Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch

**Dia bando** · 01-09-2012 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by erics44

by the way, you youtube it and pick any of the last 8 rounds, pick hopkins best out of those 8

and lets duscuss it

You no something erics, all way's like the word UNDEFEATED, not many people can put that at the side
of there name, I wonder could RJJ or Bernardo no, but I no a man that CAN and that's a FACT.?

**Prosinecki** · 01-09-2012 01:21 PM

I had Calzaghe winning by at least a couple of points. He outworked Hopkins, this despite the more eye-catching punches coming from Hopkins (in the early rounds, at least), because Hopkins simply didn't throw enough and was swamped by Calzaghe's output. Joe pressed the action and although he landed very few hurtful shots himself, there was so little coming back in comparison that you had to give him the rounds.

Calzaghe landed 105 (83%) more punches than Hopkins. This isn't like Pacquiao/Marquez III where the punch output was similar and the quality of work SHOULD be absolutely PARAMOUNT. Punch output is a major thing on its own, certainly when one fighter is nearly landing twice as many punches as his opponent. Calzaghe was coming forward trying to fight and Hopkins being his usual anti-boxing self, smothering and holding, faking low blows to get a breather, throwing little and landing less and less as the fight went on.

A dismal fight caused by Hopkins' negativity and Calzaghe's inability to work him out (he's not alone there), but I can't see how anyone could score more than three or four rounds to Hopkins given his total lack of output in most of them.

With that said, this fight does lead you to believe that a younger, fresher Hopkins with more stamina most likely wins a UD.

**BIG H** · 01-09-2012 01:51 PM

I scored it the same as Eric, first 4 to Hopkins, then last 8 rounds to JC. Not all JCs punches were slaps and even if they were at least he was throwing something. Hopkins did nothing after 4 rounds. Fight was there to be won for him. The only thing I can think of is that JCs workrate was too much for him

I know people will disagree with this, but I genuinely and objectively believe that Calzaghe was more past his best in that fight than Hopkins was. He was there for the taking imo. Going down to those 2 punches (Hopkins & RJJ) would not have happened a couple of years earlier. I saw him interviewed shortly after he retired and he said he retired becuase he was had nothing left and he was going to lose.

**Althugz** · 01-09-2012 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by BIG H

I know people will disagree with this, but I genuinely and objectively believe that Calzaghe was more past his best in that fight than Hopkins was. He was there for the taking imo. Going down to those 2 punches (Hopkins & RJJ) would not have happened a couple of years earlier. I saw him interviewed shortly after he retired and he said he retired becuase he was had nothing left and he was going to lose.

BigH what makes you say JC was past his best? Let's put JCs CV to one side because we'll never agree there...but what fights can you tell me that JC had been in that meant JC was more past his best than Hopkins was? Hopkins too hadn't really been in any grueling fights so that only leaves age as the determining factor, right?

Also I and probably a few others believe that the first round KDs probably would have still stood in JCs prime (which he was close to anyway imo)..Roy Jones was a joke in that fight and I truly believe even old ass Jones could have taken JC out in that round if he wanted instead of clowning..JC was HURT. Anyway prime Roy tears JC a new hole. My favourite argument of all time is the one that JC would have stood a chance.

**BIG H** · 01-09-2012 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Althugz

Originally Posted by BIG H

I know people will disagree with this, but I genuinely and objectively believe that Calzaghe was more past his best in that fight than Hopkins was. He was there for the taking imo. Going down to those 2 punches (Hopkins & RJJ) would not have happened a couple of years earlier. I saw him interviewed shortly after he retired and he said he retired becuase he was had nothing left and he was going to lose.

BigH what makes you say JC was past his best? Let's put JCs CV to one side because we'll never agree there...but what fights can you tell me that JC had been in that meant JC was more past his best than Hopkins was? Hopkins too hadn't really been in any grueling fights so that only leaves age as the determining factor, right?

Also I and probably a few others believe that the first round KDs probably would have still stood in JCs prime (which he was close to anyway imo)..Roy Jones was a joke in that fight and I truly believe even old ass Jones could have taken JC out in that round if he wanted instead of clowning..JC was HURT. Anyway prime Roy tears JC a new hole. My favourite argument of all time is the one that JC would have stood a chance.

I don't think JC was 'past his best' becuase of age or been in wars (which he wasn't) I just think he got old quickly as some fighters do and there is often no reason. He had a long amateur career, 11 years as undefeated champion as a pro, I think his last 2 fights were just paydays and he had very little desire left.