How Do You Rank Jones, Calzaghe, and Hopkins ATGreatness As Of Now?

I would have:
1.Hopkins
2.Jones
3.Calzaghe

I guess you could say its crazy to have B-Hop #1 of the group given he lost to both men, and I guess you could criticize Calzaghe being 3rd on the list cause he beat both men. But when it comes to overall accomplishments over their long careers Hopkins has the edge. Also considering that he arguably never really decisively lost a fight...except maybe to Jones. Prime Jones was an amazing fighter and he is clearly not the same fighter today and hasn't been since winning the heavyweight title. Calzaghe has had a great career and his biggest wins over prime opposition remain his wins against Kessler and Lacy and arguably Hopkins. He did beat RJJ and deserves some credit but it wasnt the career defining win he sought but it keeps his record unblemished and adds a good name to his resume.

I wouldnt argue any order of the greatness of these fighters because all three of them have had unbelievable careers and have made record breaking accomplishments in boxings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boom Boom

I would have:
1.Hopkins
2.Jones
3.Calzaghe

I guess you could say its crazy to have B-Hop #1 of the group given he lost to both men, and I guess you could criticize Calzaghe being 3rd on the list cause he beat both men. But when it comes to overall accomplishments over their long careers Hopkins has the edge. Also considering that he arguably never really decisively lost a fight...except maybe to Jones. Prime Jones was an amazing fighter and he is clearly not the same fighter today and hasn't been since winning the heavyweight title. Calzaghe has had a great career and his biggest wins over prime opposition remain his wins against Kessler and Lacy and arguably Hopkins. He did beat RJJ and deserves some credit but it wasnt the career defining win he sought but it keeps his record unblemished and adds a good name to his resume.

I wouldnt argue any order of the greatness of these fighters because all three of them have had unbelievable careers and have made record breaking accomplishments in boxings

---

Throw Toney in there and you could have them in any order.

I'd say a prime Jones is still the best but that's just my opinion. Wouldn't complain about the order anyone puts them in to be honest.

There's nothing wrong with Calzaghe's win over Hopkins. Hopkins showed top form before the loss and even better after. Roy beat Hopkins fair and square too.

So Hopkins is definitely 3rd.

1. Roy
2. Calzaghe
3. Hopkins

1.Jones
2.Hopkins
3.Calzaghe

But its a bit of a toss up between Hopkins and Jones because of his achievements at this end of his career vs Tarver,Wright,Pavlik and even his loss to Calzaghe because its debatable.

Hopkins
Calzaghe
Jones

(Calzaghe's win over Jones has nothing to do with him rated higher IMO).

I still rank Jones higher than those guys. IMO Jones is still a top 15 ATG.

I think you that rate Joe over RJJ are fucking crazy. So victories over Lacy, Kessler, a razor thin victory over Hopkins and a win over the shell of Roy equal winning titles everywhere from MIDDLEWEIGHT to HEAVYWEIGHT?!? You have to be out of you g'damn mind. People say Roy's compedition was bad. Calzaghe's was better? Bull sh#t.

jones
calzage
hopkins
Come on it has to be jones a five weight world champion there has only ever been one other fighter in history to do that
calzage second depending on weather he gets out undefeated b hop close behind

its really tough to rank these 3 really really tough as much as i like joe

i cant decide

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrodub

jones
calzage
hopkins
Come on it has to be jones a five weight world champion there has only ever been one other fighter in history to do that
calzage second depending on weather he gets out undefeated b hop close behind

---

I view it the same way I rank Hagler over Mosley. Shane has titles in 3 divisions, Marvin in only 1, but he ranks higher because of who he fought and beat. I actually think Joe and Roy could be interchangeable however I personally feel Roy is full of sh!t after watching him on 24/7, and simply don't believe 90% of what he says, whereas B-Hop is 100% honest and not only tells it like it is, but goes after fighters who pose great risks (something Roy and Joe seldom did).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

There's nothing wrong with Calzaghe's win over Hopkins. Hopkins showed top form before the loss and even better after. Roy beat Hopkins fair and square too.

So Hopkins is definitely 3rd.

---

Negative. Losing to a fighter doesn't suddenly mean you are below them in rank.
Hopkins beat better opposition than calzaghe and it can be argued that he won the fight against him.

We can all argue that Hopkins/Calzaghe would beat more people than Jones can aswell.
It's pretty obvious already they can definitely reign supreme alot longer than jones.

I said this in another tread.

If One beats Three - Ten.
And Two beats One, but loses to Three through ten.
who is the better fighter? Losing to someone means absolutely nothing in the sport of boxing. Styles make fights. It's who you and the man who beat you can defeat that counts.

If you line up 50 men and make Jones, hopkins, calzaghe fight all 50.
Who would defeat them all? That's the question.

Imo, 1. Hopkins. 2. Jones. 3. Calzage. Based on accomplishments and resumes.
and hopkins longevity is also another factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

I still rank Jones higher than those guys. IMO Jones is still a top 15 ATG.

I think you that rate Joe over RJJ are fucking crazy. So victories over Lacy, Kessler, a razor thin victory over Hopkins and a win over the shell of Roy equal winning titles everywhere from MIDDLEWEIGHT to HEAVYWEIGHT?!? You have to be out of you g'damn mind. People say Roy's compedition was bad. Calzaghe's was better? Bull sh#t.

---

Please. Arguing whether Roys competition is better than Joes competition is like arguing if dog sh!t tastes better than bull sh!t, they both suck. Also, calling Roy heavyweight champion because he beat Ruiz would be like calling DLH middleweight champion because he beat Sturm. The real middleweight champ was Hopkins. The real heavyweight champ was Lennox. All those guys did was pick up trinckets, not titles.

Jones
Hopkins
Toney
who was the other guy ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Jones
Hopkins
Toney
who was the other guy ?

---

hahaha.. wow

Saying Jones' compedition was shit is unfair, because he did beat a lot of solid opposition. Sugar Boy Malinga, Merqui Sosa, Griffen, these guys were solid opposition but because their names aren't "Marvin Hagler" or "Stanley Ketchel", and because Jones iced them so easily, people just assume they were bums.

And ok, John Ruiz is not going to go down as one of the best HWs of all time, but he was a good, 240lb fighter. LIke him or not, he did beat a lot of other top HWs of the time like Rahman, Holyfield, Golota and Oquendo. Ruiz is no pushover.

Lets put it this way, how would you fancy Calzaghe's chances of moving up to cruiserweight for one fight and taking one of the "trinkets" there? Would you pick him to beat a Steve Cunningham or Tomasz Adamek? I sure as hell wouldn't, and it would be an incredible accomplishment if he were to do it, so don't try to downplay Jones' accomplishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

There's nothing wrong with Calzaghe's win over Hopkins. Hopkins showed top form before the loss and even better after. Roy beat Hopkins fair and square too.

So Hopkins is definitely 3rd.

---

Negative. Losing to a fighter doesn't suddenly mean you are below them in rank.
Hopkins beat better opposition than calzaghe and it can be argued that he won the fight against him.

---

I don't know about that. Hopkins reign at Middleweight is a list of mediocre names apart from Tito (a Welterweight who started at Junior Welter) and ODLH (a Welterweight who started at Lightweight) His best win after Middleweight was at 170lbs against Wink (a Junior Middleweight fighting 10 pounds heavier than he ever had previously) You can pick apart any fighters resume, and RJJ, Calzaghe and Hopkins are 3 in particular that you can pick apart.

...I can't see why anyone would think more of Calzaghe than they do of Wladimir Klitschko. If Wlad crushed Evander Holyfield that would be about the same as Joe beating Roy last night.

Joe Calzaghe never really had a prime competitor to push him to his limit and test him. I guess Mikkel Kessler or Robin Reid are the closest he got but Jones, Eubank, and Hopkins are of another era.



1. Roy
2. Toney
3. Hopkins
4. Calzaghe

Statistically I think JC has a good claim to be ahead of Hopkins, but my feeling is that they should be rated as

RJJ
B-Hop
JC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

There's nothing wrong with Calzaghe's win over Hopkins. Hopkins showed top form before the loss and even better after. Roy beat Hopkins fair and square too.

So Hopkins is definitely 3rd.

---

Negative. Losing to a fighter doesn't suddenly mean you are below them in rank.
Hopkins beat better opposition than calzaghe and it can be argued that he won the fight against him.

We can all argue that Hopkins/Calzaghe would beat more people than Jones can aswell.
It's pretty obvious already they can definitely reign supreme alot longer than jones.

I said this in another tread.

If One beats Three - Ten.
And Two beats One, but loses to Three through ten.
who is the better fighter? Losing to someone means absolutely nothing in the sport of boxing. Styles make fights. It's who you and the man who beat you can defeat that counts.

If you line up 50 men and make Jones, hopkins, calzaghe fight all 50.
Who would defeat them all? That's the question.

Imo, 1. Hopkins. 2. Jones. 3. Calzage. Based on accomplishments and resumes.
and hopkins longevity is also another factor.

---

Negative.

"Losing to someone means absolutely nothing in the sport of boxing." That is beyond RIDICULOUS. :rolleyes:

You can argue Hopkins beat Calzaghe all day long.. BUT the FACT is Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. There's NO excuses highlighted by Hopkins form before and after the loss.

Who has Hopkins ever beaten that would WITHOUT DOUBT beat Calzaghe? No one.

Who has Calzaghe ever beaten that would WITHOUT DOUBT beat Hopkins? No one. (well apart from Roy of course)

Calzaghe is unbeaten.

So the fact that Calzaghe beat Hopkins without any excuses makes him better. Simpe as.

Jones
Calzaghe
Hopkins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

There's nothing wrong with Calzaghe's win over Hopkins. Hopkins showed top form before the loss and even better after. Roy beat Hopkins fair and square too.

So Hopkins is definitely 3rd.

---

Negative. Losing to a fighter doesn't suddenly mean you are below them in rank.
Hopkins beat better opposition than calzaghe and it can be argued that he won the fight against him.

---

I don't know about that. Hopkins reign at Middleweight is a list of mediocre names apart from Tito (a Welterweight who started at Junior Welter) and ODLH (a Welterweight who started at Lightweight) His best win after Middleweight was at 170lbs against Wink (a Junior Middleweight fighting 10 pounds heavier than he ever had previously) You can pick apart any fighters resume, and RJJ, Calzaghe and Hopkins are 3 in particular that you can pick apart.

---

This is true. But Hopkins has very good names on his resume, something Calzaghe lacks.
Hopkins, although outsized guys, beat guys who would have moved up and dominated others in the division. Oscar has been successful at 154-160. Winky was still very game in that fight, etc etc.

Hopkins beat people who werent just great, but POUND FOR POUND great. Guys who could actually move up and do damage, hopkins beat. So the fights were definitely still in their grasps.

I still think Oscar took a fall in the hopkins fight though haha. I dont include him in bhops resume :D

It would have been nice had all these fighters gotten to fight each other in their primes: RJJ, Toney, Calzaghe, Hopkins, Eubank, Benn, Collins, McClellan, Jackson, Nunn, Michalczewski, Ottke.


You can make cases for most of them being over protected...which is sad, but that's life

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

There's nothing wrong with Calzaghe's win over Hopkins. Hopkins showed top form before the loss and even better after. Roy beat Hopkins fair and square too.

So Hopkins is definitely 3rd.

---

Negative. Losing to a fighter doesn't suddenly mean you are below them in rank.
Hopkins beat better opposition than calzaghe and it can be argued that he won the fight against him.

We can all argue that Hopkins/Calzaghe would beat more people than Jones can aswell.
It's pretty obvious already they can definitely reign supreme alot longer than jones.

I said this in another tread.

If One beats Three - Ten.
And Two beats One, but loses to Three through ten.
who is the better fighter? Losing to someone means absolutely nothing in the sport of boxing. Styles make fights. It's who you and the man who beat you can defeat that counts.

If you line up 50 men and make Jones, hopkins, calzaghe fight all 50.
Who would defeat them all? That's the question.

Imo, 1. Hopkins. 2. Jones. 3. Calzage. Based on accomplishments and resumes.
and hopkins longevity is also another factor.

---

Negative.

"Losing to someone means absolutely nothing in the sport of boxing." That is beyond RIDICULOUS. :rolleyes:

You can argue Hopkins beat Calzaghe all day long.. BUT the FACT is Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. There's NO excuses highlighted by Hopkins form before and after the loss.

Who has Hopkins ever beaten that would WITHOUT DOUBT beat Calzaghe? No one.

Who has Calzaghe ever beaten that would WITHOUT DOUBT beat Hopkins? No one. (well apart from Roy of course)

Calzaghe is unbeaten.

So the fact that Calzaghe beat Hopkins without any excuses makes him better. Simpe as.

---

Missed my point completely.

"If you line up 50 men and make Jones, hopkins, calzaghe fight all 50.
Who would defeat them all? That's the question."

and don't be dumb. Let's not theorize and guess that Cal or Hopkins would have both defeated both their opposition.. because they didn't fight them. You can only give credit for the fights that have taken place. And hopkins has a stronger resume. Its not even arguable.

Big names on the list, a long title reign, and incredible longevity.

Roy has accolades in the sport that surpass joes aswell. What does joe have? He has no accomplishments other than his Reign in 1 division and 3 names.
Be real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Saying Jones' compedition was shit is unfair, because he did beat a lot of solid opposition. Sugar Boy Malinga, Merqui Sosa, Griffen, these guys were solid opposition but because their names aren't "Marvin Hagler" or "Stanley Ketchel", and because Jones iced them so easily, people just assume they were bums.

And ok, John Ruiz is not going to go down as one of the best HWs of all time, but he was a good, 240lb fighter. LIke him or not, he did beat a lot of other top HWs of the time like Rahman, Holyfield, Golota and Oquendo. Ruiz is no pushover.

Lets put it this way, how would you fancy Calzaghe's chances of moving up to cruiserweight for one fight and taking one of the "trinkets" there? Would you pick him to beat a Steve Cunningham or Tomasz Adamek? I sure as hell wouldn't, and it would be an incredible accomplishment if he were to do it, so don't try to downplay Jones' accomplishment.

---

Actually, I will downplay Roy's accomplishment, because his 'accomplishments' are the only thing preventing me from ranking him #1. Accomplishments are not what 'would' someone do, it's what 'did' someone do. It's like saying how would Jack Dempsey do if he fought Tony Tucker, (he'd probably lose), however Dempsey ranks higher because of what he 'did.' No one's saying Roy's competition is sh!t, we're saying both he and Joe's level of competition is far below B-Hop's, and therefore it's frivolous to compare two things that are subpar to begin with. Also, since when did we start giving ATG's credit for beating people who merely 'aren't pushovers?' I thought the whole point of this was pointing out career highlights, not career fillers.

Ray Robinson lost to Carmen Basilio....doesn't mean Carmen is rated higher all-time than him though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Ray Robinson lost to Carmen Basilio....doesn't mean Carmen is rated higher all-time than him though

---

thank you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Negative. Losing to a fighter doesn't suddenly mean you are below them in rank.
Hopkins beat better opposition than calzaghe and it can be argued that he won the fight against him.

We can all argue that Hopkins/Calzaghe would beat more people than Jones can aswell.
It's pretty obvious already they can definitely reign supreme alot longer than jones.

I said this in another tread.

If One beats Three - Ten.
And Two beats One, but loses to Three through ten.
who is the better fighter? Losing to someone means absolutely nothing in the sport of boxing. Styles make fights. It's who you and the man who beat you can defeat that counts.

If you line up 50 men and make Jones, hopkins, calzaghe fight all 50.
Who would defeat them all? That's the question.

Imo, 1. Hopkins. 2. Jones. 3. Calzage. Based on accomplishments and resumes.
and hopkins longevity is also another factor.

---

Negative.

"Losing to someone means absolutely nothing in the sport of boxing." That is beyond RIDICULOUS. :rolleyes:

You can argue Hopkins beat Calzaghe all day long.. BUT the FACT is Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. There's NO excuses highlighted by Hopkins form before and after the loss.

Who has Hopkins ever beaten that would WITHOUT DOUBT beat Calzaghe? No one.

Who has Calzaghe ever beaten that would WITHOUT DOUBT beat Hopkins? No one. (well apart from Roy of course)

Calzaghe is unbeaten.

So the fact that Calzaghe beat Hopkins without any excuses makes him better. Simpe as.

---

Missed my point completely.

"If you line up 50 men and make Jones, hopkins, calzaghe fight all 50.
Who would defeat them all? That's the question."

and don't be dumb. Let's not theorize and guess that Cal or Hopkins would have both defeated both their opposition.. because they didn't fight them. You can only give credit for the fights that have taken place. And hopkins has a stronger resume. Its not even arguable.

Big names on the list, a long title reign, and incredible longevity.

Roy has accolades in the sport that surpass joes aswell. What does joe have? He has no accomplishments other than his Reign in 1 division and 3 names.
Be real.

---

Err.. i don't think so. What's the difference between guessing who would win the most out of 50 fantasy matches and guessing who would win should they face each others comp?

It's both equally IMPOSSIBLE to determine the outcome.

"You can only give credit for the fights that have taken place" Exactly!!!

Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. Fact. So theorise and guess all you like about the "50 men" and you will ALWAYS get Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. ;)

Someone just said jones was full of shit and hopkins tells it like it is come on hopkins made a load of stupid excuses after the calzaghe fight did you no he was sick thats why he lost(wink)
Also to say hopkins was a true middlewight champ at that time is stupid considering jones beat hopkins before he moved up in weight and the only person of substance hopkins had beat at that point was tito then hopkins was offered a fight with jones and weisled his way out of it over money.
Also jones is a natural middleweight for him to have beat ruiz was a miracle and to put him down was even better as i said earlier there has only ever been one other guy to do that and that was in the days when heavys were only the size of todays light heavys.In his prime he was one of the most talented fighter to ever grace the ring what is hopkins legacy he wins fine but how faking low blows and holding wow great champion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Negative.

"Losing to someone means absolutely nothing in the sport of boxing." That is beyond RIDICULOUS. :rolleyes:

You can argue Hopkins beat Calzaghe all day long.. BUT the FACT is Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. There's NO excuses highlighted by Hopkins form before and after the loss.

Who has Hopkins ever beaten that would WITHOUT DOUBT beat Calzaghe? No one.

Who has Calzaghe ever beaten that would WITHOUT DOUBT beat Hopkins? No one. (well apart from Roy of course)

Calzaghe is unbeaten.

So the fact that Calzaghe beat Hopkins without any excuses makes him better. Simpe as.

---

Missed my point completely.

"If you line up 50 men and make Jones, hopkins, calzaghe fight all 50.
Who would defeat them all? That's the question."

and don't be dumb. Let's not theorize and guess that Cal or Hopkins would have both defeated both their opposition.. because they didn't fight them. You can only give credit for the fights that have taken place. And hopkins has a stronger resume. Its not even arguable.

Big names on the list, a long title reign, and incredible longevity.

Roy has accolades in the sport that surpass joes aswell. What does joe have? He has no accomplishments other than his Reign in 1 division and 3 names.
Be real.

---

Err.. i don't think so. What's the difference between guessing who would win the most out of 50 fantasy matches and guessing who would win should they face each others comp?

It's both equally IMPOSSIBLE to determine the outcome.

"You can only give credit for the fights that have taken place" Exactly!!!

Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. Fact. So theorise and guess all you like about the "50 men" and you will ALWAYS get Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. ;)

---

The fights that have taken place tell me that Hopkins has a much better Resume than Calzaghe and can defeat stronger opposition based on his resume. I never once discredited calzaghes win over hopkins. But i clearly stated Hopkins can possibly defeat more opposition, and the Loss to Calzaghe is disputeable.

The 50 fighters infront of them quote is perfectly valid, because it proves a point.
Although Cal defeated hopkins, does he defeat the other 49? Based on both of their resumes and hopkins wins over better comp - on paper - hopkins easily is the better fighter.

What don't you understand? We can't sit here and say what would or could have happened. On paper, hopkins shits all over joe calzaghe. and so does roy jones

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Jones
Hopkins
Toney
who was the other guy ?

---

LOL;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by match

Actually, I will downplay Roy's accomplishment, because his 'accomplishments' are the only thing preventing me from ranking him #1. Accomplishments are not what 'would' someone do, it's what 'did' someone do. It's like saying how would Jack Dempsey do if he fought Tony Tucker, (he'd probably lose), however Dempsey ranks higher because of what he 'did.' No one's saying Roy's competition is sh!t, we're saying both he and Joe's level of competition is far below B-Hop's, and therefore it's frivolous to compare two things that are subpar to begin with. Also, since when did we start giving ATG's credit for beating people who merely 'aren't pushovers?' I thought the whole point of this was pointing out career highlights, not career fillers.

---

Where in my post did I say I give credit to people for something they haven't done? You need to work on your reading comprehension.

I said Ruiz was no pushover AT HEAVYWEIGHT. So for someone to come up 2 weight divisions and and beat a SOLID fighter 40-50lbs bigger than him is absolutely incredible. If you can't see that then you have absolutely NO boxing knowledge whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrodub

Someone just said jones was full of shit and hopkins tells it like it is come on hopkins made a load of stupid excuses after the calzaghe fight did you no he was sick thats why he lost(wink)
Also to say hopkins was a true middlewight champ at that time is stupid considering jones beat hopkins before he moved up in weight and the only person of substance hopkins had beat at that point was tito then hopkins was offered a fight with jones and weisled his way out of it over money.
Also jones is a natural middleweight for him to have beat ruiz was a miracle and to put him down was even better as i said earlier there has only ever been one other guy to do that and that was in the days when heavys were only the size of todays light heavys.In his prime he was one of the most talented fighter to ever grace the ring what is hopkins legacy he wins fine but how faking low blows and holding wow great champion

---

Actually the majority of ringside press had Hopkins winning the Calzaghe fight, and even if you think he lost, the mere admission that it was close implies it could have gone either way (if a fight is a split decision, most of the time the losing fighter has a gripe). Also how is it 'stupid' to say Hopkins is the true middleweight champ, considering he won the belt Roy VACATED. Everyone knows Roy beat him, unfortunately, when you move up in weight, you don't take your belts with you, otherwise Roy would have entered the Ruiz fight as the reigning middleweight, supermiddleweight, and light heavyweight champion. (and lastly, anyone who puts the fall through of the Jones-Hopkins rematch on only one of the fighters is blinded by the fact that NEITHER one of them saw it as their priority).

Hopkins
Jones
Calzaghe

On technicals and a dose or reality,Calzaghe must be respected for defeating the two.Hopkins was nip & tuck with him but Joe deserved it.Jones was devestating last night.....but I feel you could see that coming.Honestly.Im not doubting Joes greatness,but Ive lived with Hopkins and Jones from day 1 here and we are not even talking 'Prime 4 prime' ,need aspirin!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by match

Actually, I will downplay Roy's accomplishment, because his 'accomplishments' are the only thing preventing me from ranking him #1. Accomplishments are not what 'would' someone do, it's what 'did' someone do. It's like saying how would Jack Dempsey do if he fought Tony Tucker, (he'd probably lose), however Dempsey ranks higher because of what he 'did.' No one's saying Roy's competition is sh!t, we're saying both he and Joe's level of competition is far below B-Hop's, and therefore it's frivolous to compare two things that are subpar to begin with. Also, since when did we start giving ATG's credit for beating people who merely 'aren't pushovers?' I thought the whole point of this was pointing out career highlights, not career fillers.

---

Where in my post did I say I give credit to people for something they haven't done? You need to work on your reading comprehension.

I said Ruiz was no pushover AT HEAVYWEIGHT. So for someone to come up 2 weight divisions and and beat a SOLID fighter 40-50lbs bigger than him is absolutely incredible. If you can't see that then you have absolutely NO boxing knowledge whatsoever.

---

Actually, you're the one who should get hooked on phonics. You just asked 'How would Calzaghe have done if he would have fought.....' And instead of trying to hurl immature insults at someone for merely disagreeing with you, ask yourself why NO ONE brings up Leonard's win over Donny Lalonde when speaking of his accomplishments. Because to most, it really doesn't matter how high you move up if you aren't willing to do so to face a great fighter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Missed my point completely.

"If you line up 50 men and make Jones, hopkins, calzaghe fight all 50.
Who would defeat them all? That's the question."

and don't be dumb. Let's not theorize and guess that Cal or Hopkins would have both defeated both their opposition.. because they didn't fight them. You can only give credit for the fights that have taken place. And hopkins has a stronger resume. Its not even arguable.

Big names on the list, a long title reign, and incredible longevity.

Roy has accolades in the sport that surpass joes aswell. What does joe have? He has no accomplishments other than his Reign in 1 division and 3 names.
Be real.

---

Err.. i don't think so. What's the difference between guessing who would win the most out of 50 fantasy matches and guessing who would win should they face each others comp?

It's both equally IMPOSSIBLE to determine the outcome.

"You can only give credit for the fights that have taken place" Exactly!!!

Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. Fact. So theorise and guess all you like about the "50 men" and you will ALWAYS get Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. ;)

---

The fights that have taken place tell me that Hopkins has a much better Resume than Calzaghe and can defeat stronger opposition based on his resume. I never once discredited calzaghes win over hopkins. But i clearly stated Hopkins can possibly defeat more opposition, and the Loss to Calzaghe is disputeable.

The 50 fighters infront of them quote is perfectly valid, because it proves a point.
Although Cal defeated hopkins, does he defeat the other 49? Based on both of their resumes and hopkins wins over better comp - on paper - hopkins easily is the better fighter.

What don't you understand? We can't sit here and say what would or could have happened. On paper, hopkins shits all over joe calzaghe. and so does roy jones

---

You're the one that don't understand. You keep contradicting yourself.

You rate Hopkins higher than Joe because you THINK Hopkins would beat MORE higher calibre fighters than Joe. You THINK. You can't PROVE it. You THINK it.

You THINK Hopkins record is better than Calzaghes? Would Joe have struggled with Tito or Oscar? Tarver and Winky?

I could equally claim i THINK Hopkins would lose to Kessler and Eubank. I can't prove it though.

The only PROVABLE thing is Hopkins LOST to Joe. No excuses. Hopkins LOST to Joe.

Therefore Joe is better. Fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Err.. i don't think so. What's the difference between guessing who would win the most out of 50 fantasy matches and guessing who would win should they face each others comp?

It's both equally IMPOSSIBLE to determine the outcome.

"You can only give credit for the fights that have taken place" Exactly!!!

Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. Fact. So theorise and guess all you like about the "50 men" and you will ALWAYS get Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. ;)

---

The fights that have taken place tell me that Hopkins has a much better Resume than Calzaghe and can defeat stronger opposition based on his resume. I never once discredited calzaghes win over hopkins. But i clearly stated Hopkins can possibly defeat more opposition, and the Loss to Calzaghe is disputeable.

The 50 fighters infront of them quote is perfectly valid, because it proves a point.
Although Cal defeated hopkins, does he defeat the other 49? Based on both of their resumes and hopkins wins over better comp - on paper - hopkins easily is the better fighter.

What don't you understand? We can't sit here and say what would or could have happened. On paper, hopkins shits all over joe calzaghe. and so does roy jones

---

You're the one that don't understand. You keep contradicting yourself.

You rate Hopkins higher than Joe because you THINK Hopkins would beat MORE higher calibre fighters than Joe. You THINK. You can't PROVE it. You THINK it.

You THINK Hopkins record is better than Calzaghes? Would Joe have struggled with Tito or Oscar? Tarver and Winky?

I could equally claim i THINK Hopkins would lose to Kessler and Eubank. I can't prove it though.

The only PROVABLE thing is Hopkins LOST to Joe. No excuses. Hopkins LOST to Joe.

Therefore Joe is better. Fact.

---

I clearly said, BASED ON THEIR RESUMES!
Jesus christ. The statistics do not lie. And i repeat.
ON PAPER.. HOPKINS SHITS ALL OVER JOE CALZAGHE
ITS A FACT.. Joe's accomplishments and resume doesnt even come CLOSE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

The fights that have taken place tell me that Hopkins has a much better Resume than Calzaghe and can defeat stronger opposition based on his resume. I never once discredited calzaghes win over hopkins. But i clearly stated Hopkins can possibly defeat more opposition, and the Loss to Calzaghe is disputeable.

The 50 fighters infront of them quote is perfectly valid, because it proves a point.
Although Cal defeated hopkins, does he defeat the other 49? Based on both of their resumes and hopkins wins over better comp - on paper - hopkins easily is the better fighter.

What don't you understand? We can't sit here and say what would or could have happened. On paper, hopkins shits all over joe calzaghe. and so does roy jones

---

You're the one that don't understand. You keep contradicting yourself.

You rate Hopkins higher than Joe because you THINK Hopkins would beat MORE higher calibre fighters than Joe. You THINK. You can't PROVE it. You THINK it.

You THINK Hopkins record is better than Calzaghes? Would Joe have struggled with Tito or Oscar? Tarver and Winky?

I could equally claim i THINK Hopkins would lose to Kessler and Eubank. I can't prove it though.

The only PROVABLE thing is Hopkins LOST to Joe. No excuses. Hopkins LOST to Joe.

Therefore Joe is better. Fact.

---

I clearly said, BASED ON THEIR RESUMES!
Jesus christ. The statistics do not lie. And i repeat.
ON PAPER.. HOPKINS SHITS ALL OVER JOE CALZAGHE
ITS A FACT.. Joe's accomplishments and resume doesnt even come CLOSE

---

So Hopkins resume, that includes a LOSS to Joe Calzaghe, is better than Joe Calzaghe's who has lost to NO-ONE!!!

ON PAPER Joe Calzaghe BEAT Roy Jones!!!

In REALITY Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. The statistics don't lie. That is the ONLY fact. Fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by match

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrodub

Someone just said jones was full of shit and hopkins tells it like it is come on hopkins made a load of stupid excuses after the calzaghe fight did you no he was sick thats why he lost(wink)
Also to say hopkins was a true middlewight champ at that time is stupid considering jones beat hopkins before he moved up in weight and the only person of substance hopkins had beat at that point was tito then hopkins was offered a fight with jones and weisled his way out of it over money.
Also jones is a natural middleweight for him to have beat ruiz was a miracle and to put him down was even better as i said earlier there has only ever been one other guy to do that and that was in the days when heavys were only the size of todays light heavys.In his prime he was one of the most talented fighter to ever grace the ring what is hopkins legacy he wins fine but how faking low blows and holding wow great champion

---

Actually the majority of ringside press had Hopkins winning the Calzaghe fight, and even if you think he lost, the mere admission that it was close implies it could have gone either way (if a fight is a split decision, most of the time the losing fighter has a gripe). Also how is it 'stupid' to say Hopkins is the true middleweight champ, considering he won the belt Roy VACATED. Everyone knows Roy beat him, unfortunately, when you move up in weight, you don't take your belts with you, otherwise Roy would have entered the Ruiz fight as the reigning middleweight, supermiddleweight, and light heavyweight champion. (and lastly, anyone who puts the fall through of the Jones-Hopkins rematch on only one of the fighters is blinded by the fact that NEITHER one of them saw it as their priority).

---

At what poit did i question the scoring of the calzage hopkins match?
I didnt i said hopkins came up with stupid excses which he did
What you said in your orignal post was guys like jones collect trinkets for titles and hopkins was the true middleweight champ

"The real middleweight champ was Hopkins. The real heavyweight champ was Lennox. All those guys did was pick up trinckets, not titles."

Well sorry no his titles were not trinkets they were genuine titles the only one i can agree with is the lennox lewis bit, to be the true champ you have to beat the champ not lose to him and then get his vacant title because he feels your not good enough to bother competing with anymore,hopkins was a champ but hardly the true champ
The implication above is jones did not beat lewis so he was not the real heavyweight champ fair enough, but to put hopkins in that bracket as well is stupid
Last it was clearly a prioroty for hopkins who ran his mouth off about fighting jones after he beat titto he called him out by name but when jones responded hopkins backed out because of money nothing to do with the fact RJJ said he was gonna move up a weight and b hop did not expect him to say yes LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

You're the one that don't understand. You keep contradicting yourself.

You rate Hopkins higher than Joe because you THINK Hopkins would beat MORE higher calibre fighters than Joe. You THINK. You can't PROVE it. You THINK it.

You THINK Hopkins record is better than Calzaghes? Would Joe have struggled with Tito or Oscar? Tarver and Winky?

I could equally claim i THINK Hopkins would lose to Kessler and Eubank. I can't prove it though.

The only PROVABLE thing is Hopkins LOST to Joe. No excuses. Hopkins LOST to Joe.

Therefore Joe is better. Fact.

---

I clearly said, BASED ON THEIR RESUMES!
Jesus christ. The statistics do not lie. And i repeat.
ON PAPER.. HOPKINS SHITS ALL OVER JOE CALZAGHE
ITS A FACT.. Joe's accomplishments and resume doesnt even come CLOSE

---

So Hopkins resume, that includes a LOSS to Joe Calzaghe, is better than Joe Calzaghe's who has lost to NO-ONE!!!

ON PAPER Joe Calzaghe BEAT Roy Jones!!!

In REALITY Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. The statistics don't lie. That is the ONLY fact. Fact.

---

Yes.. because i happen to know that You can lose to someone and still be greater than them. Are you going to tell me that Jermain Taylor, who beat hopkins twice, is greater than Bernard Hopkins now?

Joes resume has NOTHING on hopkins. Hopkins has fought a great list of fighters with big names, has been in the spot light for a very long time, CONTINUES to dominate at this age/stage of his career, has the 23 defenses and a decade as champion under his belt. and his close fight with Calzaghe is ANOTHER achievement.

on paper hopkins is the better man bro, i dont see how it can even be disputed.
None the less, we'll have to agree to disagree... I have to be at the gym in 30 minutes.
+rep for the arguement. Good points, maybe we'll bump heads later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrodub

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by match

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrodub

Someone just said jones was full of shit and hopkins tells it like it is come on hopkins made a load of stupid excuses after the calzaghe fight did you no he was sick thats why he lost(wink)
Also to say hopkins was a true middlewight champ at that time is stupid considering jones beat hopkins before he moved up in weight and the only person of substance hopkins had beat at that point was tito then hopkins was offered a fight with jones and weisled his way out of it over money.
Also jones is a natural middleweight for him to have beat ruiz was a miracle and to put him down was even better as i said earlier there has only ever been one other guy to do that and that was in the days when heavys were only the size of todays light heavys.In his prime he was one of the most talented fighter to ever grace the ring what is hopkins legacy he wins fine but how faking low blows and holding wow great champion

---

Actually the majority of ringside press had Hopkins winning the Calzaghe fight, and even if you think he lost, the mere admission that it was close implies it could have gone either way (if a fight is a split decision, most of the time the losing fighter has a gripe). Also how is it 'stupid' to say Hopkins is the true middleweight champ, considering he won the belt Roy VACATED. Everyone knows Roy beat him, unfortunately, when you move up in weight, you don't take your belts with you, otherwise Roy would have entered the Ruiz fight as the reigning middleweight, supermiddleweight, and light heavyweight champion. (and lastly, anyone who puts the fall through of the Jones-Hopkins rematch on only one of the fighters is blinded by the fact that NEITHER one of them saw it as their priority).

---

At what poit did i question the scoring of the calzage hopkins match?
I didnt i said hopkins came up with stupid excses which he did
What you said in your orignal post was guys like jones collect trinkets for titles and hopkins was the true middleweight champ

"The real middleweight champ was Hopkins. The real heavyweight champ was Lennox. All those guys did was pick up trinckets, not titles."

Well sorry no his titles were not trinkets they were genuine titles the only one i can agree with is the lennox lewis bit, to be the true champ you have to beat the champ not lose to him and then get his vacant title because he feels your not good enough to bother competing with anymore,hopkins was a champ but hardly the true champ
The implication above is jones did not beat lewis so he was not the real heavyweight champ fair enough, but to put hopkins in that bracket as well is stupid
Last it was clearly a prioroty for hopkins who ran his mouth off about fighting jones after he beat titto he called him out by name but when jones responded hopkins backed out because of money nothing to do with the fact RJJ said he was gonna move up a weight and b hop did not expect him to say yes LOL

---

Jones did THE EXACT same thing Hopkins did, hide behind money. EVERYONE thought Tito would beat Hopkins and EVERYONE was set for Trinidad-Jones at 168 the very next fight. At NO POINT DID ROY EVER bring up percentages when THAT was the plan. However, as soon as Hopkins won, now BOTH fighters start talking about what they will not accept. That is an indication that BOTH fighters would rather pursue other options. And I know you didn't question the scores, I'm saying when fighters lose split decisions they ALWAYS will say they should have won. And lastly, by your middleweight analogy, Lennox Lewis never became heavyweight champion, being that he never fought Riddick Bowe. I never said Roy won a trinket at middle or super middleweight or light heavy, I said heavyweight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

I clearly said, BASED ON THEIR RESUMES!
Jesus christ. The statistics do not lie. And i repeat.
ON PAPER.. HOPKINS SHITS ALL OVER JOE CALZAGHE
ITS A FACT.. Joe's accomplishments and resume doesnt even come CLOSE

---

So Hopkins resume, that includes a LOSS to Joe Calzaghe, is better than Joe Calzaghe's who has lost to NO-ONE!!!

ON PAPER Joe Calzaghe BEAT Roy Jones!!!

In REALITY Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. The statistics don't lie. That is the ONLY fact. Fact.

---

Yes.. because i happen to know that You can lose to someone and still be greater than them. Are you going to tell me that Jermain Taylor, who beat hopkins twice, is greater than Bernard Hopkins now?

Joes resume has NOTHING on hopkins. Hopkins has fought a great list of fighters with big names, has been in the spot light for a very long time, CONTINUES to dominate at this age/stage of his career, has the 23 defenses and a decade as champion under his belt.

---

I believe you can lose to someone and still be greater than them too. I believe Roy rates above Calzaghe.

Calzaghe has fought a great list of fighters with big names, has been in the spot light for a very long time, CONTINUES to dominate at this age/stage of his career, has the 20 odd defenses and a decade as champion under his belt. Hmm.. similar to Hopkins, no? ;)