Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.

[Pugilistic]

Calzaghe made em look stupid and clearly won.. This should be unanimous. I dont know why anybody would even question this victory in the first place.

This fight really made me respect Cal's mental toughness. Leading up to the bout, Hops was pulling his usual intimidation tactics but it didnt work cuz calzaghe wasn't having none of that shit. He wasn't gonna let this ghetto fabulous get inside his head and good for him..

I love calzaghe for owning this ghetto ignorant man. He just laughed at Hop's foolish comments as any superior man would do. He stood up to the bully and humiliated him ...

What a great fighter Calzaghe was..

Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter, he would have beaten Hopkins from any stage in Hopkins career. Calzaghe got it wrong in the early rounds, but once he figured the old fool out it was a case of coasting it with a little rough and tumble in the second half.

Clear and convincing Calzaghe win.

Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter but it was clear that the only reason Hopkins lost to Joe was because of his stamina at 43 years old.

A younger Hopkins like the one that fought Trinidad would have more than enough stamina to consistently tag Calzaghe when he came in. He wouldn't just box from the outside either. He would get inside on Joe and do even more damage.

I'm not saying Joe wouldn't have his moments, i just think a younger Hopkins is too well rounded for Calzaghe.

[erics44]

Calzaghe made em look stupid and clearly won.. This should be unanimous. I dont know why anybody would even question this victory in the first place.

This fight really made me respect Cal's mental toughness. Leading up to the bout, Hops was pulling his usual intimidation tactics but it didnt work cuz calzaghe wasn't having none of that shit. He wasn't gonna let this ghetto fabulous get inside his head and good for him..

I love calzaghe for owning this ghetto ignorant man. He just laughed at Hop's foolish comments as any superior man would do. He stood up to the bully and humiliated him ...

What a great fighter Calzaghe was..

Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter, he would have beaten Hopkins from any stage in Hopkins career. Calzaghe got it wrong in the early rounds, but once he figured the old fool out it was a case of coasting it with a little rough and tumble in the second half.

Clear and convincing Calzaghe win.

Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter but it was clear that the only reason Hopkins lost to Joe was because of his stamina at 43 years old.

A younger Hopkins like the one that fought Trinidad would have more than enough stamina to consistently tag Calzaghe when he came in. He wouldn't just box from the outside either. He would get inside on Joe and do even more damage.

I'm not saying Joe wouldn't have his moments, i just think a younger Hopkins is too well rounded for Calzaghe.

Dude, the only reason anyone lost to Joe was stamina and handspeed

just like the only reason anyone lost to mike tyson was power

Its easy to say hopkins would have beaten Joe earlier in his carear, the fact is Joe won the fight against a very good hopkins, also it was his first big fight in america and hopkins had had experience coming out of his ears

if they had fough earlier in their carears and in britain joe might not have had such a bad start and could have won all 12 rounds

[Pugilistic]

Calzaghe made em look stupid and clearly won.. This should be unanimous. I dont know why anybody would even question this victory in the first place.

This fight really made me respect Cal's mental toughness. Leading up to the bout, Hops was pulling his usual intimidation tactics but it didnt work cuz calzaghe wasn't having none of that shit. He wasn't gonna let this ghetto fabulous get inside his head and good for him..

I love calzaghe for owning this ghetto ignorant man. He just laughed at Hop's foolish comments as any superior man would do. He stood up to the bully and humiliated him ...

What a great fighter Calzaghe was..

Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter, he would have beaten Hopkins from any stage in Hopkins career. Calzaghe got it wrong in the early rounds, but once he figured the old fool out it was a case of coasting it with a little rough and tumble in the second half.

Clear and convincing Calzaghe win.

Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter but it was clear that the only reason Hopkins lost to Joe was because of his stamina at 43 years old.

A younger Hopkins like the one that fought Trinidad would have more than enough stamina to consistently tag Calzaghe when he came in. He wouldn't just box from the outside either. He would get inside on Joe and do even more damage.

I'm not saying Joe wouldn't have his moments, i just think a younger Hopkins is too well rounded for Calzaghe.

Dude, the only reason anyone lost to Joe was stamina and handspeed

just like the only reason anyone lost to mike tyson was power

Its easy to say hopkins would have beaten Joe earlier in his carear, the fact is Joe won the fight against a very good hopkins, also it was his first big fight in america and hopkins had had experience coming out of his ears

if they had fough earlier in their carears and in britain joe might not have had such a bad start and could have won all 12 rounds

Thanks for the laugh.

So your telling me that Prime for Prime Calzaghe could of beat Hopkins 12 rounds to 0.

I mean there's biased then there's that post above.

It doesn't make a difference where the fight was staged whether it be in America or Britain. All that matters is how their styles mesh in the ring.

a 43 year old Hopkins was getting the better of Calzaghe in the first four rounds of their fight then he got tired. Calzaghe was then able to leave his mark on the fight by outworking and out landing Hopkins down the stretch.

Ever since 2005, Hopkins has relied on slowing down the tempo of a fight to win. This version of Hopkins rarely fights on the inside and rarely throw combinations. A younger Hopkins didn't do that. He fought for 12 rounds at a good pace, he would throw combinations on a regular basis and he would get on the inside and do damage.

Calzaghe wouldn't be able to outwork Hopkins like he did in 2008 because this Hopkins put in work every round and based on how well a 43 year old Hopkins did for four rounds a younger version would of done it far longer.

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

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

That actually doesn't give enough credit to how good Joe was.

P.S - Tyson didn't beat the majority of his opponents based only on his power. What about his exceptional hand speed, head movement, fast fluent footwork, his conditioning, his ability to put punches together to the body and head.

Boxing ain't that simple.

[Rantcatrat]

Calzaghe made em look stupid and clearly won.. This should be unanimous. I dont know why anybody would even question this victory in the first place.

This fight really made me respect Cal's mental toughness. Leading up to the bout, Hops was pulling his usual intimidation tactics but it didnt work cuz calzaghe wasn't having none of that shit. He wasn't gonna let this ghetto fabulous get inside his head and good for him..

I love calzaghe for owning this ghetto ignorant man. He just laughed at Hop's foolish comments as any superior man would do. He stood up to the bully and humiliated him ...

What a great fighter Calzaghe was..

Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter, he would have beaten Hopkins from any stage in Hopkins career. Calzaghe got it wrong in the early rounds, but once he figured the old fool out it was a case of coasting it with a little rough and tumble in the second half.

Clear and convincing Calzaghe win.

Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter but it was clear that the only reason Hopkins lost to Joe was because of his stamina at 43 years old.

A younger Hopkins like the one that fought Trinidad would have more than enough stamina to consistently tag Calzaghe when he came in. He wouldn't just box from the outside either. He would get inside on Joe and do even more damage.

I'm not saying Joe wouldn't have his moments, i just think a younger Hopkins is too well rounded for Calzaghe.

Dude, the only reason anyone lost to Joe was stamina and handspeed

just like the only reason anyone lost to mike tyson was power

Its easy to say hopkins would have beaten Joe earlier in his carear, the fact is Joe won the fight against a very good hopkins, also it was his first big fight in america and hopkins had had experience coming out of his ears

if they had fough earlier in their carears and in britain joe might not have had such a bad start and could have won all 12 rounds

Thanks for the laugh.

So your telling me that Prime for Prime Calzaghe could of beat Hopkins 12 rounds to 0.

I mean there's biased then there's that post above.

It doesn't make a difference where the fight was staged whether it be in America or Britain. All that matters is how their styles mesh in the ring.

a 43 year old Hopkins was getting the better of Calzaghe in the first four rounds of their fight then he got tired. Calzaghe was then able to leave his mark on the fight by outworking and out landing Hopkins down the stretch.

Ever since 2005, Hopkins has relied on slowing down the tempo of a fight to win. This version of Hopkins rarely fights on the inside and rarely throw combinations. A younger Hopkins didn't do that. He fought for 12 rounds at a good pace, he would throw combinations on a regular basis and he would get on the inside and do damage.

Calzaghe wouldn't be able to outwork Hopkins like he did in 2008 because this Hopkins put in work every round and based on how well a 43 year old Hopkins did for four rounds a younger version would of done it far longer.

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

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

That actually doesn't give enough credit to how good Joe was.

P.S - Tyson didn't beat the majority of his opponents based only on his power. What about his exceptional hand speed, head movement, fast fluent footwork, his conditioning, his ability to put punches together to the body and head.

Boxing ain't that simple.

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

[Pugilistic]

Calzaghe made em look stupid and clearly won.. This should be unanimous. I dont know why anybody would even question this victory in the first place.

This fight really made me respect Cal's mental toughness. Leading up to the bout, Hops was pulling his usual intimidation tactics but it didnt work cuz calzaghe wasn't having none of that shit. He wasn't gonna let this ghetto fabulous get inside his head and good for him..

I love calzaghe for owning this ghetto ignorant man. He just laughed at Hop's foolish comments as any superior man would do. He stood up to the bully and humiliated him ...

What a great fighter Calzaghe was..

Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter, he would have beaten Hopkins from any stage in Hopkins career. Calzaghe got it wrong in the early rounds, but once he figured the old fool out it was a case of coasting it with a little rough and tumble in the second half.

Clear and convincing Calzaghe win.

Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter but it was clear that the only reason Hopkins lost to Joe was because of his stamina at 43 years old.

A younger Hopkins like the one that fought Trinidad would have more than enough stamina to consistently tag Calzaghe when he came in. He wouldn't just box from the outside either. He would get inside on Joe and do even more damage.

I'm not saying Joe wouldn't have his moments, i just think a younger Hopkins is too well rounded for Calzaghe.

Dude, the only reason anyone lost to Joe was stamina and handspeed

just like the only reason anyone lost to mike tyson was power

Its easy to say hopkins would have beaten Joe earlier in his carear, the fact is Joe won the fight against a very good hopkins, also it was his first big fight in america and hopkins had had experience coming out of his ears

if they had fough earlier in their carears and in britain joe might not have had such a bad start and could have won all 12 rounds

Thanks for the laugh.

So your telling me that Prime for Prime Calzaghe could of beat Hopkins 12 rounds to 0.

I mean there's biased then there's that post above.

It doesn't make a difference where the fight was staged whether it be in America or Britain. All that matters is how their styles mesh in the ring.

a 43 year old Hopkins was getting the better of Calzaghe in the first four rounds of their fight then he got tired. Calzaghe was then able to leave his mark on the fight by outworking and out landing Hopkins down the stretch.

Ever since 2005, Hopkins has relied on slowing down the tempo of a fight to win. This version of Hopkins rarely fights on the inside and rarely throw combinations. A younger Hopkins didn't do that. He fought for 12 rounds at a good pace, he would throw combinations on a regular basis and he would get on the inside and do damage.

Calzaghe wouldn't be able to outwork Hopkins like he did in 2008 because this Hopkins put in work every round and based on how well a 43 year old Hopkins did for four rounds a younger version would of done it far longer.

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

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

That actually doesn't give enough credit to how good Joe was.

P.S - Tyson didn't beat the majority of his opponents based only on his power. What about his exceptional hand speed, head movement, fast fluent footwork, his conditioning, his ability to put punches together to the body and head.

Boxing ain't that simple.

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

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

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

[Mr140]

The problem with Hopkins and Calzaghe is all their best wins are after their primes. I mean both have ruled weak divisions for most of their best years still have it a toss up if they fought at the same age.

[Leighton]

I have just looked at the punch stats and in every round calzaghe had more punches landed EVERY ROUND. I believe that is how they score a fight. Also someone said that Hopkins didnt have a scratch on him. Just because someone does not look hurt it does not mean they are winning the fight. What do you think would have happened if the fight continued. Calzaghe would have slapped him to death.

[Rantcatrat]

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

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

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

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

[erics44]

Thanks for the laugh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boxing ain't that simple.

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

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

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

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

[Gandalf]

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

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

[Pugilistic]

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

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

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



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

[Pugilistic]

Thanks for the laugh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boxing ain't that simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't see it.

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

[erics44]

Thanks for the laugh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boxing ain't that simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't see it.

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

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

mitchell was the first to knock him over

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

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

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

[erics44]

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

[Rantcatrat]

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

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