-
Calzaghe/Hopkins article
i was on yahoo! sports and well there was an article about Calzaghe/Hopkins being underway, but well i read the most retarded bullshit statement from Calzaghe "The clock is ticking on how much longer I carry on," he said. "I don't want people to look back at my career and say I defended my title over 20 times but I bottled the chance to make a big name for myself in the States.", ok who's the older of the two? Hopkins, who's been fighting longer? Hopkins, who's known as the never aging phenom? Hopkins, and well Undertaker but we're talking boxing lol
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Sorry bro, but I just can't see where you're coming from calling it a bulls**t statement. Calzaghe's 35 years old and has always made it clear that he's not going to go on fighting too long like a Holyfield.
You state yourself that Hopkins is a never-aging phenom, so you can't put everyone up against his yardstick. The only reason that Hopkins is still fighting at 43 is that he's picked his fights carefully, choosing those he can win, and fighting in a style that makes him very difficult to hit and in a way where he doesn't take too much damage. I wouldn't want Calzaghe to go down that route and become a spoiler to negate the aging factor.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Calzaghe has also carefully picked his opponants, aside from Kessler and maybe Lacy, and Reid, other than that, slim pickins, so yea in their situation age would still be a bigger factor for B-Hop
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Calzaghe has also carefully picked his opponants, aside from Kessler and maybe Lacy, and Reid, other than that, slim pickins, so yea in their situation age would still be a bigger factor for B-Hop
No he hasn't Calzaghe has beaten every single opponent that has needed beating at Super Middleweight.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Calzaghe has also carefully picked his opponants, aside from Kessler and maybe Lacy, and Reid, other than that, slim pickins, so yea in their situation age would still be a bigger factor for B-Hop
Wrong. Calzaghe has handily defeated everyone that has been put before him by the organizations. Calzaghe has done just what Hopkins, Jones, & Floyd did...took on everyone that came his way.
There's no denying that. People lambast Calzaghe for never leaving home...neither did Hopkins, Jones, or Floyd.
I hate the double standard there...but most people rip Joe's opposition with having the knowledge of who the fighters were & what they had done.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Calzaghe has also carefully picked his opponants, aside from Kessler and maybe Lacy, and Reid, other than that, slim pickins, so yea in their situation age would still be a bigger factor for B-Hop
Wrong. Calzaghe has handily defeated everyone that has been put before him by the organizations. Calzaghe has done just what Hopkins, Jones, & Floyd did...took on everyone that came his way.
There's no denying that. People lambast Calzaghe for never leaving home...neither did Hopkins, Jones, or Floyd.
I hate the double standard there...but most people rip Joe's opposition with having the knowledge of who the fighters were & what they had done.
Also...Jones & Hopkins both outpriced themselves out of facing Calzaghe. Jones said that he wasn't a threat...Hopkins raised the bill at the critical week of the bidding.
But that was all Joe's fault.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Calzaghe has also carefully picked his opponants, aside from Kessler and maybe Lacy, and Reid, other than that, slim pickins, so yea in their situation age would still be a bigger factor for B-Hop
No he hasn't Calzaghe has beaten every single opponent that has needed beating at Super Middleweight.
If u think that is the case then it is unfair for anyone to say that Hopkins has chosen his opponents carefully. He has fought the harder fights than Joe C.
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Sorry bro, but I just can't see where you're coming from calling it a bulls**t statement. Calzaghe's 35 years old and has always made it clear that he's not going to go on fighting too long like a Holyfield.
You state yourself that Hopkins is a never-aging phenom, so you can't put everyone up against his yardstick. The only reason that Hopkins is still fighting at 43 is that he's picked his fights carefully, choosing those he can win, and fighting in a style that makes him very difficult to hit and in a way where he doesn't take too much damage. I wouldn't want Calzaghe to go down that route and become a spoiler to negate the aging factor.
Same goes with your comment mate, I mean if u think Hopkins has picked his opponents carefully then u must agree the same can be said about Joe C who has historically fought lsser opponents than BHOP.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Calzaghe has also carefully picked his opponants, aside from Kessler and maybe Lacy, and Reid, other than that, slim pickins, so yea in their situation age would still be a bigger factor for B-Hop
No he hasn't Calzaghe has beaten every single opponent that has needed beating at Super Middleweight.
If u think that is the case then it is unfair for anyone to say that Hopkins has chosen his opponents carefully. He has fought the harder fights than Joe C.
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Sorry bro, but I just can't see where you're coming from calling it a bulls**t statement. Calzaghe's 35 years old and has always made it clear that he's not going to go on fighting too long like a Holyfield.
You state yourself that Hopkins is a never-aging phenom, so you can't put everyone up against his yardstick. The only reason that Hopkins is still fighting at 43 is that he's picked his fights carefully, choosing those he can win, and fighting in a style that makes him very difficult to hit and in a way where he doesn't take too much damage. I wouldn't want Calzaghe to go down that route and become a spoiler to negate the aging factor.
Same goes with your comment mate, I mean if u think Hopkins has picked his opponents carefully then u must agree the same can be said about Joe C who has historically fought lsser opponents than BHOP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle
If u think that is the case then it is unfair for anyone to say that Hopkins has chosen his opponents carefully. He has fought the harder fights than Joe C.
I agree in fact Hopkins opposition is stronger than most people think.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Calzaghe has also carefully picked his opponants, aside from Kessler and maybe Lacy, and Reid, other than that, slim pickins, so yea in their situation age would still be a bigger factor for B-Hop
No he hasn't Calzaghe has beaten every single opponent that has needed beating at Super Middleweight.
If u think that is the case then it is unfair for anyone to say that Hopkins has chosen his opponents carefully. He has fought the harder fights than Joe C.
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Sorry bro, but I just can't see where you're coming from calling it a bulls**t statement. Calzaghe's 35 years old and has always made it clear that he's not going to go on fighting too long like a Holyfield.
You state yourself that Hopkins is a never-aging phenom, so you can't put everyone up against his yardstick. The only reason that Hopkins is still fighting at 43 is that he's picked his fights carefully, choosing those he can win, and fighting in a style that makes him very difficult to hit and in a way where he doesn't take too much damage. I wouldn't want Calzaghe to go down that route and become a spoiler to negate the aging factor.
Same goes with your comment mate, I mean if u think Hopkins has picked his opponents carefully then u must agree the same can be said about Joe C who has historically fought lsser opponents than BHOP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle
If u think that is the case then it is unfair for anyone to say that Hopkins has chosen his opponents carefully. He has fought the harder fights than Joe C.
I agree in fact Hopkins opposition is stronger than most people think.
I think people should just take this for what it is, a fight between two guys who have both had incredible careers.
One is probably still at the top of his game and is the likely victor (JOE C) and he is trying to cement his legacy by beating a tpo US fighter in America.
The other fighter in BHOP is probably passed his best but is looking for a big pay day, and if things go his way just maybe another great win to finish of his ATG career, (not likely tho).
Joe C wont have it all his way becasue Hopkins is so crafty, but should win because of superior work rate.
All the talk about career records is pretty irrelevant now, they are both top fighters, and at the end of the day they will still be win or lose.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Sorry bro, but I just can't see where you're coming from calling it a bulls**t statement. Calzaghe's 35 years old and has always made it clear that he's not going to go on fighting too long like a Holyfield.
You state yourself that Hopkins is a never-aging phenom, so you can't put everyone up against his yardstick. The only reason that Hopkins is still fighting at 43 is that he's picked his fights carefully, choosing those he can win, and fighting in a style that makes him very difficult to hit and in a way where he doesn't take too much damage. I wouldn't want Calzaghe to go down that route and become a spoiler to negate the aging factor.
Same goes with your comment mate, I mean if u think Hopkins has picked his opponents carefully then u must agree the same can be said about Joe C who has historically fought lsser opponents than BHOP.
Sorry, but I think the way that Hopkins has picked his opponents is different to the way Calzaghe has. Calzaghe has chosen not to go to light-heavy and start from scratch where there was, for a long time, a bit more competition.
Hopkins has picked his opponents over recent years that he knows he can drag down to his level and that he can utilise his roughhouse spoiling style on effectively.
I agree that career-wise Calzaghe doesn't have the huge names that Hopkins has, but the Hopkins revival with his fights against Tarver and Winky were very well chosen opponents for him.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Sorry bro, but I just can't see where you're coming from calling it a bulls**t statement. Calzaghe's 35 years old and has always made it clear that he's not going to go on fighting too long like a Holyfield.
You state yourself that Hopkins is a never-aging phenom, so you can't put everyone up against his yardstick. The only reason that Hopkins is still fighting at 43 is that he's picked his fights carefully, choosing those he can win, and fighting in a style that makes him very difficult to hit and in a way where he doesn't take too much damage. I wouldn't want Calzaghe to go down that route and become a spoiler to negate the aging factor.
Same goes with your comment mate, I mean if u think Hopkins has picked his opponents carefully then u must agree the same can be said about Joe C who has historically fought lsser opponents than BHOP.
Sorry, but I think the way that Hopkins has picked his opponents is different to the way Calzaghe has. Calzaghe has chosen not to go to light-heavy and start from scratch where there was, for a long time, a bit more competition.
Hopkins has picked his opponents over recent years that he knows he can drag down to his level and that he can utilise his roughhouse spoiling style on effectively.
I agree that career-wise Calzaghe doesn't have the huge names that Hopkins has, but the Hopkins revival with his fights against Tarver and Winky were very well chosen opponents for him.
I disagree about Tarver. I think you're looking at it retrospectively. When the fight was announced very few people on here were picking Hopkins to win and most of us felt he was just taking the fight for the money.
Tarver looked awful in that fight but he hadn't upto that point and in winning back to rematches with Jones Jr and Johnson he was firmly established as the Ring Champ at 175 lbs.
That was a great win for BHop in my opinion and ironically considering the weight class it took place, possibly the signature fight of his entire career.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Sorry bro, but I just can't see where you're coming from calling it a bulls**t statement. Calzaghe's 35 years old and has always made it clear that he's not going to go on fighting too long like a Holyfield.
You state yourself that Hopkins is a never-aging phenom, so you can't put everyone up against his yardstick. The only reason that Hopkins is still fighting at 43 is that he's picked his fights carefully, choosing those he can win, and fighting in a style that makes him very difficult to hit and in a way where he doesn't take too much damage. I wouldn't want Calzaghe to go down that route and become a spoiler to negate the aging factor.
Same goes with your comment mate, I mean if u think Hopkins has picked his opponents carefully then u must agree the same can be said about Joe C who has historically fought lsser opponents than BHOP.
Sorry, but I think the way that Hopkins has picked his opponents is different to the way Calzaghe has. Calzaghe has chosen not to go to light-heavy and start from scratch where there was, for a long time, a bit more competition.
Hopkins has picked his opponents over recent years that he knows he can drag down to his level and that he can utilise his roughhouse spoiling style on effectively.
I agree that career-wise Calzaghe doesn't have the huge names that Hopkins has, but the Hopkins revival with his fights against Tarver and Winky were very well chosen opponents for him.
I disagree about Tarver. I think you're looking at it retrospectively. When the fight was announced very few people on here were picking Hopkins to win and most of us felt he was just taking the fight for the money.
Tarver looked awful in that fight but he hadn't upto that point and in winning back to rematches with Jones Jr and Johnson he was firmly established as the Ring Champ at 175 lbs.
That was a great win for BHop in my opinion and ironically considering the weight class it took place, possibly the signature fight of his entire career.
Tarver looked awful beating Jones the 3rd time. He had been messing about with his weight making Rocky movies.
Fighting him at that point was an extremely shrewd pick from Hopkins. He was there for the taking.
It's hardly surprising the majority picked against Hopkins. He was coming off back-to-back losses against Taylor, 41, and moving up two weight classes (although it was pretty clear Hopkins could have always been a lightheavy).
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Calzaghe has also carefully picked his opponants, aside from Kessler and maybe Lacy, and Reid, other than that, slim pickins, so yea in their situation age would still be a bigger factor for B-Hop
Wrong. Calzaghe has handily defeated everyone that has been put before him by the organizations. Calzaghe has done just what Hopkins, Jones, & Floyd did...took on everyone that came his way.
There's no denying that. People lambast Calzaghe for never leaving home...neither did Hopkins, Jones, or Floyd.
I hate the double standard there...but most people rip Joe's opposition with having the knowledge of who the fighters were & what they had done.
Thats at best a ridiculous statement
Hint,America is a very large country,with no real national identity
Germany is closer to you then Las Vegas is to Philadelphia
Hint 2,:notice how most European boxers go largely unnoticited until they travel to the states,thats because thats were most of the boxing fans actually live
Hint 3:Unless it actually is in a fighters hometown(see hint one) there is no home field advantage,now if the fight was happening at say the Core States Spectrum(or whatever they call it this week) youd have a point,but last I checked Bernard has only had one fight there in next to forever
Get it through your heads,I know you guys have a sense of identity,thats great,it really is.In the states we dont,its a massive country that almost nobody is actually from.
Joe actually would have had a better shot if he had gone for the Yankee Stadium deal,because honestly people from Philly and New York dont dislike each other,they loathe each other at a level that makes Russia and Germany seem like an ongoing tiff
I dare anyone to go to an Eagles Giants game and tell me thats not the case,especially if its in Philly
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Calzaghe has also carefully picked his opponants, aside from Kessler and maybe Lacy, and Reid, other than that, slim pickins, so yea in their situation age would still be a bigger factor for B-Hop
Wrong. Calzaghe has handily defeated everyone that has been put before him by the organizations. Calzaghe has done just what Hopkins, Jones, & Floyd did...took on everyone that came his way.
There's no denying that. People lambast Calzaghe for never leaving home...neither did Hopkins, Jones, or Floyd.
I hate the double standard there...but most people rip Joe's opposition with having the knowledge of who the fighters were & what they had done.
Thats at best a ridiculous statement
Hint,America is a very large country,with no real national identity
Germany is closer to you then Las Vegas is to Philadelphia
Hint 2,:notice how most European boxers go largely unnoticited until they travel to the states,thats because thats were most of the boxing fans actually live
Hint 3:Unless it actually is in a fighters hometown(see hint one) there is no home field advantage,now if the fight was happening at say the Core States Spectrum(or whatever they call it this week) youd have a point,but last I checked Bernard has only had one fight there in next to forever
Get it through your heads,I know you guys have a sense of identity,thats great,it really is.In the states we dont,its a massive country that almost nobody is actually from.
Joe actually would have had a better shot if he had gone for the Yankee Stadium deal,because honestly people from Philly and New York dont dislike each other,they loathe each other at a level that makes Russia and Germany seem like an ongoing tiff
I dare anyone to go to an Eagles Giants game and tell me thats not the case,especially if its in Philly
Wacko is an American.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Sorry bro, but I just can't see where you're coming from calling it a bulls**t statement. Calzaghe's 35 years old and has always made it clear that he's not going to go on fighting too long like a Holyfield.
You state yourself that Hopkins is a never-aging phenom, so you can't put everyone up against his yardstick. The only reason that Hopkins is still fighting at 43 is that he's picked his fights carefully, choosing those he can win, and fighting in a style that makes him very difficult to hit and in a way where he doesn't take too much damage. I wouldn't want Calzaghe to go down that route and become a spoiler to negate the aging factor.
Same goes with your comment mate, I mean if u think Hopkins has picked his opponents carefully then u must agree the same can be said about Joe C who has historically fought lsser opponents than BHOP.
Sorry, but I think the way that Hopkins has picked his opponents is different to the way Calzaghe has. Calzaghe has chosen not to go to light-heavy and start from scratch where there was, for a long time, a bit more competition.
Hopkins has picked his opponents over recent years that he knows he can drag down to his level and that he can utilise his roughhouse spoiling style on effectively.
I agree that career-wise Calzaghe doesn't have the huge names that Hopkins has, but the Hopkins revival with his fights against Tarver and Winky were very well chosen opponents for him.
I disagree about Tarver. I think you're looking at it retrospectively. When the fight was announced very few people on here were picking Hopkins to win and most of us felt he was just taking the fight for the money.
Tarver looked awful in that fight but he hadn't upto that point and in winning back to rematches with Jones Jr and Johnson he was firmly established as the Ring Champ at 175 lbs.
That was a great win for BHop in my opinion and ironically considering the weight class it took place, possibly the signature fight of his entire career.
Tarver looked awful beating Jones the 3rd time. He had been messing about with his weight making Rocky movies.
Fighting him at that point was an extremely shrewd pick from Hopkins. He was there for the taking.
It's hardly surprising the majority picked against Hopkins. He was coming off back-to-back losses against Taylor, 41, and moving up two weight classes (although it was pretty clear Hopkins could have always been a lightheavy).
Tarver looked better in beating Roy Jones than Jermain Taylor did in beating Cory Spinks so by your logic Kelly Pavlik handpicked him for an easy victory ::**
You have to be seriously hating on a fighter if you consider them moving up TWO divisions to face the universally recognised Ring Champion handpicking an opponent?
Who else could he have fought? Taylor was the man at middle and he fought him twice, Winky was the other man and he fought him too. The only other opponent out there was Calzaghe and now he's fighting him as well.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Calzaghe has also carefully picked his opponants, aside from Kessler and maybe Lacy, and Reid, other than that, slim pickins, so yea in their situation age would still be a bigger factor for B-Hop
Wrong. Calzaghe has handily defeated everyone that has been put before him by the organizations. Calzaghe has done just what Hopkins, Jones, & Floyd did...took on everyone that came his way.
There's no denying that. People lambast Calzaghe for never leaving home...neither did Hopkins, Jones, or Floyd.
I hate the double standard there...but most people rip Joe's opposition with having the knowledge of who the fighters were & what they had done.
Thats at best a ridiculous statement
Hint,America is a very large country,with no real national identity
Germany is closer to you then Las Vegas is to Philadelphia
Hint 2,:notice how most European boxers go largely unnoticited until they travel to the states,thats because thats were most of the boxing fans actually live
Hint 3:Unless it actually is in a fighters hometown(see hint one) there is no home field advantage,now if the fight was happening at say the Core States Spectrum(or whatever they call it this week) youd have a point,but last I checked Bernard has only had one fight there in next to forever
Get it through your heads,I know you guys have a sense of identity,thats great,it really is.In the states we dont,its a massive country that almost nobody is actually from.
Joe actually would have had a better shot if he had gone for the Yankee Stadium deal,because honestly people from Philly and New York dont dislike each other,they loathe each other at a level that makes Russia and Germany seem like an ongoing tiff
I dare anyone to go to an Eagles Giants game and tell me thats not the case,especially if its in Philly
Wacko is an American.
Then he should obviously know better
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Calzaghe has also carefully picked his opponants, aside from Kessler and maybe Lacy, and Reid, other than that, slim pickins, so yea in their situation age would still be a bigger factor for B-Hop
Wrong. Calzaghe has handily defeated everyone that has been put before him by the organizations. Calzaghe has done just what Hopkins, Jones, & Floyd did...took on everyone that came his way.
There's no denying that. People lambast Calzaghe for never leaving home...neither did Hopkins, Jones, or Floyd.
I hate the double standard there...but most people rip Joe's opposition with having the knowledge of who the fighters were & what they had done.
Thats at best a ridiculous statement
Hint,America is a very large country,with no real national identity
Germany is closer to you then Las Vegas is to Philadelphia
Hint 2,:notice how most European boxers go largely unnoticited until they travel to the states,thats because thats were most of the boxing fans actually live
Hint 3:Unless it actually is in a fighters hometown(see hint one) there is no home field advantage,now if the fight was happening at say the Core States Spectrum(or whatever they call it this week) youd have a point,but last I checked Bernard has only had one fight there in next to forever
Get it through your heads,I know you guys have a sense of identity,thats great,it really is.In the states we dont,its a massive country that almost nobody is actually from.
Joe actually would have had a better shot if he had gone for the Yankee Stadium deal,because honestly people from Philly and New York dont dislike each other,they loathe each other at a level that makes Russia and Germany seem like an ongoing tiff
I dare anyone to go to an Eagles Giants game and tell me thats not the case,especially if its in Philly
Wacko is an American.
Then he should obviously know better
Wacko knows just fine. What he said is correct.
You're the delusional one, Monkey.
Not even Hopkins believes in your nonsense. Look what he says -
"If Calzaghe and Frank Warren are serious, they can cross the Red Sea and come over to the United States, because we're the best in everything we do.
"I'm not convinced [by Calzaghe], America is not convinced. Let him leave his home town and try to invade the United States and beat Bernard Hopkins, a great champion, a legend."
Now let me give you a clue - Hopkins is a proud AMERICAN. Hopkins considers AMERICA his HOME TURF. ;)
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Sorry bro, but I just can't see where you're coming from calling it a bulls**t statement. Calzaghe's 35 years old and has always made it clear that he's not going to go on fighting too long like a Holyfield.
You state yourself that Hopkins is a never-aging phenom, so you can't put everyone up against his yardstick. The only reason that Hopkins is still fighting at 43 is that he's picked his fights carefully, choosing those he can win, and fighting in a style that makes him very difficult to hit and in a way where he doesn't take too much damage. I wouldn't want Calzaghe to go down that route and become a spoiler to negate the aging factor.
Your saying he *picked* all his fights but i will return the question to you. And ask you who Hopkins ducked at Middleweight ??
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Calzaghe has also carefully picked his opponants, aside from Kessler and maybe Lacy, and Reid, other than that, slim pickins, so yea in their situation age would still be a bigger factor for B-Hop
Wrong. Calzaghe has handily defeated everyone that has been put before him by the organizations. Calzaghe has done just what Hopkins, Jones, & Floyd did...took on everyone that came his way.
There's no denying that. People lambast Calzaghe for never leaving home...neither did Hopkins, Jones, or Floyd.
I hate the double standard there...but most people rip Joe's opposition with having the knowledge of who the fighters were & what they had done.
Also...Jones & Hopkins both outpriced themselves out of facing Calzaghe. Jones said that he wasn't a threat...Hopkins raised the bill at the critical week of the bidding.
But that was all Joe's fault.
Jones moved up to Light Heavyweight in 1996 Calzaghe wasn't even a champion then. So i don't see how this match up could have really happened, Jones would of got no credit for beating Calzaghe at that time, plus Jones would have had to move down in weight.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Sorry bro, but I just can't see where you're coming from calling it a bulls**t statement. Calzaghe's 35 years old and has always made it clear that he's not going to go on fighting too long like a Holyfield.
You state yourself that Hopkins is a never-aging phenom, so you can't put everyone up against his yardstick. The only reason that Hopkins is still fighting at 43 is that he's picked his fights carefully, choosing those he can win, and fighting in a style that makes him very difficult to hit and in a way where he doesn't take too much damage. I wouldn't want Calzaghe to go down that route and become a spoiler to negate the aging factor.
Same goes with your comment mate, I mean if u think Hopkins has picked his opponents carefully then u must agree the same can be said about Joe C who has historically fought lsser opponents than BHOP.
Sorry, but I think the way that Hopkins has picked his opponents is different to the way Calzaghe has. Calzaghe has chosen not to go to light-heavy and start from scratch where there was, for a long time, a bit more competition.
Hopkins has picked his opponents over recent years that he knows he can drag down to his level and that he can utilise his roughhouse spoiling style on effectively.
I agree that career-wise Calzaghe doesn't have the huge names that Hopkins has, but the Hopkins revival with his fights against Tarver and Winky were very well chosen opponents for him.
I disagree about Tarver. I think you're looking at it retrospectively. When the fight was announced very few people on here were picking Hopkins to win and most of us felt he was just taking the fight for the money.
Tarver looked awful in that fight but he hadn't upto that point and in winning back to rematches with Jones Jr and Johnson he was firmly established as the Ring Champ at 175 lbs.
That was a great win for BHop in my opinion and ironically considering the weight class it took place, possibly the signature fight of his entire career.
Tarver looked awful beating Jones the 3rd time. He had been messing about with his weight making Rocky movies.
Fighting him at that point was an extremely shrewd pick from Hopkins. He was there for the taking.
It's hardly surprising the majority picked against Hopkins. He was coming off back-to-back losses against Taylor, 41, and moving up two weight classes (although it was pretty clear Hopkins could have always been a lightheavy).
And Reid looked awful getting out boxed by a 40+ Sugar Boy Malinga shortly before Calzaghe fight. Woodhall looked awful shortly before Calzaghe fight getting dropped 3 times by Veit. Brewer shortly before Calzaghe fight was destroyed by Echols, Sheika had looked awful against Glen Johnson shortly before Calzaghe fight.
Need i go on ?? you say how Tarver didn't look impressive against Jones in there rubber match. But forget the fact that most of Calzaghe's best wins, were coming off bad losses shortly before there fights with Calzaghe or had looked rubbish in there fights. But the difference is Calzaghe was the major favorite in all of these fights, where as Hopkins was the underdog.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Calzaghe has also carefully picked his opponants, aside from Kessler and maybe Lacy, and Reid, other than that, slim pickins, so yea in their situation age would still be a bigger factor for B-Hop
Wrong. Calzaghe has handily defeated everyone that has been put before him by the organizations. Calzaghe has done just what Hopkins, Jones, & Floyd did...took on everyone that came his way.
There's no denying that. People lambast Calzaghe for never leaving home...neither did Hopkins, Jones, or Floyd.
I hate the double standard there...but most people rip Joe's opposition with having the knowledge of who the fighters were & what they had done.
Thats at best a ridiculous statement
Hint,America is a very large country,with no real national identity
Germany is closer to you then Las Vegas is to Philadelphia
Hint 2,:notice how most European boxers go largely unnoticited until they travel to the states,thats because thats were most of the boxing fans actually live
Hint 3:Unless it actually is in a fighters hometown(see hint one) there is no home field advantage,now if the fight was happening at say the Core States Spectrum(or whatever they call it this week) youd have a point,but last I checked Bernard has only had one fight there in next to forever
Get it through your heads,I know you guys have a sense of identity,thats great,it really is.In the states we dont,its a massive country that almost nobody is actually from.
Joe actually would have had a better shot if he had gone for the Yankee Stadium deal,because honestly people from Philly and New York dont dislike each other,they loathe each other at a level that makes Russia and Germany seem like an ongoing tiff
I dare anyone to go to an Eagles Giants game and tell me thats not the case,especially if its in Philly
on regards to hint 2, I think you mean unnoticed in the STATES until they go to the STATES, they are pretty well known here in europe. Whenever Hopkins/Calzaghe debate comes up, you bring up the same old shit. I bet we're only a couple of posts away from you mentioning that Kessler/Calzaghe made the worst ratings in 2007 in the states, well guess what, that reflects much worse on the knowledge the fans posses stateside than any shortcomings those fighters may or may not have.
Hint 3 can be applied to any nation in the world, perhaps you could attend a Barcelona/Madrid game or Cardiff/Millwall match wearing the wrong replica shirt in your choice of section of fans.
Hint 1 about saying we're nearer the Germans than las vegans to philidelphians is about as offensive as anything ever said on this site, unless your point is purely geographical.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Sorry bro, but I just can't see where you're coming from calling it a bulls**t statement. Calzaghe's 35 years old and has always made it clear that he's not going to go on fighting too long like a Holyfield.
You state yourself that Hopkins is a never-aging phenom, so you can't put everyone up against his yardstick. The only reason that Hopkins is still fighting at 43 is that he's picked his fights carefully, choosing those he can win, and fighting in a style that makes him very difficult to hit and in a way where he doesn't take too much damage. I wouldn't want Calzaghe to go down that route and become a spoiler to negate the aging factor.
Same goes with your comment mate, I mean if u think Hopkins has picked his opponents carefully then u must agree the same can be said about Joe C who has historically fought lsser opponents than BHOP.
Sorry, but I think the way that Hopkins has picked his opponents is different to the way Calzaghe has. Calzaghe has chosen not to go to light-heavy and start from scratch where there was, for a long time, a bit more competition.
Hopkins has picked his opponents over recent years that he knows he can drag down to his level and that he can utilise his roughhouse spoiling style on effectively.
I agree that career-wise Calzaghe doesn't have the huge names that Hopkins has, but the Hopkins revival with his fights against Tarver and Winky were very well chosen opponents for him.
I disagree about Tarver. I think you're looking at it retrospectively. When the fight was announced very few people on here were picking Hopkins to win and most of us felt he was just taking the fight for the money.
Tarver looked awful in that fight but he hadn't upto that point and in winning back to rematches with Jones Jr and Johnson he was firmly established as the Ring Champ at 175 lbs.
That was a great win for BHop in my opinion and ironically considering the weight class it took place, possibly the signature fight of his entire career.
Tarver looked awful beating Jones the 3rd time. He had been messing about with his weight making Rocky movies.
Fighting him at that point was an extremely shrewd pick from Hopkins. He was there for the taking.
It's hardly surprising the majority picked against Hopkins. He was coming off back-to-back losses against Taylor, 41, and moving up two weight classes (although it was pretty clear Hopkins could have always been a lightheavy).
And Reid looked awful getting out boxed by a 40+ Sugar Boy Malinga shortly before Calzaghe fight. Woodhall looked awful shortly before Calzaghe fight getting dropped 3 times by Veit. Brewer shortly before Calzaghe fight was destroyed by Echols, Sheika had looked awful against Glen Johnson shortly before Calzaghe fight.
Need i go on ?? you say how Tarver didn't look impressive against Jones in there rubber match. But forget the fact that most of Calzaghe's best wins, were coming off bad losses shortly before there fights with Calzaghe or had looked rubbish in there fights. But the difference is Calzaghe was the major favorite in all of these fights, where as Hopkins was the underdog.
If you like, Icey. Tell me why are you using Calzaghe as an example? I wasn't comparing Hopkins with Calzaghe, was I?. You could of used any boxer to do that.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Sorry bro, but I just can't see where you're coming from calling it a bulls**t statement. Calzaghe's 35 years old and has always made it clear that he's not going to go on fighting too long like a Holyfield.
You state yourself that Hopkins is a never-aging phenom, so you can't put everyone up against his yardstick. The only reason that Hopkins is still fighting at 43 is that he's picked his fights carefully, choosing those he can win, and fighting in a style that makes him very difficult to hit and in a way where he doesn't take too much damage. I wouldn't want Calzaghe to go down that route and become a spoiler to negate the aging factor.
Same goes with your comment mate, I mean if u think Hopkins has picked his opponents carefully then u must agree the same can be said about Joe C who has historically fought lsser opponents than BHOP.
Sorry, but I think the way that Hopkins has picked his opponents is different to the way Calzaghe has. Calzaghe has chosen not to go to light-heavy and start from scratch where there was, for a long time, a bit more competition.
Hopkins has picked his opponents over recent years that he knows he can drag down to his level and that he can utilise his roughhouse spoiling style on effectively.
I agree that career-wise Calzaghe doesn't have the huge names that Hopkins has, but the Hopkins revival with his fights against Tarver and Winky were very well chosen opponents for him.
I disagree about Tarver. I think you're looking at it retrospectively. When the fight was announced very few people on here were picking Hopkins to win and most of us felt he was just taking the fight for the money.
Tarver looked awful in that fight but he hadn't upto that point and in winning back to rematches with Jones Jr and Johnson he was firmly established as the Ring Champ at 175 lbs.
That was a great win for BHop in my opinion and ironically considering the weight class it took place, possibly the signature fight of his entire career.
Tarver looked awful beating Jones the 3rd time. He had been messing about with his weight making Rocky movies.
Fighting him at that point was an extremely shrewd pick from Hopkins. He was there for the taking.
It's hardly surprising the majority picked against Hopkins. He was coming off back-to-back losses against Taylor, 41, and moving up two weight classes (although it was pretty clear Hopkins could have always been a lightheavy).
And Reid looked awful getting out boxed by a 40+ Sugar Boy Malinga shortly before Calzaghe fight. Woodhall looked awful shortly before Calzaghe fight getting dropped 3 times by Veit. Brewer shortly before Calzaghe fight was destroyed by Echols, Sheika had looked awful against Glen Johnson shortly before Calzaghe fight.
Need i go on ?? you say how Tarver didn't look impressive against Jones in there rubber match. But forget the fact that most of Calzaghe's best wins, were coming off bad losses shortly before there fights with Calzaghe or had looked rubbish in there fights. But the difference is Calzaghe was the major favorite in all of these fights, where as Hopkins was the underdog.
If you like, Icey. Tell me why are you using Calzaghe as an example? I wasn't comparing Hopkins with Calzaghe, was I?. You could of used any boxer to do that.
I was right though wasn't i ?? ;)
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
I don't know
Were you?
Maybe you're having a Calzaghe bashing day?
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
I don't know
Were you?
Maybe you're having a Calzaghe bashing day?
Your comments.
Tarver looked awful beating Jones the 3rd time. He had been messing about with his weight making Rocky movies.
Fighting him at that point was an extremely shrewd pick from Hopkins. He was there for the taking.
So i comeback using Calzaghe as an example considering this is a Calzaghe and Hopkins thread yes ?? and i used the facts about most of Calzaghe's best opposition had looked garbage shortly before fighting Calzaghe. You keep bashing Hopkins but forget that your favorite fighter Calzaghe or one of your favorite fighters, has also done the same. But except Calzaghe was a big favorite in those fights i mentioned where as Hopkins was the underdog against Tarver.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
I don't know
Were you?
Maybe you're having a Calzaghe bashing day?
Your comments.
Tarver looked awful beating Jones the 3rd time. He had been messing about with his weight making Rocky movies.
Fighting him at that point was an extremely shrewd pick from Hopkins. He was there for the taking.
So i comeback using Calzaghe as an example considering this is a Calzaghe and Hopkins thread yes ?? and i used the facts about most of Calzaghe's best opposition had looked garbage shortly before fighting Calzaghe. You keep bashing Hopkins but forget that your favorite fighter Calzaghe or one of your favorite fighters, has also done the same. But except Calzaghe was a big favorite in those fights i mentioned where as Hopkins was the underdog against Tarver.
I didn't bash Hopkins.
I PRAISED Hopkins for making an extremely shrewd fight pick.
Get your facts staight, son ;)
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
I don't know
Were you?
Maybe you're having a Calzaghe bashing day?
Your comments.
Tarver looked awful beating Jones the 3rd time. He had been messing about with his weight making Rocky movies.
Fighting him at that point was an extremely shrewd pick from Hopkins. He was there for the taking.
So i comeback using Calzaghe as an example considering this is a Calzaghe and Hopkins thread yes ?? and i used the facts about most of Calzaghe's best opposition had looked garbage shortly before fighting Calzaghe. You keep bashing Hopkins but forget that your favorite fighter Calzaghe or one of your favorite fighters, has also done the same. But except Calzaghe was a big favorite in those fights i mentioned where as Hopkins was the underdog against Tarver.
I didn't bash Hopkins.
I PRAISED Hopkins for making an extremely shrewd fight pick.
Get your facts staight, son ;)
You was taking credit away from Hopkins,
He was there for the taking.
Tarver looked awful beating Jones the 3rd time.
Fighting him at that point was an extremely shrewd pick from Hopkins.
You know what you was implying so don't try and twist it around, you was taking credit away from Hopkins. Even though Hopkins was a big underdog, and Hopkins gave Tarver a boxing lesson and won every single round. Hopkins deserves all the credit in the world for taking the risk to move up 2 weight divisions to beat Tarver.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Tarver was a weak champion, Without a Prime Roy, 175 is a weak division.
Hopkins won the universally recognized, linear, supa-dupa ring-magazine belt by beating a weak champ.
Not meaning to knock him down a peg in relation to Calzaghe.... He's career is defintely more elustrious than Joe's..... But truth be told n all that.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimafee
Tarver was a weak champion, Without a Prime Roy, 175 is a weak division.
Hopkins won the universally recognized, linear, supa-dupa ring-magazine belt by beating a weak champ.
Not meaning to knock him down a peg in relation to Calzaghe.... He's career is defintely more elustrious than Joe's..... But truth be told n all that.
No one considered Tarver a weak champion before the Hopkins fight, like i said earlier Hopkins moved up 2 weight classes to take on Tarver after Hopkins was coming off 2 losses. He deserves all the credit in the world, and i think people are forgetting how many were picking Hopkins to lose, and how many were picking Tarver to win, Hopkins was the big underdog and absolutely shut out Tarver winning every round and gave out a masterclass.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
I don't know
Were you?
Maybe you're having a Calzaghe bashing day?
Your comments.
Tarver looked awful beating Jones the 3rd time. He had been messing about with his weight making Rocky movies.
Fighting him at that point was an extremely shrewd pick from Hopkins. He was there for the taking.
So i comeback using Calzaghe as an example considering this is a Calzaghe and Hopkins thread yes ?? and i used the facts about most of Calzaghe's best opposition had looked garbage shortly before fighting Calzaghe. You keep bashing Hopkins but forget that your favorite fighter Calzaghe or one of your favorite fighters, has also done the same. But except Calzaghe was a big favorite in those fights i mentioned where as Hopkins was the underdog against Tarver.
I didn't bash Hopkins.
I PRAISED Hopkins for making an extremely shrewd fight pick.
Get your facts staight, son ;)
You was taking credit away from Hopkins,
He was there for the taking.
Tarver looked awful beating Jones the 3rd time.
Fighting him at that point was an extremely shrewd pick from Hopkins.
You know what you was implying so don't try and twist it around, you was taking credit away from Hopkins. Even though Hopkins was a big underdog, and Hopkins gave Tarver a boxing lesson and won every single round. Hopkins deserves all the credit in the world for taking the risk to move up 2 weight divisions to beat Tarver.
No I wasn't taking credit away from Hopkins. YOU just assumed that.
Do you believe Hopkins would have fought Tarver if he didn't think he could beat him? Tarver was ready for the taking. Old BHOP recognised that. It takes skill and intelligence to recognise that type of thing.
Guys like you THOUGHT Hopkins was a big dog, guys like ME and old BHOP KNEW he could beat him. ;)
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
I don't know
Were you?
Maybe you're having a Calzaghe bashing day?
Your comments.
Tarver looked awful beating Jones the 3rd time. He had been messing about with his weight making Rocky movies.
Fighting him at that point was an extremely shrewd pick from Hopkins. He was there for the taking.
So i comeback using Calzaghe as an example considering this is a Calzaghe and Hopkins thread yes ?? and i used the facts about most of Calzaghe's best opposition had looked garbage shortly before fighting Calzaghe. You keep bashing Hopkins but forget that your favorite fighter Calzaghe or one of your favorite fighters, has also done the same. But except Calzaghe was a big favorite in those fights i mentioned where as Hopkins was the underdog against Tarver.
I didn't bash Hopkins.
I PRAISED Hopkins for making an extremely shrewd fight pick.
Get your facts staight, son ;)
You was taking credit away from Hopkins,
He was there for the taking.
Tarver looked awful beating Jones the 3rd time.
Fighting him at that point was an extremely shrewd pick from Hopkins.
You know what you was implying so don't try and twist it around, you was taking credit away from Hopkins. Even though Hopkins was a big underdog, and Hopkins gave Tarver a boxing lesson and won every single round. Hopkins deserves all the credit in the world for taking the risk to move up 2 weight divisions to beat Tarver.
No I wasn't taking credit away from Hopkins. YOU just assumed that.
Do you believe Hopkins would have fought Tarver if he didn't think he could beat him? Tarver was ready for the taking. Old BHOP recognised that. It takes skill and intelligence to recognise that type of thing.
Guys like you THOUGHT Hopkins was a big dog, guys like ME and old BHOP KNEW he could beat him. ;)
Yes you was you was implying Tarver was there for the taking, even though hardly anyone thought that before the fight. You also tried to take credit away from Hopkins basing Tarver's performance against Jones in there rubber match, but lets not forget Jones was incredibly gun shy and was there to survive. And its hard to look good against someone who is there to survive but he still won easily by 9 rounds to 3 or 8 rounds to 4. Tarver was still a big favorite and Hopkins was considered the underdog by mostly everyone and he moved up 2 weight classes and took a major risk.
You just contradicted yourself with this comment.
Guys like you THOUGHT Hopkins was a big dog,
Now your the one assuming that i thought Hopkins was the big underdog when i never said that. I said *MOST* people considered Hopkins the underdog. I thought Hopkins would win but i thought he would win a close decision i don't think anyone could of predicted that Hopkins would of shut out Tarver.
Anyways i still think Calzaghe wins a UD 115-113, 116-113, 115-113.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Oh right so now YOU believed Hopkins would win and you're NOT part of the *MOST* people that made Hopkins a big dog. ;D
You da man Icey, You da man.
Hopkins was 41, coming off two losses and moving up two weight-classes (clearly avoiding Calzaghe at supermiddle).. Why did you believe Hopkins would beat Tarver when *MOST* thought otherwise?
And why are you so impressed if it wasn't an upset to you?
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Oh right so now YOU believed Hopkins would win and you're NOT part of the *MOST* people that made Hopkins a big dog. ;D
You da man Icey, You da man.
Hopkins was 41, coming off two losses and moving up two weight-classes (clearly avoiding Calzaghe at supermiddle).. Why did you believe Hopkins would beat Tarver when *MOST* thought otherwise?
And why are you so impressed if it wasn't an upset to you?
I thought Hopkins would win a hard fought close decision, what is impressive to me about it is that Hopkins shut out Tarver completely and gave a masterclass, i was shocked when i watched how Hopkins so easily handled Tarver, like Tarver was a sparring partner. And moving up two weight classes to shut out a big Light Heavyweight like Tarver, when most people thought Hopkins was crazy moving up is very impressive and Hopkins deserves all the credit in the world.
I think this *avoiding* talk should be stopped, because Hopkins and Calzaghe are both fighting now. So whoever wins will get the bragging rights and will be considered one of the best of there era. Lets just hope it isn't a messy fight like i expect it to be.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
It was all Hopkins good work was it?
So you didn't think Tarver looked absoulutey shockingly TERRIBLE then (even worse than against Roy 3rd time) probably due to weight loss after going all Hollywood?
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimafee
Tarver was a weak champion, Without a Prime Roy, 175 is a weak division.
Hopkins won the universally recognized, linear, supa-dupa ring-magazine belt by beating a weak champ.
Not meaning to knock him down a peg in relation to Calzaghe.... He's career is defintely more elustrious than Joe's..... But truth be told n all that.
No one considered Tarver a weak champion before the Hopkins fight, like i said earlier Hopkins moved up 2 weight classes to take on Tarver after Hopkins was coming off 2 losses. He deserves all the credit in the world, and i think people are forgetting how many were picking Hopkins to lose, and how many were picking Tarver to win, Hopkins was the big underdog and absolutely shut out Tarver winning every round and gave out a masterclass.
And then we all realised Taver is shite ;)
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Sorry bro, but I just can't see where you're coming from calling it a bulls**t statement. Calzaghe's 35 years old and has always made it clear that he's not going to go on fighting too long like a Holyfield.
You state yourself that Hopkins is a never-aging phenom, so you can't put everyone up against his yardstick. The only reason that Hopkins is still fighting at 43 is that he's picked his fights carefully, choosing those he can win, and fighting in a style that makes him very difficult to hit and in a way where he doesn't take too much damage. I wouldn't want Calzaghe to go down that route and become a spoiler to negate the aging factor.
Same goes with your comment mate, I mean if u think Hopkins has picked his opponents carefully then u must agree the same can be said about Joe C who has historically fought lsser opponents than BHOP.
Sorry, but I think the way that Hopkins has picked his opponents is different to the way Calzaghe has. Calzaghe has chosen not to go to light-heavy and start from scratch where there was, for a long time, a bit more competition.
Hopkins has picked his opponents over recent years that he knows he can drag down to his level and that he can utilise his roughhouse spoiling style on effectively.
I agree that career-wise Calzaghe doesn't have the huge names that Hopkins has, but the Hopkins revival with his fights against Tarver and Winky were very well chosen opponents for him.
I disagree about Tarver. I think you're looking at it retrospectively. When the fight was announced very few people on here were picking Hopkins to win and most of us felt he was just taking the fight for the money.
Tarver looked awful in that fight but he hadn't upto that point and in winning back to rematches with Jones Jr and Johnson he was firmly established as the Ring Champ at 175 lbs.
That was a great win for BHop in my opinion and ironically considering the weight class it took place, possibly the signature fight of his entire career.
Not quite what I said Bilbo, but I accept your points in the Tarver was well-recognised and respected at the time. However, the point I was trying to make was that in Winky and Tarver Hopkins chose opponents that he believed he would be able to tie up, spoil, and make to fight his fight.
And that's his mistake, because in picking Calzaghe, he's chosen a guy who is lightning fast and isn't as easy to pin down.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
I don't know
Were you?
Maybe you're having a Calzaghe bashing day?
Your comments.
Tarver looked awful beating Jones the 3rd time. He had been messing about with his weight making Rocky movies.
Fighting him at that point was an extremely shrewd pick from Hopkins. He was there for the taking.
So i comeback using Calzaghe as an example considering this is a Calzaghe and Hopkins thread yes ?? and i used the facts about most of Calzaghe's best opposition had looked garbage shortly before fighting Calzaghe. You keep bashing Hopkins but forget that your favorite fighter Calzaghe or one of your favorite fighters, has also done the same. But except Calzaghe was a big favorite in those fights i mentioned where as Hopkins was the underdog against Tarver.
I didn't bash Hopkins.
I PRAISED Hopkins for making an extremely shrewd fight pick.
Get your facts staight, son ;)
You was taking credit away from Hopkins,
He was there for the taking.
Tarver looked awful beating Jones the 3rd time.
Fighting him at that point was an extremely shrewd pick from Hopkins.
You know what you was implying so don't try and twist it around, you was taking credit away from Hopkins. Even though Hopkins was a big underdog, and Hopkins gave Tarver a boxing lesson and won every single round. Hopkins deserves all the credit in the world for taking the risk to move up 2 weight divisions to beat Tarver.
No I wasn't taking credit away from Hopkins. YOU just assumed that.
Do you believe Hopkins would have fought Tarver if he didn't think he could beat him? Tarver was ready for the taking. Old BHOP recognised that. It takes skill and intelligence to recognise that type of thing.
Guys like you THOUGHT Hopkins was a big dog, guys like ME and old BHOP KNEW he could beat him. ;)
So by your logic Hopkins is only fighting Calzaghe becuase he knows he can beat him too right? ::**
Or is he just taking a final big payday against Calzaghe?
Oh but isn't that what everyone said when the Tarver fight was announced? :-\
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
I don't know
Were you?
Maybe you're having a Calzaghe bashing day?
Your comments.
Tarver looked awful beating Jones the 3rd time. He had been messing about with his weight making Rocky movies.
Fighting him at that point was an extremely shrewd pick from Hopkins. He was there for the taking.
So i comeback using Calzaghe as an example considering this is a Calzaghe and Hopkins thread yes ?? and i used the facts about most of Calzaghe's best opposition had looked garbage shortly before fighting Calzaghe. You keep bashing Hopkins but forget that your favorite fighter Calzaghe or one of your favorite fighters, has also done the same. But except Calzaghe was a big favorite in those fights i mentioned where as Hopkins was the underdog against Tarver.
I didn't bash Hopkins.
I PRAISED Hopkins for making an extremely shrewd fight pick.
Get your facts staight, son ;)
You was taking credit away from Hopkins,
He was there for the taking.
Tarver looked awful beating Jones the 3rd time.
Fighting him at that point was an extremely shrewd pick from Hopkins.
You know what you was implying so don't try and twist it around, you was taking credit away from Hopkins. Even though Hopkins was a big underdog, and Hopkins gave Tarver a boxing lesson and won every single round. Hopkins deserves all the credit in the world for taking the risk to move up 2 weight divisions to beat Tarver.
No I wasn't taking credit away from Hopkins. YOU just assumed that.
Do you believe Hopkins would have fought Tarver if he didn't think he could beat him? Tarver was ready for the taking. Old BHOP recognised that. It takes skill and intelligence to recognise that type of thing.
Guys like you THOUGHT Hopkins was a big dog, guys like ME and old BHOP KNEW he could beat him. ;)
So by your logic Hopkins is only fighting Calzaghe becuase he knows he can beat him too right? ::**
Or is he just taking a final big payday against Calzaghe?
Oh but isn't that what everyone said when the Tarver fight was announced? :-\
For sure
Don't you know Old BHOP is a superior human being to any white man? He'll never lose to a white person. You better believe it cracker.
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Or is he just taking a final big payday against Calzaghe?
Oh but isn't that what everyone said when the Tarver fight was announced? :-\
No ???
-
Re: Calzaghe/Hopkins article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimafee
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Or is he just taking a final big payday against Calzaghe?
Oh but isn't that what everyone said when the Tarver fight was announced? :-\
No ???
When did anyone ever rate Tarver?
He sparked out an ancient Roy Jones. Flukey as that win was, it was completely diluted when Glenn - robbed every fight, although really one-step above journeyman - Johnson sparked out the ancient Roy Jones.
Was it not?
