irrelevant, it all depends on perception of the fans at the time of the fights, while Trinidad may have seemed risky to the fans, Hopkins and his camp didn't see it that way.
Anyway, I'm leaving this discussion now, I'm a big fan of both fighters and I see no point in disparaging their resumes, you can pick holes in every single resume in history if you choose to.
You can pick holes in any fighters resume, but you don't need to look very hard to find the holes in either Calzaghe's or Hopkins's. Compare either guy to Lennox Lewis, RJJ, or PBF.
Re: Calzaghe and Hopkins go at it about who's got the better resume
I take some of the points made in this thread, but Tito KO'ed a very good middleweight before he went into that Nard fight and he was undefeated.
Nard has more recognised names on his record, but I'd say Joe has faced as many if not more legit threats to his throne.
The most difficult opponent on either record is Kessler IMO.
Both records have worked on some major padwork though.
It'll all be irrelevent when Joe beat Nard anyway. ;)
Re: Calzaghe and Hopkins go at it about who's got the better resume
they both have good records, hopkins is a bit better
they both seem good in the interviews........... theres alot of personal niggle in this so it should be a good fight
Re: Calzaghe and Hopkins go at it about who's got the better resume
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Ok here are the examples.
Robin Reid shortly before Calzaghe fight was outboxed by a 40+ Thulani Malinga.
Richie Woodhall shortly before Calzaghe fight was dropped 3 times by Markus Beyer.
Charles Brewer shortly before Calzaghe was stopped in 3 by Antwun Echols.
Chris Eubank was a late replacement and only had a very short time to lose the weight and get in fighting shape, roughly about 1 week wasn't it ??
I HAVE TO AGREE WITH ALL THAT ICE IS SAYING ON THIS SUBJECT.
