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

[RozzySean]

That's the point I'm Making, they weren't BAD CAREER ENDING LOSSES, Woodhall said he performed badly yet still pushed a future long reigning champion all the way. Calzaghe was taking these fights against Reid, Woodhall, Mitchell who were coming off close decision losses or robberies at world title level, they were all high risk fights considering how little he was payed compared to the much lower risk de la Hoya fight for Hopkins.

Tito was favourite due to fan ignorance, just as Lacy was. The warning signs were there, Trinidad dropped by welterweights and Lacy 1 dimensional, yet the majority (me included) sub concsiously ignored this due to their exciting fights. Anyway the 'favourite' discussion is irrelevant, it all depends on perception of the fans at the time of the fights, while Trinidad may have seemed risky to the fans, Hopkins and his camp didn't see it that way.

Anyway, I'm leaving this discussion now, I'm a big fan of both fighters and I see no point in disparaging their resumes, you can pick holes in every single resume in history if you choose to.

You can pick holes in any fighters resume, but you don't need to look very hard to find the holes in either Calzaghe's or Hopkins's. Compare either guy to Lennox Lewis, RJJ, or PBF.

[bzkfn]

I take some of the points made in this thread, but Tito KO'ed a very good middleweight before he went into that Nard fight and he was undefeated.

Nard has more recognised names on his record, but I'd say Joe has faced as many if not more legit threats to his throne.

The most difficult opponent on either record is Kessler IMO.

Both records have worked on some major padwork though.

It'll all be irrelevent when Joe beat Nard anyway.