If Calzaghe beats Hopkins will he be higher on the all time p4p rankings?

[Kev]

If Joe does indeed beat Bernard Hopkins next month will he have had the more successful career?

I know people will question Bernard's age but if Calzaghe does beat him, on paper at least he looks to have the better resume.

I respect Calzaghe but given the options I had to choose #1. You kind of glide right over "the question" of their respective ages, but consider a few things.

Does anyone see Joe Cal stepping up to take the Ring cruiserweight title in 2013? And then beating a top-ten PFPer in 2014 at the age of 42? Because that would be relative to what Bernard Hopkins has done. Or this: if they switched eras and a 43-year-old Calzaghe had to fight the 36-year-old Bernard that destroyed Trinidad, who would the smart money be on?

Considering their respective ages and reputations, Calzaghe needs to beat Hopkins convincingly just to keep his current place in the historical pecking order. If it's a close fight or a Hopkins win, his stature drops dramatically, IMO.

Whilst I think age needs to be taken into account in the event of a possible Calzaghe victory I don't think B Hop should get extra credit because his biggest wins came at an advanced age.

There are many great fighters, higher on the alll time list than BHop who were burnt up well before 35 let alone 42. His longevity is testament to his extraordinary discipline and focus, and also a slight knock on his boring mechanical style, but it doesn't make a difference in his all time standing.

By that I mean BHop shouldn't get extra credit for beating Tarver at 42 than he would have had he beat him at 30. The fact is that BHop's talent just havn't declined much over the years, not that he was so extraordinarily talented that even an old shell of his former self can still be competitive with the worlds best.

Hopkins is no Jones Jr or an ancient Ali, he wasn't much of a better fighter at 25 than he is now at 43.

Prime for prime Jones Jr was clearly the better man. Age has been kinder to Hopkins as his style is not as reliant on speed and reflexes. Doesn't mean BHop is or was a better fighter.

Personally I believe if Calzaghe beats Hopkins in April, he could have beat a 32 year old Hopkins, or even a 25 year old one. Hopkins hasn't slipped much with age that is true, but the flip side is there was never a period where he was much better either.

[MRMANICK]

If Joe does indeed beat Bernard Hopkins next month will he have had the more successful career?

I know people will question Bernard's age but if Calzaghe does beat him, on paper at least he looks to have the better resume.

I respect Calzaghe but given the options I had to choose #1. You kind of glide right over "the question" of their respective ages, but consider a few things.

Does anyone see Joe Cal stepping up to take the Ring cruiserweight title in 2013? And then beating a top-ten PFPer in 2014 at the age of 42? Because that would be relative to what Bernard Hopkins has done. Or this: if they switched eras and a 43-year-old Calzaghe had to fight the 36-year-old Bernard that destroyed Trinidad, who would the smart money be on?

Considering their respective ages and reputations, Calzaghe needs to beat Hopkins convincingly just to keep his current place in the historical pecking order. If it's a close fight or a Hopkins win, his stature drops dramatically, IMO.

Whilst I think age needs to be taken into account in the event of a possible Calzaghe victory I don't think B Hop should get extra credit because his biggest wins came at an advanced age.

There are many great fighters, higher on the alll time list than BHop who were burnt up well before 35 let alone 42. His longevity is testament to his extraordinary discipline and focus, and also a slight knock on his boring mechanical style, but it doesn't make a difference in his all time standing.

By that I mean BHop shouldn't get extra credit for beating Tarver at 42 than he would have had he beat him at 30. The fact is that BHop's talent just havn't declined much over the years, not that he was so extraordinarily talented that even an old shell of his former self can still be competitive with the worlds best.

Hopkins is no Jones Jr or an ancient Ali, he wasn't much of a better fighter at 25 than he is now at 43.

Prime for prime Jones Jr was clearly the better man. Age has been kinder to Hopkins as his style is not as reliant on speed and reflexes. Doesn't mean BHop is or was a better fighter.

Personally I believe if Calzaghe beats Hopkins in April, he could have beat a 32 year old Hopkins, or even a 25 year old one. Hopkins hasn't slipped much with age that is true, but the flip side is there was never a period where he was much better either.

R u serious? Please pop in a tape of hopkins at 32 and then look at him versus Wright. R u tryin to say there is no difference? There is a big difference. The truth is roy is the one that never changed. Never got better. say what u want about how boring their fight was but i never saw roy look so ordinary from that point until he fought tarver. Hop realized after that fight that he couldnt just roughouse everybody and he took the steps to get better and he did . roy never really got better thats why he is where he is now. Roy fought the same way from 93 to 03. But the point is hopkins physical is not the fighter he use to be. Thats why him still fighting at this level at this age is a big thing. this fight is only interesting because of it. I bet a 32 year old hopkins whips a 28year old joe. Hell i think a 36 old hop beats a 36 year old joe. But like i said earlier joe wasnt trying to fight any of his contemporaries when they where in there primes. He was quiet as a mouse back then.

[Gandalf]

I respect Calzaghe but given the options I had to choose #1. You kind of glide right over "the question" of their respective ages, but consider a few things.

Does anyone see Joe Cal stepping up to take the Ring cruiserweight title in 2013? And then beating a top-ten PFPer in 2014 at the age of 42? Because that would be relative to what Bernard Hopkins has done. Or this: if they switched eras and a 43-year-old Calzaghe had to fight the 36-year-old Bernard that destroyed Trinidad, who would the smart money be on?

Considering their respective ages and reputations, Calzaghe needs to beat Hopkins convincingly just to keep his current place in the historical pecking order. If it's a close fight or a Hopkins win, his stature drops dramatically, IMO.

Whilst I think age needs to be taken into account in the event of a possible Calzaghe victory I don't think B Hop should get extra credit because his biggest wins came at an advanced age.

There are many great fighters, higher on the alll time list than BHop who were burnt up well before 35 let alone 42. His longevity is testament to his extraordinary discipline and focus, and also a slight knock on his boring mechanical style, but it doesn't make a difference in his all time standing.

By that I mean BHop shouldn't get extra credit for beating Tarver at 42 than he would have had he beat him at 30. The fact is that BHop's talent just havn't declined much over the years, not that he was so extraordinarily talented that even an old shell of his former self can still be competitive with the worlds best.

Hopkins is no Jones Jr or an ancient Ali, he wasn't much of a better fighter at 25 than he is now at 43.

Prime for prime Jones Jr was clearly the better man. Age has been kinder to Hopkins as his style is not as reliant on speed and reflexes. Doesn't mean BHop is or was a better fighter.

Personally I believe if Calzaghe beats Hopkins in April, he could have beat a 32 year old Hopkins, or even a 25 year old one. Hopkins hasn't slipped much with age that is true, but the flip side is there was never a period where he was much better either.

R u serious? Please pop in a tape of hopkins at 32 and then look at him versus Wright. R u tryin to say there is no difference? There is a big difference. The truth is roy is the one that never changed. Never got better. say what u want about how boring their fight was but i never saw roy look so ordinary from that point until he fought tarver. Hop realized after that fight that he couldnt just roughouse everybody and he took the steps to get better and he did . roy never really got better thats why he is where he is now. Roy fought the same way from 93 to 03. But the point is hopkins physical is not the fighter he use to be. Thats why him still fighting at this level at this age is a big thing. this fight is only interesting because of it. I bet a 32 year old hopkins whips a 28year old joe. Hell i think a 36 old hop beats a 36 year old joe. But like i said earlier joe wasnt trying to fight any of his contemporaries when they where in there primes. He was quiet as a mouse back then.

Calzaghe has a great chance against any version of Hopkins.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the Calzaghe camp was close to getting Hopkins to sign up a few years back but it was Hopkins who backed out at the last minute making ridiculous demands. Calzaghe doesnt have a big mouth but at no time has he been "as quiet as a mouse" as you put it.

Bilbo makes a good point about Hopkins biggest wins. Are there any on that resume that Calzaghe couldnt have won? No. Calzaghe certainly wouldnt be losing to Taylor on the cards. A prime on prime fight between these two is competitive at any stage in Hopkins career.

Now I dont think it will be all that competitive. Hopkins will try and rough it up and thats all he can do. Calzaghe will throw a lot more and fight smart, he knows he's on the American stage and he will be looking not just to win but to look very good doing it.

[MRMANICK]

Whilst I think age needs to be taken into account in the event of a possible Calzaghe victory I don't think B Hop should get extra credit because his biggest wins came at an advanced age.

There are many great fighters, higher on the alll time list than BHop who were burnt up well before 35 let alone 42. His longevity is testament to his extraordinary discipline and focus, and also a slight knock on his boring mechanical style, but it doesn't make a difference in his all time standing.

By that I mean BHop shouldn't get extra credit for beating Tarver at 42 than he would have had he beat him at 30. The fact is that BHop's talent just havn't declined much over the years, not that he was so extraordinarily talented that even an old shell of his former self can still be competitive with the worlds best.

Hopkins is no Jones Jr or an ancient Ali, he wasn't much of a better fighter at 25 than he is now at 43.

Prime for prime Jones Jr was clearly the better man. Age has been kinder to Hopkins as his style is not as reliant on speed and reflexes. Doesn't mean BHop is or was a better fighter.

Personally I believe if Calzaghe beats Hopkins in April, he could have beat a 32 year old Hopkins, or even a 25 year old one. Hopkins hasn't slipped much with age that is true, but the flip side is there was never a period where he was much better either.

R u serious? Please pop in a tape of hopkins at 32 and then look at him versus Wright. R u tryin to say there is no difference? There is a big difference. The truth is roy is the one that never changed. Never got better. say what u want about how boring their fight was but i never saw roy look so ordinary from that point until he fought tarver. Hop realized after that fight that he couldnt just roughouse everybody and he took the steps to get better and he did . roy never really got better thats why he is where he is now. Roy fought the same way from 93 to 03. But the point is hopkins physical is not the fighter he use to be. Thats why him still fighting at this level at this age is a big thing. this fight is only interesting because of it. I bet a 32 year old hopkins whips a 28year old joe. Hell i think a 36 old hop beats a 36 year old joe. But like i said earlier joe wasnt trying to fight any of his contemporaries when they where in there primes. He was quiet as a mouse back then.

Calzaghe has a great chance against any version of Hopkins.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the Calzaghe camp was close to getting Hopkins to sign up a few years back but it was Hopkins who backed out at the last minute making ridiculous demands. Calzaghe doesnt have a big mouth but at no time has he been "as quiet as a mouse" as you put it.

Bilbo makes a good point about Hopkins biggest wins. Are there any on that resume that Calzaghe couldnt have won? No. Calzaghe certainly wouldnt be losing to Taylor on the cards. A prime on prime fight between these two is competitive at any stage in Hopkins career.

Now I dont think it will be all that competitive. Hopkins will try and rough it up and thats all he can do. Calzaghe will throw a lot more and fight smart, he knows he's on the American stage and he will be looking not just to win but to look very good doing it.

And what fighter on joes list u think hopkins wouldnt beat.And before hopkins beat them no one would pick joe to beat tarver or winky. People like to bring up hpkins turnin down a fight. But who was joe then. Nobody. Do u think hop was scared or something. This fight right here proves that wasnt the case. Hopkins doesnt have to fight joe. he never did.His legacy is set.He could retire right now a legend first ballot hof-amer. Joe was quiet as a mouse. Joe has done more talkin in the last year than hes done his whole career. facts is facts. Joe cal never dared to be great and is trying to build his legacy on the back of an old man who can probably still beat him. It really is sad. hell i give hatton more respect than joe. I give naz more respect.Why did joe wait until everyboby got old and faded to try and make noise. But I dont have no real beef with joe. Just his fans who cant put things in perspective. Ive said it before 2 wins over decent fighters dont erase the decade before when he was ducking everybody.

[Gandalf]

R u serious? Please pop in a tape of hopkins at 32 and then look at him versus Wright. R u tryin to say there is no difference? There is a big difference. The truth is roy is the one that never changed. Never got better. say what u want about how boring their fight was but i never saw roy look so ordinary from that point until he fought tarver. Hop realized after that fight that he couldnt just roughouse everybody and he took the steps to get better and he did . roy never really got better thats why he is where he is now. Roy fought the same way from 93 to 03. But the point is hopkins physical is not the fighter he use to be. Thats why him still fighting at this level at this age is a big thing. this fight is only interesting because of it. I bet a 32 year old hopkins whips a 28year old joe. Hell i think a 36 old hop beats a 36 year old joe. But like i said earlier joe wasnt trying to fight any of his contemporaries when they where in there primes. He was quiet as a mouse back then.

Calzaghe has a great chance against any version of Hopkins.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the Calzaghe camp was close to getting Hopkins to sign up a few years back but it was Hopkins who backed out at the last minute making ridiculous demands. Calzaghe doesnt have a big mouth but at no time has he been "as quiet as a mouse" as you put it.

Bilbo makes a good point about Hopkins biggest wins. Are there any on that resume that Calzaghe couldnt have won? No. Calzaghe certainly wouldnt be losing to Taylor on the cards. A prime on prime fight between these two is competitive at any stage in Hopkins career.

Now I dont think it will be all that competitive. Hopkins will try and rough it up and thats all he can do. Calzaghe will throw a lot more and fight smart, he knows he's on the American stage and he will be looking not just to win but to look very good doing it.

And what fighter on joes list u think hopkins wouldnt beat.And before hopkins beat them no one would pick joe to beat tarver or winky. People like to bring up hpkins turnin down a fight. But who was joe then. Nobody. Do u think hop was scared or something. This fight right here proves that wasnt the case. Hopkins doesnt have to fight joe. he never did.His legacy is set.He could retire right now a legend first ballot hof-amer. Joe was quiet as a mouse. Joe has done more talkin in the last year than hes done his whole career. facts is facts. Joe cal never dared to be great and is trying to build his legacy on the back of an old man who can probably still beat him. It really is sad. hell i give hatton more respect than joe. I give naz more respect.Why did joe wait until everyboby got old and faded to try and make noise. But I dont have no real beef with joe. Just his fans who cant put things in perspective. Ive said it before 2 wins over decent fighters dont erase the decade before when he was ducking everybody.

I disagree with a number of the points you make. In regards to Hopkins pricing himself out I would hardly call Calzaghe a nobody. He has been the number one in his division for a very long time. Was Calzaghe supposed to slim down to MW to fight Hopkins? No, Hopkins waited an awful long time before ever stepping out of MW and its interesting that he sidestepped SMW entirely in order to go to LHW and fight Tarver. A very calculated move. And of course Hopkins beat Tarver (Tarver has always been overrated IMO). And as for Winky Wright...well Wright was sporting a tire and way beyond anything even close to what he had fought before. Again clever matchmaking on Hopkins part. I think Hopkins at his best can beat all the fighters on Calzaghes resume. Kessler would be tough though. The Taylor fights were a long time ago and the last time Hopkins was in with a live body. I think he won the first fight but Taylor was able to outwork Hopkins a lot of the time. Hindsight has shown us how great Taylor really is.

Of course Hopkins is a great. But Calzaghe is still very underrated by an ignorant minority. Calzaghe has proven he is the best at SMW many times now and I would be very impressed if you could put a few names into the hat as to who else he could have fought?! I think beating a real threat as in Kessler is more significant than anything Hopkins has done in years. The very fact that we have certain people thinking that Hopkins will win this or that it will be tough for Joe is reason enough for it to happen. Hopkins for better or worse is regarded by many as one of the top dogs at LHW, is in P4P rankings lists and he has a great reputation. Beating him convincingly is going to be another notch on the peg for Calzaghe and with one or 2 more fights possibly in the states at LHW he can cement a career which will have just as much merit as Hopkins upon considered reflection.

Nothing sad about it unless you have already put a lot of money on a Hopkins win. Just aint gonna happen.

[Kev]

R u serious? Please pop in a tape of hopkins at 32 and then look at him versus Wright. R u tryin to say there is no difference? There is a big difference. The truth is roy is the one that never changed. Never got better. say what u want about how boring their fight was but i never saw roy look so ordinary from that point until he fought tarver. Hop realized after that fight that he couldnt just roughouse everybody and he took the steps to get better and he did . roy never really got better thats why he is where he is now. Roy fought the same way from 93 to 03. But the point is hopkins physical is not the fighter he use to be. Thats why him still fighting at this level at this age is a big thing. this fight is only interesting because of it. I bet a 32 year old hopkins whips a 28year old joe. Hell i think a 36 old hop beats a 36 year old joe. But like i said earlier joe wasnt trying to fight any of his contemporaries when they where in there primes. He was quiet as a mouse back then.

Calzaghe has a great chance against any version of Hopkins.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the Calzaghe camp was close to getting Hopkins to sign up a few years back but it was Hopkins who backed out at the last minute making ridiculous demands. Calzaghe doesnt have a big mouth but at no time has he been "as quiet as a mouse" as you put it.

Bilbo makes a good point about Hopkins biggest wins. Are there any on that resume that Calzaghe couldnt have won? No. Calzaghe certainly wouldnt be losing to Taylor on the cards. A prime on prime fight between these two is competitive at any stage in Hopkins career.

Now I dont think it will be all that competitive. Hopkins will try and rough it up and thats all he can do. Calzaghe will throw a lot more and fight smart, he knows he's on the American stage and he will be looking not just to win but to look very good doing it.

And what fighter on joes list u think hopkins wouldnt beat.And before hopkins beat them no one would pick joe to beat tarver or winky. People like to bring up hpkins turnin down a fight. But who was joe then. Nobody. Do u think hop was scared or something. This fight right here proves that wasnt the case. Hopkins doesnt have to fight joe. he never did.His legacy is set.He could retire right now a legend first ballot hof-amer. Joe was quiet as a mouse. Joe has done more talkin in the last year than hes done his whole career. facts is facts. Joe cal never dared to be great and is trying to build his legacy on the back of an old man who can probably still beat him. It really is sad. hell i give hatton more respect than joe. I give naz more respect.Why did joe wait until everyboby got old and faded to try and make noise. But I dont have no real beef with joe. Just his fans who cant put things in perspective. Ive said it before 2 wins over decent fighters dont erase the decade before when he was ducking everybody.

I think Kessler and Eubank are as tough opponents as anyone Hopkins has ever beat to be honest.

[ICB]

Calzaghe has a great chance against any version of Hopkins.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the Calzaghe camp was close to getting Hopkins to sign up a few years back but it was Hopkins who backed out at the last minute making ridiculous demands. Calzaghe doesnt have a big mouth but at no time has he been "as quiet as a mouse" as you put it.

Bilbo makes a good point about Hopkins biggest wins. Are there any on that resume that Calzaghe couldnt have won? No. Calzaghe certainly wouldnt be losing to Taylor on the cards. A prime on prime fight between these two is competitive at any stage in Hopkins career.

Now I dont think it will be all that competitive. Hopkins will try and rough it up and thats all he can do. Calzaghe will throw a lot more and fight smart, he knows he's on the American stage and he will be looking not just to win but to look very good doing it.

And what fighter on joes list u think hopkins wouldnt beat.And before hopkins beat them no one would pick joe to beat tarver or winky. People like to bring up hpkins turnin down a fight. But who was joe then. Nobody. Do u think hop was scared or something. This fight right here proves that wasnt the case. Hopkins doesnt have to fight joe. he never did.His legacy is set.He could retire right now a legend first ballot hof-amer. Joe was quiet as a mouse. Joe has done more talkin in the last year than hes done his whole career. facts is facts. Joe cal never dared to be great and is trying to build his legacy on the back of an old man who can probably still beat him. It really is sad. hell i give hatton more respect than joe. I give naz more respect.Why did joe wait until everyboby got old and faded to try and make noise. But I dont have no real beef with joe. Just his fans who cant put things in perspective. Ive said it before 2 wins over decent fighters dont erase the decade before when he was ducking everybody.

I think Kessler and Eubank are as tough opponents as anyone Hopkins has ever beat to be honest.

Eubank was a shot fighter he hadn't been the same since his 2nd fight with Watson, plus he had to lose a lot of weight in a short time as he only had a week to prepare, and Kessler is a good fighter and has good technical skills, but he is very stiff and robotic like in his upper body movement, plus his feet aren't fast at all.

[Bomp]

Eubank was NOT shot, he may not have been at his very best, but JC managed to floor him when one of the hardest hitting cruisers couldn't do that in 20 rounds AFTER fighting Joe when he was supposedly shot.

Eubank could still get up for the big fights after the 2nd Watson fight, people seem to forget that Chris could be lackluster against lowly opposition BEFORE this (Sherry), and they say he lost his killer instinct after Watson, well tell that to John Jarvis.

[uptoscratch]

There are many great fighters, higher on the alll time list than BHop who were burnt up well before 35 let alone 42. His longevity is testament to his extraordinary discipline and focus, and also a slight knock on his boring mechanical style, but it doesn't make a difference in his all time standing.

By that I mean BHop shouldn't get extra credit for beating Tarver at 42 than he would have had he beat him at 30. The fact is that BHop's talent just havn't declined much over the years, not that he was so extraordinarily talented that even an old shell of his former self can still be competitive with the worlds best.

This is an interesting argument, because there is truth to it in many cases. It's a bit of a circular argument in this case because it presupposes your answer to the original question. If Hopkins is as good now as he ever has been, then naturally a Calzaghe win would dictate that he's a better fighter and it gives him the maximum amount of credit toward his "legacy" no matter how he performs.

I disagree, but it's not obvious that you're wrong. Bernard can't fight his former self so there's no way to really know.

What we do know is that Hopkins' performance at his age is part of what makes his resume so impressive. His dedication and his style (whether you perceive it as "boring" or "intelligent") are not separate from his "talent" -- they all go together. That's why Calzaghe beating him now doesn't necessarily measure up to what Bernard himself has already accomplished.

[Kev]

There are many great fighters, higher on the alll time list than BHop who were burnt up well before 35 let alone 42. His longevity is testament to his extraordinary discipline and focus, and also a slight knock on his boring mechanical style, but it doesn't make a difference in his all time standing.

By that I mean BHop shouldn't get extra credit for beating Tarver at 42 than he would have had he beat him at 30. The fact is that BHop's talent just havn't declined much over the years, not that he was so extraordinarily talented that even an old shell of his former self can still be competitive with the worlds best.

This is an interesting argument, because there is truth to it in many cases. It's a bit of a circular argument in this case because it presupposes your answer to the original question. If Hopkins is as good now as he ever has been, then naturally a Calzaghe win would dictate that he's a better fighter and it gives him the maximum amount of credit toward his "legacy" no matter how he performs.

I disagree, but it's not obvious that you're wrong. Bernard can't fight his former self so there's no way to really know.

What we do know is that Hopkins' performance at his age is part of what makes his resume so impressive. His dedication and his style (whether you perceive it as "boring" or "intelligent") are not separate from his "talent" -- they all go together. That's why Calzaghe beating him now doesn't necessarily measure up to what Bernard himself has already accomplished.

Yeah I agree it was a bit circular. Don't get me wrong I do think BHop has slipped a little bit but not by much.

I mean can anyone point me in the direction of Hopkins great earlier fights?

I've seen most of his career and he to my mind has never put on a really dominating performance against a world class fighter from his own weight class.

Oscar, Trindidad, Jones, Tarver and Winky aside Hopkins hasn't beaten anybody extraordinary, and of the names above Oscar and Trinidad were well out of their natural weight classes, Winky was also well out of his weight class. Tarver imo is Hopkins best ever win, and he was so flat that night that it's hard to give Hopkins the full credit for that one, Tarver just looked awful.

There's not a single name on BHops resume that I think Joe would have struggled with, well Roy Jones obviously but he beat Hopkins.

Hopkins has made his name off the back of fighting legendary welterweights and junior middleweights. Take those off his resume and there's no more substance than Joe's record.

I think if Joe beats B Hop, then goes on to beat Pavlik, Taylor or Tarver he goes higher all time for me.

True he would have fought his defining fights late, but then B Hop fought them even later

[Bomp]

If Hopkins wins, he'll have to be higher than Joe. If Joe wins then he just about nicks it IMO. Both fighters are very close according to resume and ability at their best.

To MrMannick, just because you and the American press weren't listening back then doesn't mean he wasn't calling them out. Joe's ducked no one, Lacy, Kessler and Hop all called him out, and he asnwered all of them.

[MRMANICK]

There are many great fighters, higher on the alll time list than BHop who were burnt up well before 35 let alone 42. His longevity is testament to his extraordinary discipline and focus, and also a slight knock on his boring mechanical style, but it doesn't make a difference in his all time standing.

By that I mean BHop shouldn't get extra credit for beating Tarver at 42 than he would have had he beat him at 30. The fact is that BHop's talent just havn't declined much over the years, not that he was so extraordinarily talented that even an old shell of his former self can still be competitive with the worlds best.

This is an interesting argument, because there is truth to it in many cases. It's a bit of a circular argument in this case because it presupposes your answer to the original question. If Hopkins is as good now as he ever has been, then naturally a Calzaghe win would dictate that he's a better fighter and it gives him the maximum amount of credit toward his "legacy" no matter how he performs.

I disagree, but it's not obvious that you're wrong. Bernard can't fight his former self so there's no way to really know.

What we do know is that Hopkins' performance at his age is part of what makes his resume so impressive. His dedication and his style (whether you perceive it as "boring" or "intelligent") are not separate from his "talent" -- they all go together. That's why Calzaghe beating him now doesn't necessarily measure up to what Bernard himself has already accomplished.

Yeah I agree it was a bit circular. Don't get me wrong I do think BHop has slipped a little bit but not by much.

I mean can anyone point me in the direction of Hopkins great earlier fights?

I've seen most of his career and he to my mind has never put on a really dominating performance against a world class fighter from his own weight class.

Oscar, Trindidad, Jones, Tarver and Winky aside Hopkins hasn't beaten anybody extraordinary, and of the names above Oscar and Trinidad were well out of their natural weight classes, Winky was also well out of his weight class. Tarver imo is Hopkins best ever win, and he was so flat that night that it's hard to give Hopkins the full credit for that one, Tarver just looked awful.

There's not a single name on BHops resume that I think Joe would have struggled with, well Roy Jones obviously but he beat Hopkins.

Hopkins has made his name off the back of fighting legendary welterweights and junior middleweights. Take those off his resume and there's no more substance than Joe's record.

I think if Joe beats B Hop, then goes on to beat Pavlik, Taylor or Tarver he goes higher all time for me.

True he would have fought his defining fights late, but then B Hop fought them even later

What did Hagler do. Your a hypocrite cause i bet u respect hagler though he did the same thing. His claim to fame was beatin a LW and WW. But at least Hopkins never lost to anyone smaller. But from a LB4Lb sense joe hasnt beatin anyone as good dlh and i think dlh was the weakest on hops resume. I gotta question for you. If floyd fought cotto and cotto won could we then discredit his win cause floyd started at 130? Nah no one would say that. I just think its bull that u tryin to do that now to give joe credibility. Facts is fact. The majority of the world picked tito over hop. Im lookin at the ring mag from 2001 right now where they do the pre-fight predictions. Guess what? 15 out of 20 boxing experts picked tito to win. But after he got dominanted he was too small but he wasnt to small after he sparked joppy out in 5. Why does everyone say tarver was flat like hop had nothing to do with that. tarver wasnt flat he was tentative. Tarver lookd like tarver when the fight started. But when he realized hopkins was gonna run from him like roy he got scared, and when he almost got dropped that was it for him. he got beat mentally and fought the rest of the fight to survive. Boxing aint always about size its about skill. and skill wise joe and hops resumes are leagues apart.

[Kev]

This is an interesting argument, because there is truth to it in many cases. It's a bit of a circular argument in this case because it presupposes your answer to the original question. If Hopkins is as good now as he ever has been, then naturally a Calzaghe win would dictate that he's a better fighter and it gives him the maximum amount of credit toward his "legacy" no matter how he performs.

I disagree, but it's not obvious that you're wrong. Bernard can't fight his former self so there's no way to really know.

What we do know is that Hopkins' performance at his age is part of what makes his resume so impressive. His dedication and his style (whether you perceive it as "boring" or "intelligent") are not separate from his "talent" -- they all go together. That's why Calzaghe beating him now doesn't necessarily measure up to what Bernard himself has already accomplished.

Yeah I agree it was a bit circular. Don't get me wrong I do think BHop has slipped a little bit but not by much.

I mean can anyone point me in the direction of Hopkins great earlier fights?

I've seen most of his career and he to my mind has never put on a really dominating performance against a world class fighter from his own weight class.

Oscar, Trindidad, Jones, Tarver and Winky aside Hopkins hasn't beaten anybody extraordinary, and of the names above Oscar and Trinidad were well out of their natural weight classes, Winky was also well out of his weight class. Tarver imo is Hopkins best ever win, and he was so flat that night that it's hard to give Hopkins the full credit for that one, Tarver just looked awful.

There's not a single name on BHops resume that I think Joe would have struggled with, well Roy Jones obviously but he beat Hopkins.

Hopkins has made his name off the back of fighting legendary welterweights and junior middleweights. Take those off his resume and there's no more substance than Joe's record.

I think if Joe beats B Hop, then goes on to beat Pavlik, Taylor or Tarver he goes higher all time for me.

True he would have fought his defining fights late, but then B Hop fought them even later

What did Hagler do. Your a hypocrite cause i bet u respect hagler though he did the same thing. His claim to fame was beatin a LW and WW. But at least Hopkins never lost to anyone smaller. But from a LB4Lb sense joe hasnt beatin anyone as good dlh and i think dlh was the weakest on hops resume. I gotta question for you. If floyd fought cotto and cotto won could we then discredit his win cause floyd started at 130? Nah no one would say that. I just think its bull that u tryin to do that now to give joe credibility. Facts is fact. The majority of the world picked tito over hop. Im lookin at the ring mag from 2001 right now where they do the pre-fight predictions. Guess what? 15 out of 20 boxing experts picked tito to win. But after he got dominanted he was too small but he wasnt to small after he sparked joppy out in 5. Why does everyone say tarver was flat like hop had nothing to do with that. tarver wasnt flat he was tentative. Tarver lookd like tarver when the fight started. But when he realized hopkins was gonna run from him like roy he got scared, and when he almost got dropped that was it for him. he got beat mentally and fought the rest of the fight to survive. Boxing aint always about size its about skill. and skill wise joe and hops resumes are leagues apart.

If Floyd lost to Cotto it would be a big win for Cotto because Floyd is a proven great at welterwight, the undisputed Ring champion at that weight and also a belt holder at 154.

De La Hoya did as much at 160 as Ricky Hatton has done at 147, i.e win a fight that everybody thought he lost and then get KTFO, i.e in most people's eyes his middleweight record was 0-2

Tito's record above 154 is 3-3. Ok it's unfair to count the Jones fight where he was at a huge weight disadvantage but even so a 3-2 record is hardly world class.

Beside's Tito is Hopkins biggest career win. It's a good win and has significance in a historical sense but I think you are kidding yourself if you think he was a tougher challenge than Kessler at 168.

A far more well known opponent yes, and a higher one on the all time p4p certainly but he's recognised for his brilliance at welterwieght and junior middle not at 160.

If Joe Calzaghe fought Shane Mosely after he's fought Hopkins or Miguel Cotto I certainly wouldn't give him a huge amount of credit for those wins and I'm guessing neither would you.

I'm not knocking Hopkins, I thin he's an all time great, I'm just saying that if he does lose to Calzaghe imo Calzaghe's resume will be better, undefeated, a two weight world champ and wins over prime undefeated opponents in Kessler and Lacy who were actually fighting in their natural weight class.

Wins over Oscar and Tito at middleweight and Winky at 170 whilst still good wins don't mean as much to me as wins over a prime opponent undefeated in that weight class.

I also agree that history will judge Hopkins better, BUT if Joe can beat for exampl Kelly Pavlik or the winner of Woods and Tarver after a Hopkins win imo he will have had a better career than B Hop

[MRMANICK]

Yeah I agree it was a bit circular. Don't get me wrong I do think BHop has slipped a little bit but not by much.

I mean can anyone point me in the direction of Hopkins great earlier fights?

I've seen most of his career and he to my mind has never put on a really dominating performance against a world class fighter from his own weight class.

Oscar, Trindidad, Jones, Tarver and Winky aside Hopkins hasn't beaten anybody extraordinary, and of the names above Oscar and Trinidad were well out of their natural weight classes, Winky was also well out of his weight class. Tarver imo is Hopkins best ever win, and he was so flat that night that it's hard to give Hopkins the full credit for that one, Tarver just looked awful.

There's not a single name on BHops resume that I think Joe would have struggled with, well Roy Jones obviously but he beat Hopkins.

Hopkins has made his name off the back of fighting legendary welterweights and junior middleweights. Take those off his resume and there's no more substance than Joe's record.

I think if Joe beats B Hop, then goes on to beat Pavlik, Taylor or Tarver he goes higher all time for me.

True he would have fought his defining fights late, but then B Hop fought them even later

What did Hagler do. Your a hypocrite cause i bet u respect hagler though he did the same thing. His claim to fame was beatin a LW and WW. But at least Hopkins never lost to anyone smaller. But from a LB4Lb sense joe hasnt beatin anyone as good dlh and i think dlh was the weakest on hops resume. I gotta question for you. If floyd fought cotto and cotto won could we then discredit his win cause floyd started at 130? Nah no one would say that. I just think its bull that u tryin to do that now to give joe credibility. Facts is fact. The majority of the world picked tito over hop. Im lookin at the ring mag from 2001 right now where they do the pre-fight predictions. Guess what? 15 out of 20 boxing experts picked tito to win. But after he got dominanted he was too small but he wasnt to small after he sparked joppy out in 5. Why does everyone say tarver was flat like hop had nothing to do with that. tarver wasnt flat he was tentative. Tarver lookd like tarver when the fight started. But when he realized hopkins was gonna run from him like roy he got scared, and when he almost got dropped that was it for him. he got beat mentally and fought the rest of the fight to survive. Boxing aint always about size its about skill. and skill wise joe and hops resumes are leagues apart.

If Floyd lost to Cotto it would be a big win for Cotto because Floyd is a proven great at welterwight, the undisputed Ring champion at that weight and also a belt holder at 154.

De La Hoya did as much at 160 as Ricky Hatton has done at 147, i.e win a fight that everybody thought he lost and then get KTFO, i.e in most people's eyes his middleweight record was 0-2

Tito's record above 154 is 3-3. Ok it's unfair to count the Jones fight where he was at a huge weight disadvantage but even so a 3-2 record is hardly world class.

Beside's Tito is Hopkins biggest career win. It's a good win and has significance in a historical sense but I think you are kidding yourself if you think he was a tougher challenge than Kessler at 168.

A far more well known opponent yes, and a higher one on the all time p4p certainly but he's recognised for his brilliance at welterwieght and junior middle not at 160.

If Joe Calzaghe fought Shane Mosely after he's fought Hopkins or Miguel Cotto I certainly wouldn't give him a huge amount of credit for those wins and I'm guessing neither would you.

I'm not knocking Hopkins, I thin he's an all time great, I'm just saying that if he does lose to Calzaghe imo Calzaghe's resume will be better, undefeated, a two weight world champ and wins over prime undefeated opponents in Kessler and Lacy who were actually fighting in their natural weight class.

Wins over Oscar and Tito at middleweight and Winky at 170 whilst still good wins don't mean as much to me as wins over a prime opponent undefeated in that weight class.

I also agree that history will judge Hopkins better, BUT if Joe can beat for exampl Kelly Pavlik or the winner of Woods and Tarver after a Hopkins win imo he will have had a better career than B Hop

- Yeah but what if shane or cotto came up and knocked kessler out first? Then joe beats them. He wouldnt get credit then.

-Prime and undefeated is all good but does it mean much if that undefeated fighter has fought no one.

-I dont know why u bring up lacy in the same conversation as skill cause those 2 words just dont go together.

But like i said earlier i dont have no real problem with joe. I just think the topic of this poll is ridiculous. If u wanna ask would he be higher on the lb4lb right now with a win thats cool. But all-time? He would have to another 3-4 very good fighters after this for me to even consider it.

P.S. someone said something earlier about hopkins skippin over 168. Well personally 168 aint even a real division. Its one of those in-between weights that fighters that r to scared to fight in there real weight class go to. But thats not even the point. He could of fought joe or go up even higher and beat the man that beat him years ago. IT was an easy choice. It had nohing to do with fear.

[Kev]

What did Hagler do. Your a hypocrite cause i bet u respect hagler though he did the same thing. His claim to fame was beatin a LW and WW. But at least Hopkins never lost to anyone smaller. But from a LB4Lb sense joe hasnt beatin anyone as good dlh and i think dlh was the weakest on hops resume. I gotta question for you. If floyd fought cotto and cotto won could we then discredit his win cause floyd started at 130? Nah no one would say that. I just think its bull that u tryin to do that now to give joe credibility. Facts is fact. The majority of the world picked tito over hop. Im lookin at the ring mag from 2001 right now where they do the pre-fight predictions. Guess what? 15 out of 20 boxing experts picked tito to win. But after he got dominanted he was too small but he wasnt to small after he sparked joppy out in 5. Why does everyone say tarver was flat like hop had nothing to do with that. tarver wasnt flat he was tentative. Tarver lookd like tarver when the fight started. But when he realized hopkins was gonna run from him like roy he got scared, and when he almost got dropped that was it for him. he got beat mentally and fought the rest of the fight to survive. Boxing aint always about size its about skill. and skill wise joe and hops resumes are leagues apart.

If Floyd lost to Cotto it would be a big win for Cotto because Floyd is a proven great at welterwight, the undisputed Ring champion at that weight and also a belt holder at 154.

De La Hoya did as much at 160 as Ricky Hatton has done at 147, i.e win a fight that everybody thought he lost and then get KTFO, i.e in most people's eyes his middleweight record was 0-2

Tito's record above 154 is 3-3. Ok it's unfair to count the Jones fight where he was at a huge weight disadvantage but even so a 3-2 record is hardly world class.

Beside's Tito is Hopkins biggest career win. It's a good win and has significance in a historical sense but I think you are kidding yourself if you think he was a tougher challenge than Kessler at 168.

A far more well known opponent yes, and a higher one on the all time p4p certainly but he's recognised for his brilliance at welterwieght and junior middle not at 160.

If Joe Calzaghe fought Shane Mosely after he's fought Hopkins or Miguel Cotto I certainly wouldn't give him a huge amount of credit for those wins and I'm guessing neither would you.

I'm not knocking Hopkins, I thin he's an all time great, I'm just saying that if he does lose to Calzaghe imo Calzaghe's resume will be better, undefeated, a two weight world champ and wins over prime undefeated opponents in Kessler and Lacy who were actually fighting in their natural weight class.

Wins over Oscar and Tito at middleweight and Winky at 170 whilst still good wins don't mean as much to me as wins over a prime opponent undefeated in that weight class.

I also agree that history will judge Hopkins better, BUT if Joe can beat for exampl Kelly Pavlik or the winner of Woods and Tarver after a Hopkins win imo he will have had a better career than B Hop

- Yeah but what if shane or cotto came up and knocked kessler out first? Then joe beats them. He wouldnt get credit then.

-Prime and undefeated is all good but does it mean much if that undefeated fighter has fought no one.

-I dont know why u bring up lacy in the same conversation as skill cause those 2 words just dont go together.

But like i said earlier i dont have no real problem with joe. I just think the topic of this poll is ridiculous. If u wanna ask would he be higher on the lb4lb right now with a win thats cool. But all-time? He would have to another 3-4 very good fighters after this for me to even consider it.

P.S. someone said something earlier about hopkins skippin over 168. Well personally 168 aint even a real division. Its one of those in-between weights that fighters that r to scared to fight in there real weight class go to. But thats not even the point. He could of fought joe or go up even higher and beat the man that beat him years ago. IT was an easy choice. It had nohing to do with fear.

I just asked the question and gave four possible choices, one of which was 'Hell No!' which you were of course free to choose.

And considering of the 19 people who have so far voted 12 have disagreed with you it's clearly not that absurd a poll to the majority on here.

It's just a discussion thread, I welcome your opinion but you have to respect that not everyone will agree with you.