Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

Thanks for the laugh.

So your telling me that Prime for Prime Calzaghe could of beat Hopkins 12 rounds to 0. I said could not would, he convincingly won the last 8 in the fight they did have, i was offering another alternative to hopkins would have beaten calazaghi if he was younger

I mean there's biased then there's that post above. Your posts are as biast as mine

It doesn't make a difference where the fight was staged whether it be in America or Britain. All that matters is how their styles mesh in the ring. Yes it does, look at the supersix and how the results have gone there, have there been any away victories? home advantage is a big advantage

a 43 year old Hopkins was getting the better of Calzaghe in the first four rounds of their fight then he got tired. Calzaghe was then able to leave his mark on the fight by outworking and out landing Hopkins down the stretch. Hopkins won the first 4, calazaghi won the last 8, calazaghi fights were often close at the start and people couldnt live with him after the first few, its the way he fights

Ever since 2005, Hopkins has relied on slowing down the tempo of a fight to win. This version of Hopkins rarely fights on the inside and rarely throw combinations. A younger Hopkins didn't do that. He fought for 12 rounds at a good pace, he would throw combinations on a regular basis and he would get on the inside and do damage. A younger calazaghi never got put down, he started to get put over a bit more as his carear progressed, it is unlikely hopkins would have scored the Knock down in a fight earlier in their carears, joe would have settled quicker and wouldnt have taken 4 rounds to get going

Calzaghe wouldn't be able to outwork Hopkins like he did in 2008 because this Hopkins put in work every round and based on how well a 43 year old Hopkins did for four rounds a younger version would of done it far longer. he ouworked everyone else he fought after 4 rounds, why would hopkins have been any different

So if Calzaghe couldn't outwork Hopkins as much as he did in 08 because the younger version had much better stamina, how does Calzaghe actually beat him. See point above

Like you said with your narrow minded opinion, Calzaghe beat everyone because of stamina and hand speed. See points above

That actually doesn't give enough credit to how good Joe was. No it doesnt you are right, you brought the stamina issue up, i was just saying this was an massive advantage in all his fights, why would hopkins have been any different.

P.S - Tyson didn't beat the majority of his opponents based only on his power. What about his exceptional hand speed, head movement, fast fluent footwork, his conditioning, his ability to put punches together to the body and head. Just an example, you said calazaghi only beat hopkins coz of stamina, thats a massive asset he had in all his fights, I only pull lots of women coz im good looking

Boxing ain't that simple.

---

look man, for some reason a lot of people are bitter about calazaghi beating hopkins and we get all these excuses about age

fact is the biggest injustice in the fight was that it ended as a split descision, i dont know what the score was that went hopkins way but someone gave hopkins at least 6 rounds, which 6 did he win?

that fight is the easiest fight i have ever watched to score

hopkins won the first 4 calazaghi the last 8, clear as day

Well said, Eric. Calzaghe started slow and then totally took over the fight. The only thing that kept Hopkins half in was by the use of fighting dirty and trying to buy time.

It is silly to argue that Hopkins was just too old and it would have been different if younger because the same thing would have happened. Hopkins has never been able to fight at the pace of someone like Calzaghe and in his own prime was fighting pumped up WW's like Trinidad and DLH. Hopkins has never at any stage in his career held a trump card over someone like Calzaghe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

Thanks for the laugh.

So your telling me that Prime for Prime Calzaghe could of beat Hopkins 12 rounds to 0. I said could not would, he convincingly won the last 8 in the fight they did have, i was offering another alternative to hopkins would have beaten calazaghi if he was younger

I mean there's biased then there's that post above. Your posts are as biast as mine

It doesn't make a difference where the fight was staged whether it be in America or Britain. All that matters is how their styles mesh in the ring. Yes it does, look at the supersix and how the results have gone there, have there been any away victories? home advantage is a big advantage

a 43 year old Hopkins was getting the better of Calzaghe in the first four rounds of their fight then he got tired. Calzaghe was then able to leave his mark on the fight by outworking and out landing Hopkins down the stretch. Hopkins won the first 4, calazaghi won the last 8, calazaghi fights were often close at the start and people couldnt live with him after the first few, its the way he fights

Ever since 2005, Hopkins has relied on slowing down the tempo of a fight to win. This version of Hopkins rarely fights on the inside and rarely throw combinations. A younger Hopkins didn't do that. He fought for 12 rounds at a good pace, he would throw combinations on a regular basis and he would get on the inside and do damage. A younger calazaghi never got put down, he started to get put over a bit more as his carear progressed, it is unlikely hopkins would have scored the Knock down in a fight earlier in their carears, joe would have settled quicker and wouldnt have taken 4 rounds to get going

Calzaghe wouldn't be able to outwork Hopkins like he did in 2008 because this Hopkins put in work every round and based on how well a 43 year old Hopkins did for four rounds a younger version would of done it far longer. he ouworked everyone else he fought after 4 rounds, why would hopkins have been any different

So if Calzaghe couldn't outwork Hopkins as much as he did in 08 because the younger version had much better stamina, how does Calzaghe actually beat him. See point above

Like you said with your narrow minded opinion, Calzaghe beat everyone because of stamina and hand speed. See points above

That actually doesn't give enough credit to how good Joe was. No it doesnt you are right, you brought the stamina issue up, i was just saying this was an massive advantage in all his fights, why would hopkins have been any different.

P.S - Tyson didn't beat the majority of his opponents based only on his power. What about his exceptional hand speed, head movement, fast fluent footwork, his conditioning, his ability to put punches together to the body and head. Just an example, you said calazaghi only beat hopkins coz of stamina, thats a massive asset he had in all his fights, I only pull lots of women coz im good looking

Boxing ain't that simple.

---

look man, for some reason a lot of people are bitter about calazaghi beating hopkins and we get all these excuses about age

fact is the biggest injustice in the fight was that it ended as a split descision, i dont know what the score was that went hopkins way but someone gave hopkins at least 6 rounds, which 6 did he win?

that fight is the easiest fight i have ever watched to score

hopkins won the first 4 calazaghi the last 8, clear as day

---

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eim6bvhmpx..._scorecard.gif

That's the scorecard. I'm not here to argue about the scores of the actual fight. After the fight i had Hopkins edging it but re watching it as time went on, i thought Calzaghe did enough down the stretch to win.

I'm not bitter about Hopkins losing even though I'm a big fan, i actually like Joe.

We are talking about a fantasy match up where both fighters are in their primes. In a fantasy match up the location is irrelevant but i do see your point in regards to fights in the present.

You wrote that a younger Calzaghe was never put down even though i recall Bryon Mitchell dropped him but that doesn't really back up how Calzaghe beats Hopkins. I listed 3 reasons why a prime Hopkins would be far better than the version Calzaghe beat.

A: Actually threw combinations
B: Could fight inside
C: Had much better stamina

Also include Hopkins skills overall as a fighter and your telling me Calzaghe "simply" outworks him like he did to previous opponents.

A old but good version of Hopkins was able to win rounds and make a close fight with a near prime Calzaghe but a Prime great version of Hopkins wouldn't be able to win even more rounds of a prime Calzaghe.

I can't see it.

I'm not saying Joe wouldn't be competitive because he would. I just think because of reasons above that Hopkins has abit too much for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Well said, Eric. Calzaghe started slow and then totally took over the fight. The only thing that kept Hopkins half in was by the use of fighting dirty and trying to buy time.

It is silly to argue that Hopkins was just too old and it would have been different if younger because the same thing would have happened. Hopkins has never been able to fight at the pace of someone like Calzaghe and in his own prime was fighting pumped up WW's like Trinidad and DLH. Hopkins has never at any stage in his career held a trump card over someone like Calzaghe.

---

Watch this fight and tell me Hopkins couldn't keep up with Calzaghe in the stamina department.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozw7bu0yiWc

Hopkins doesn't have to fight at a Calzaghe pace anyway, if he throws enough to keep Joe backpedaling which a prime Hopkins could do, then he would win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

Thanks for the laugh.

So your telling me that Prime for Prime Calzaghe could of beat Hopkins 12 rounds to 0. I said could not would, he convincingly won the last 8 in the fight they did have, i was offering another alternative to hopkins would have beaten calazaghi if he was younger

I mean there's biased then there's that post above. Your posts are as biast as mine

It doesn't make a difference where the fight was staged whether it be in America or Britain. All that matters is how their styles mesh in the ring. Yes it does, look at the supersix and how the results have gone there, have there been any away victories? home advantage is a big advantage

a 43 year old Hopkins was getting the better of Calzaghe in the first four rounds of their fight then he got tired. Calzaghe was then able to leave his mark on the fight by outworking and out landing Hopkins down the stretch. Hopkins won the first 4, calazaghi won the last 8, calazaghi fights were often close at the start and people couldnt live with him after the first few, its the way he fights

Ever since 2005, Hopkins has relied on slowing down the tempo of a fight to win. This version of Hopkins rarely fights on the inside and rarely throw combinations. A younger Hopkins didn't do that. He fought for 12 rounds at a good pace, he would throw combinations on a regular basis and he would get on the inside and do damage. A younger calazaghi never got put down, he started to get put over a bit more as his carear progressed, it is unlikely hopkins would have scored the Knock down in a fight earlier in their carears, joe would have settled quicker and wouldnt have taken 4 rounds to get going

Calzaghe wouldn't be able to outwork Hopkins like he did in 2008 because this Hopkins put in work every round and based on how well a 43 year old Hopkins did for four rounds a younger version would of done it far longer. he ouworked everyone else he fought after 4 rounds, why would hopkins have been any different

So if Calzaghe couldn't outwork Hopkins as much as he did in 08 because the younger version had much better stamina, how does Calzaghe actually beat him. See point above

Like you said with your narrow minded opinion, Calzaghe beat everyone because of stamina and hand speed. See points above

That actually doesn't give enough credit to how good Joe was. No it doesnt you are right, you brought the stamina issue up, i was just saying this was an massive advantage in all his fights, why would hopkins have been any different.

P.S - Tyson didn't beat the majority of his opponents based only on his power. What about his exceptional hand speed, head movement, fast fluent footwork, his conditioning, his ability to put punches together to the body and head. Just an example, you said calazaghi only beat hopkins coz of stamina, thats a massive asset he had in all his fights, I only pull lots of women coz im good looking

Boxing ain't that simple.

---

look man, for some reason a lot of people are bitter about calazaghi beating hopkins and we get all these excuses about age

fact is the biggest injustice in the fight was that it ended as a split descision, i dont know what the score was that went hopkins way but someone gave hopkins at least 6 rounds, which 6 did he win?

that fight is the easiest fight i have ever watched to score

hopkins won the first 4 calazaghi the last 8, clear as day

---

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eim6bvhmpx..._scorecard.gif

That's the scorecard. I'm not here to argue about the scores of the actual fight. After the fight i had Hopkins edging it but re watching it as time went on, i thought Calzaghe did enough down the stretch to win.

I'm not bitter about Hopkins losing even though I'm a big fan, i actually like Joe.

We are talking about a fantasy match up where both fighters are in their primes. In a fantasy match up the location is irrelevant but i do see your point in regards to fights in the present.

You wrote that a younger Calzaghe was never put down even though i recall Bryon Mitchell dropped him but that doesn't really back up how Calzaghe beats Hopkins. I listed 3 reasons why a prime Hopkins would be far better than the version Calzaghe beat.

A: Actually threw combinations
B: Could fight inside
C: Had much better stamina

Also include Hopkins skills overall as a fighter and your telling me Calzaghe "simply" outworks him like he did to previous opponents.

A old but good version of Hopkins was able to win rounds and make a close fight with a near prime Calzaghe but a Prime great version of Hopkins wouldn't be able to win even more rounds of a prime Calzaghe.

I can't see it.

I'm not saying Joe wouldn't be competitive because he would. I just think because of reasons above that Hopkins has abit too much for him.

---

i said earlier in his carear calazaghi didnt get put down, as his carear went on he started to go down a bit more

mitchell was the first to knock him over

IMO a younger hopkins may have faired better in their bout, also a younger calazaghi may have

Also IMO calazaghi may have settled earlier if the fight had been in britain and not given himself as much to do

However, hopkins has had some of his best wins around the time and since the calazaghi fight so he was definately not showing his age

p.s. the middle card is absolute nonsense and it doesnt suprise me who the judge is

I was actually at this fight, went on holiday to Vegas at thre right time!! Missus wasnt too happy when I said im going to the fight instead of going to see Mama Mia!

Anyway, it was a close fight but in my opinion Calzaghe did win it, landed more punches and controlled the fight, Hopkins did his usual spoiling but couldnt stop Calzaghe's barrage of punches. You can call them slaps but I'd still not rather be slapped silly by Calzaghe.

Pugilistic - I believe the thing you are not taking into consideration is that a prime Bernard Hopkins was a middleweight. A prime Joe Calzaghe was a super middleweight. Hopkins' best wins in his prime were against smaller men. The Tito and Oscar fights were at 158 and 156 or are you referring to earlier? Maybe you are referring to p4p, which is all subjective anyway. Was Hopkins in his prime when RJJ beat him? My opinion is that between prime Roy/Bernard/Joe, on any given day, any of them could beat eachother. To be fair, it's a blemish on their records that they didn't face eachother in their primes. Scoreboard though: after the dust settled, only Joe is 2 & 0, Roy is 1 & 2, and Bernard is 1 & 2.

In regards to the Joe/Bernard fight, if Joe's punches were slaps, why didn't Bernard walk through them and control the pace?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Pugilistic - I believe the thing you are not taking into consideration is that a prime Bernard Hopkins was a middleweight. A prime Joe Calzaghe was a super middleweight. Hopkins' best wins in his prime were against smaller men. The Tito and Oscar fights were at 158 and 156 or are you referring to earlier? Maybe you are referring to p4p, which is all subjective anyway. Was Hopkins in his prime when RJJ beat him? My opinion is that between prime Roy/Bernard/Joe, on any given day, any of them could beat eachother. To be fair, it's a blemish on their records that they didn't face eachother in their primes. Scoreboard though: after the dust settled, only Joe is 2 & 0, Roy is 1 & 2, and Bernard is 1 & 2.

---

Exactly and a very important point. Hopkins best wins are over a bunch of tiny men who didn't belong anywhere near middleweight and then beyond more men who didn't belong at LHW. Hopkins is a lot of smoke and mirrors and he is canny and aware of that. He rarely chooses an opponent lightly.

Calzaghe was always bigger and only once Hopkins had moved up and adjusted was Calzaghe called upon and Hopkins was forced to resort to laying down to buy time against the workrate. The only thing I give Hopkins in his prime is more chance of being hurt and less laying on the canvas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

I agree to an extent but remember Joe wasn't a spring chicken when he fought Hopkins either. People forget that.

---

Calzaghe was 36/37 but he was far closer to his prime than Hopkins was.

I mean he look at his performance against Kessler just before the Hopkins fight. The guy looked amazing.

---

That was against Kessler...and, no offense, but Kessler is good but he's not a Joe or a Bernard. He's actually most famous for losing to Calzaghe as dubious as that is.

Hopkins won the fight Calzaghe got a decision he did not deserve. Punches count not illegal slaps. Proof in the puddin was Slappy Joe was offered a rematch at home in wales in front of the supporters that had stood by him all his career. What a way to repay your fans that the bow out with a legitimate win over an ATG & Living Legend BUT
Calzaghe took the cowards way out & instead retired to a life of drink & debauchery.
In my opinion Calzaghe KNEW he could not legitimately beat Hopkins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C.J.Rock

Hopkins won the fight Calzaghe got a decision he did not deserve. Punches count not illegal slaps. Proof in the puddin was Slappy Joe was offered a rematch at home in wales in front of the supporters that had stood by him all his career. What a way to repay your fans that the bow out with a legitimate win over an ATG & Living Legend BUT
Calzaghe took the cowards way out & instead retired to a life of drink & debauchery.
In my opinion Calzaghe KNEW he could not legitimately beat Hopkins

---

Right thats why he took the fight the first time, he was less likely to get a decision away from home so why would he be scared of fighting hopkins at home? Some people do talk chit!

Joe wasnt exactly in his prime either for this fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Pugilistic - I believe the thing you are not taking into consideration is that a prime Bernard Hopkins was a middleweight. A prime Joe Calzaghe was a super middleweight. Hopkins' best wins in his prime were against smaller men. The Tito and Oscar fights were at 158 and 156 or are you referring to earlier? Maybe you are referring to p4p, which is all subjective anyway. Was Hopkins in his prime when RJJ beat him? My opinion is that between prime Roy/Bernard/Joe, on any given day, any of them could beat eachother. To be fair, it's a blemish on their records that they didn't face eachother in their primes. Scoreboard though: after the dust settled, only Joe is 2 & 0, Roy is 1 & 2, and Bernard is 1 & 2.

---

Exactly and a very important point. Hopkins best wins are over a bunch of tiny men who didn't belong anywhere near middleweight and then beyond more men who didn't belong at LHW. Hopkins is a lot of smoke and mirrors and he is canny and aware of that. He rarely chooses an opponent lightly.

Calzaghe was always bigger and only once Hopkins had moved up and adjusted was Calzaghe called upon and Hopkins was forced to resort to laying down to buy time against the workrate. The only thing I give Hopkins in his prime is more chance of being hurt and less laying on the canvas.

---

hopkins best wins are probably after he moved up, pavlik, pascal, tarver, wright dont you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C.J.Rock

Hopkins won the fight Calzaghe got a decision he did not deserve. Punches count not illegal slaps. Proof in the puddin was Slappy Joe was offered a rematch at home in wales in front of the supporters that had stood by him all his career. What a way to repay your fans that the bow out with a legitimate win over an ATG & Living Legend BUT
Calzaghe took the cowards way out & instead retired to a life of drink & debauchery.
In my opinion Calzaghe KNEW he could not legitimately beat Hopkins

---

You are a fucking tool. But you know it.

You have a hard head, but nothing within.

Hopkins took the cowards way out by laying on the floor and refusing to fight. You talk of rematches? Fuck you. Hopkins never had a way. He beat Hopkins far too easily. And that is why modern Hopkins is such a joke. Just piss poor.

Haha, C.J. Rock what a wanker.