Calzaghe and Hopkins go at it about who's got the better resume

[Spicoli]

Ice, you have to add Sheika to Calzaghe's list, he beat Johnson, that means he's better than Johnson, Calzaghe beat Sheika, that means he's better than Sheika, that means Calzaghe's win over Sheika is better than Hopkins win over Johnson.

It's the law.

Sarcasm Right ?? Thats logic,that does not apply in this great sport

Really though, If I remember right that "Win" for Sheika was a hold up job.

[Fenster]

Sarcasm Right ?? Thats logic,that does not apply in this great sport

Really though, If I remember right that "Win" for Sheika was a hold up job.

yeah just joking


Although a shocking omission from Calzaghe's list was Pete Manfredo.

[RozzySean]

Hopkins has a better resume, but honestly, neither has as an impressive resume as many fans of either fighter would have you believe. IMHO, if Hopkins beats Calzaghe, it will be his crowning achievement. Same if Calzaghe beats Hopkins. You can make legit criticisms of both fighters' resumes, and you can nitpick depending on which one you support.

Anyway you slice it, Hopkins biggest wins did come against naturally much smaller men and Antonio Tarver coming off filming Rocky. The weights do matter a bit. But Hopkins 2nd tier of opponents, like Eastman, Joppy, Echols (better at MW), and Johnson are much better then the Mario Veits and Charles Brewers on Calzaghe's resume. On the other hand, if Hopkins had beaten Kessler, it would it go right near the top of his best wins.

Either way, both guys have fought more than their share of soft opponents.

Bernard's talk was really interesting, though. He said a lot of the things we all talked about a little while ago in a thread about Hopkins longevity. I guess people around here might know a thing or two about boxing