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

[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.

[MRMANICK]

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.

Oh i have no problem with disagreement. I havent disrespected anyones opinion, Disproved a few thats all. Actually i dont know what the point of your post is. I havent disrespected anyones opinon on his thread nor have I on any other thread. So if you have an opinion on the topic at hand then please share it but if not then keep it moving.

[death]

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.

Very interesting read Bilbo.