Joe Calzaghe under the micoscope

[Rantcatrat]

Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. That must count for something, no? He beat the man that beat the men - that supposedly could equal his achievements.

Calzaghe beat a FORTY THREE YEAR OLD Hopkins. By a close points decision. After getting knocked down.

Please don't be confused. Hopkins dominating Pavlik says more about what Pavlik is NOT, than what Hopkins (at 43) is.

With all due respect, that "man that beat the man" argument is seriously flawed. Unless you are prepared to anoint Junior Jones as an ATG. Because he also "beat the man who beat the man".

41-year-old Hopkins EASILY beat Tarver.

42-year-old Hopkins COMFORTABLY beat Winky.

43-year-old Hopkins was BEATEN by Calzaghe.

43-year-old Hopkins THRASHED Pavlik.


TWO fights prior to Calzaghe, Hopkins age WAS NOT a factor in beating class fighters. After he was BEATEN by Calzaghe his age WAS NOT a factor in defeating Pavlik. Fact.

So.. why is his age a factor in the Calzaghe LOSS?

Pavlik beat JT twice. JT beat Bernard. Pavilk beats Hopkins? Nope. Logic doesn't work.

Calzaghe is a first ballot hall of famer. 21 consecutive title defenses merits respect and adulation. Guy is a great. Does his resume leave something to be desired? Absolutely. Furthermore, if Kessler continues to fight bums and turns out to be all hype when he faces someone good, Calzaghe's resume will look weaker.

If Jones beats Calzaghe (and I don't think he has a shot), how will Calzaghe's resume look?

[Fenster]

Calzaghe beat a FORTY THREE YEAR OLD Hopkins. By a close points decision. After getting knocked down.

Please don't be confused. Hopkins dominating Pavlik says more about what Pavlik is NOT, than what Hopkins (at 43) is.

With all due respect, that "man that beat the man" argument is seriously flawed. Unless you are prepared to anoint Junior Jones as an ATG. Because he also "beat the man who beat the man".

41-year-old Hopkins EASILY beat Tarver.

42-year-old Hopkins COMFORTABLY beat Winky.

43-year-old Hopkins was BEATEN by Calzaghe.

43-year-old Hopkins THRASHED Pavlik.


TWO fights prior to Calzaghe, Hopkins age WAS NOT a factor in beating class fighters. After he was BEATEN by Calzaghe his age WAS NOT a factor in defeating Pavlik. Fact.

So.. why is his age a factor in the Calzaghe LOSS?

Pavlik beat JT twice. JT beat Bernard. Pavilk beats Hopkins? Nope. Logic doesn't work.

Calzaghe is a first ballot hall of famer. 21 consecutive title defenses merits respect and adulation. Guy is a great. Does his resume leave something to be desired? Absolutely. Furthermore, if Kessler continues to fight bums and turns out to be all hype when he faces someone good, Calzaghe's resume will look weaker.

If Jones beats Calzaghe (and I don't think he has a shot), how will Calzaghe's resume look?

Err.. so Kesslers future results will determine the worth of Calzaghe's win against him.. yet Hopkins ENHANCED reputation since Calzaghe beat him means nothing?

Just a tad hypocritical that one.

And should Jones beat Calzaghe his WIN record will look as it does now. How does losing to Roy damage his 45 previous WINS?

If the GREAT fighter Roy Jones beats Joe that proves Joe is crap which must mean Hopkins and 44 others are incredibly crapper than Joe.

This is silly. Fact.

[Dark Lord Al]

41-year-old Hopkins EASILY beat Tarver.

42-year-old Hopkins COMFORTABLY beat Winky.

43-year-old Hopkins was BEATEN by Calzaghe.

43-year-old Hopkins THRASHED Pavlik.


TWO fights prior to Calzaghe, Hopkins age WAS NOT a factor in beating class fighters. After he was BEATEN by Calzaghe his age WAS NOT a factor in defeating Pavlik. Fact.

So.. why is his age a factor in the Calzaghe LOSS?

Pavlik beat JT twice. JT beat Bernard. Pavilk beats Hopkins? Nope. Logic doesn't work.

Calzaghe is a first ballot hall of famer. 21 consecutive title defenses merits respect and adulation. Guy is a great. Does his resume leave something to be desired? Absolutely. Furthermore, if Kessler continues to fight bums and turns out to be all hype when he faces someone good, Calzaghe's resume will look weaker.

If Jones beats Calzaghe (and I don't think he has a shot), how will Calzaghe's resume look?

Err.. so Kesslers future results will determine the worth of Calzaghe's win against him.. yet Hopkins ENHANCED reputation since Calzaghe beat him means nothing?

Just a tad hypocritical that one.

And should Jones beat Calzaghe his WIN record will look as it does now. How does losing to Roy damage his 45 previous WINS?

If the GREAT fighter Roy Jones beats Joe that proves Joe is crap which must mean Hopkins and 44 others are incredibly crapper than Joe.

This is silly. Fact.

VERY WELL SAID INDEED WE ARE GETTING SOMEWERE

[Rantcatrat]

41-year-old Hopkins EASILY beat Tarver.

42-year-old Hopkins COMFORTABLY beat Winky.

43-year-old Hopkins was BEATEN by Calzaghe.

43-year-old Hopkins THRASHED Pavlik.


TWO fights prior to Calzaghe, Hopkins age WAS NOT a factor in beating class fighters. After he was BEATEN by Calzaghe his age WAS NOT a factor in defeating Pavlik. Fact.

So.. why is his age a factor in the Calzaghe LOSS?

Pavlik beat JT twice. JT beat Bernard. Pavilk beats Hopkins? Nope. Logic doesn't work.

Calzaghe is a first ballot hall of famer. 21 consecutive title defenses merits respect and adulation. Guy is a great. Does his resume leave something to be desired? Absolutely. Furthermore, if Kessler continues to fight bums and turns out to be all hype when he faces someone good, Calzaghe's resume will look weaker.

If Jones beats Calzaghe (and I don't think he has a shot), how will Calzaghe's resume look?

Err.. so Kesslers future results will determine the worth of Calzaghe's win against him.. yet Hopkins ENHANCED reputation since Calzaghe beat him means nothing?

Just a tad hypocritical that one.

And should Jones beat Calzaghe his WIN record will look as it does now. How does losing to Roy damage his 45 previous WINS?

If the GREAT fighter Roy Jones beats Joe that proves Joe is crap which must mean Hopkins and 44 others are incredibly crapper than Joe.

This is silly. Fact.

I don't understand your reply, but in all fairness it may be because my reply was difficult to understand.

Did I say Hopkins' win over Pavlik doesn't enhance Calzaghe's resume? I think it does legitimize it in a way. Moreover, Kessler dominating the 168 weight class from this point onward would legimitize it too. My point was that Kessler is Calzaghe's best win. Kessler was a dominant force and in his prime. Whatever you can say about the other fighters he faced, you can't make the same arguments about Kessler. Bhop was old, Lacy was overrated etc. etc. If, however, Kessler fought Jermain Taylor or Carl Froch and JT/Froch beat him, I think it would have an effect on how I view Joe's resume. Wouldn't it for you? It would, at least seemingly, lessen its grandness.

To put it in perspective, one of the first things I thought when Bhop trounced Pavlik, is wow, doesn't Joe C. look mighty good right about now. Say what you want about Hopkins, he's old and he doesn't fight, but he took the middleweight champion of the world to school. Then again, styles make fights. Like Calzaghe said, Hopkins was tailor-made for his style and like Hopkins said, Pavlik was tailor made for his style.

I haven't decided what I think about Joe's legacy if he loses to RJJ. I don't think a win significantly much either. I'm not sure.

Funny thing is: Joe felt vindicated for not taking the Pavlik fight, if I were him, I would have felt stupid. Assuming that he would have beat Pavlik, not one pundit could have said denied Joe his props. He would have beat a prime Pavlik. I understand that Hopkins beat Pavlik and that vindicates Joe's decision, but now he fights RJJ and although he is decisively favored against RJJ, we know now he probably would have beat Pavlik. Sorry to ramble.

[yvonne]

I totally understand some people disliking Calzaghe,after all we all have our own opinion on what makes a good fighter,but i cant really understand why soo many disagree with Calzaghe's past opponantsYou cant tell me that these past Calzaghe's opponants were push-overs:

Reid,Brewer,Bika,Lacy,Kessler,Hopkins.

Their all dangerous opponants!

[RozzySean]

I totally understand some people disliking Calzaghe,after all we all have our own opinion on what makes a good fighter,but i cant really understand why soo many disagree with Calzaghe's past opponantsYou cant tell me that these past Calzaghe's opponants were push-overs:

Reid,Brewer,Bika,Lacy,Kessler,Hopkins.

Their all dangerous opponants!

Yeah, that pretty much sums all all of them. In ten years. Average of one dangerous opponent every 2 years. And it's pretty sad when you are pulling out names of guys who were on The Contender as one of the top 6 most dangerous fights of your career.

Go to BoxRec, lookup Oscar, and see his list of opponents. Or Tito. Even Roy Jones list makes Calzaghe look overprotected, and Jones was well protected.