How Do You Rank Jones, Calzaghe, and Hopkins ATGreatness As Of Now?

[Fenster]

There's nothing wrong with Calzaghe's win over Hopkins. Hopkins showed top form before the loss and even better after. Roy beat Hopkins fair and square too.

So Hopkins is definitely 3rd.

Negative. Losing to a fighter doesn't suddenly mean you are below them in rank.
Hopkins beat better opposition than calzaghe and it can be argued that he won the fight against him.

We can all argue that Hopkins/Calzaghe would beat more people than Jones can aswell.
It's pretty obvious already they can definitely reign supreme alot longer than jones.

I said this in another tread.

If One beats Three - Ten.
And Two beats One, but loses to Three through ten.
who is the better fighter? Losing to someone means absolutely nothing in the sport of boxing. Styles make fights. It's who you and the man who beat you can defeat that counts.

If you line up 50 men and make Jones, hopkins, calzaghe fight all 50.
Who would defeat them all? That's the question.

Imo, 1. Hopkins. 2. Jones. 3. Calzage. Based on accomplishments and resumes.
and hopkins longevity is also another factor.

Negative.

"Losing to someone means absolutely nothing in the sport of boxing." That is beyond RIDICULOUS.

You can argue Hopkins beat Calzaghe all day long.. BUT the FACT is Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. There's NO excuses highlighted by Hopkins form before and after the loss.

Who has Hopkins ever beaten that would WITHOUT DOUBT beat Calzaghe? No one.

Who has Calzaghe ever beaten that would WITHOUT DOUBT beat Hopkins? No one. (well apart from Roy of course)

Calzaghe is unbeaten.

So the fact that Calzaghe beat Hopkins without any excuses makes him better. Simpe as.

[WelshDevilRob]

Jones
Calzaghe
Hopkins

[intoccabile]

There's nothing wrong with Calzaghe's win over Hopkins. Hopkins showed top form before the loss and even better after. Roy beat Hopkins fair and square too.

So Hopkins is definitely 3rd.

Negative. Losing to a fighter doesn't suddenly mean you are below them in rank.
Hopkins beat better opposition than calzaghe and it can be argued that he won the fight against him.

We can all argue that Hopkins/Calzaghe would beat more people than Jones can aswell.
It's pretty obvious already they can definitely reign supreme alot longer than jones.

I said this in another tread.

If One beats Three - Ten.
And Two beats One, but loses to Three through ten.
who is the better fighter? Losing to someone means absolutely nothing in the sport of boxing. Styles make fights. It's who you and the man who beat you can defeat that counts.

If you line up 50 men and make Jones, hopkins, calzaghe fight all 50.
Who would defeat them all? That's the question.

Imo, 1. Hopkins. 2. Jones. 3. Calzage. Based on accomplishments and resumes.
and hopkins longevity is also another factor.

Negative.

"Losing to someone means absolutely nothing in the sport of boxing." That is beyond RIDICULOUS.

You can argue Hopkins beat Calzaghe all day long.. BUT the FACT is Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. There's NO excuses highlighted by Hopkins form before and after the loss.

Who has Hopkins ever beaten that would WITHOUT DOUBT beat Calzaghe? No one.

Who has Calzaghe ever beaten that would WITHOUT DOUBT beat Hopkins? No one. (well apart from Roy of course)

Calzaghe is unbeaten.

So the fact that Calzaghe beat Hopkins without any excuses makes him better. Simpe as.

Missed my point completely.

"If you line up 50 men and make Jones, hopkins, calzaghe fight all 50.
Who would defeat them all? That's the question."

and don't be dumb. Let's not theorize and guess that Cal or Hopkins would have both defeated both their opposition.. because they didn't fight them. You can only give credit for the fights that have taken place. And hopkins has a stronger resume. Its not even arguable.

Big names on the list, a long title reign, and incredible longevity.

Roy has accolades in the sport that surpass joes aswell. What does joe have? He has no accomplishments other than his Reign in 1 division and 3 names.
Be real.

[Fenster]

Negative. Losing to a fighter doesn't suddenly mean you are below them in rank.
Hopkins beat better opposition than calzaghe and it can be argued that he won the fight against him.

We can all argue that Hopkins/Calzaghe would beat more people than Jones can aswell.
It's pretty obvious already they can definitely reign supreme alot longer than jones.

I said this in another tread.

If One beats Three - Ten.
And Two beats One, but loses to Three through ten.
who is the better fighter? Losing to someone means absolutely nothing in the sport of boxing. Styles make fights. It's who you and the man who beat you can defeat that counts.

If you line up 50 men and make Jones, hopkins, calzaghe fight all 50.
Who would defeat them all? That's the question.

Imo, 1. Hopkins. 2. Jones. 3. Calzage. Based on accomplishments and resumes.
and hopkins longevity is also another factor.

Negative.

"Losing to someone means absolutely nothing in the sport of boxing." That is beyond RIDICULOUS.

You can argue Hopkins beat Calzaghe all day long.. BUT the FACT is Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. There's NO excuses highlighted by Hopkins form before and after the loss.

Who has Hopkins ever beaten that would WITHOUT DOUBT beat Calzaghe? No one.

Who has Calzaghe ever beaten that would WITHOUT DOUBT beat Hopkins? No one. (well apart from Roy of course)

Calzaghe is unbeaten.

So the fact that Calzaghe beat Hopkins without any excuses makes him better. Simpe as.

Missed my point completely.

"If you line up 50 men and make Jones, hopkins, calzaghe fight all 50.
Who would defeat them all? That's the question."

and don't be dumb. Let's not theorize and guess that Cal or Hopkins would have both defeated both their opposition.. because they didn't fight them. You can only give credit for the fights that have taken place. And hopkins has a stronger resume. Its not even arguable.

Big names on the list, a long title reign, and incredible longevity.

Roy has accolades in the sport that surpass joes aswell. What does joe have? He has no accomplishments other than his Reign in 1 division and 3 names.
Be real.

Err.. i don't think so. What's the difference between guessing who would win the most out of 50 fantasy matches and guessing who would win should they face each others comp?

It's both equally IMPOSSIBLE to determine the outcome.

"You can only give credit for the fights that have taken place" Exactly!!!

Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. Fact. So theorise and guess all you like about the "50 men" and you will ALWAYS get Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins.

[intoccabile]

Negative.

"Losing to someone means absolutely nothing in the sport of boxing." That is beyond RIDICULOUS.

You can argue Hopkins beat Calzaghe all day long.. BUT the FACT is Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. There's NO excuses highlighted by Hopkins form before and after the loss.

Who has Hopkins ever beaten that would WITHOUT DOUBT beat Calzaghe? No one.

Who has Calzaghe ever beaten that would WITHOUT DOUBT beat Hopkins? No one. (well apart from Roy of course)

Calzaghe is unbeaten.

So the fact that Calzaghe beat Hopkins without any excuses makes him better. Simpe as.

Missed my point completely.

"If you line up 50 men and make Jones, hopkins, calzaghe fight all 50.
Who would defeat them all? That's the question."

and don't be dumb. Let's not theorize and guess that Cal or Hopkins would have both defeated both their opposition.. because they didn't fight them. You can only give credit for the fights that have taken place. And hopkins has a stronger resume. Its not even arguable.

Big names on the list, a long title reign, and incredible longevity.

Roy has accolades in the sport that surpass joes aswell. What does joe have? He has no accomplishments other than his Reign in 1 division and 3 names.
Be real.

Err.. i don't think so. What's the difference between guessing who would win the most out of 50 fantasy matches and guessing who would win should they face each others comp?

It's both equally IMPOSSIBLE to determine the outcome.

"You can only give credit for the fights that have taken place" Exactly!!!

Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. Fact. So theorise and guess all you like about the "50 men" and you will ALWAYS get Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins.

The fights that have taken place tell me that Hopkins has a much better Resume than Calzaghe and can defeat stronger opposition based on his resume. I never once discredited calzaghes win over hopkins. But i clearly stated Hopkins can possibly defeat more opposition, and the Loss to Calzaghe is disputeable.

The 50 fighters infront of them quote is perfectly valid, because it proves a point.
Although Cal defeated hopkins, does he defeat the other 49? Based on both of their resumes and hopkins wins over better comp - on paper - hopkins easily is the better fighter.

What don't you understand? We can't sit here and say what would or could have happened. On paper, hopkins shits all over joe calzaghe. and so does roy jones

[Fenster]

Missed my point completely.

"If you line up 50 men and make Jones, hopkins, calzaghe fight all 50.
Who would defeat them all? That's the question."

and don't be dumb. Let's not theorize and guess that Cal or Hopkins would have both defeated both their opposition.. because they didn't fight them. You can only give credit for the fights that have taken place. And hopkins has a stronger resume. Its not even arguable.

Big names on the list, a long title reign, and incredible longevity.

Roy has accolades in the sport that surpass joes aswell. What does joe have? He has no accomplishments other than his Reign in 1 division and 3 names.
Be real.

Err.. i don't think so. What's the difference between guessing who would win the most out of 50 fantasy matches and guessing who would win should they face each others comp?

It's both equally IMPOSSIBLE to determine the outcome.

"You can only give credit for the fights that have taken place" Exactly!!!

Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. Fact. So theorise and guess all you like about the "50 men" and you will ALWAYS get Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins.

The fights that have taken place tell me that Hopkins has a much better Resume than Calzaghe and can defeat stronger opposition based on his resume. I never once discredited calzaghes win over hopkins. But i clearly stated Hopkins can possibly defeat more opposition, and the Loss to Calzaghe is disputeable.

The 50 fighters infront of them quote is perfectly valid, because it proves a point.
Although Cal defeated hopkins, does he defeat the other 49? Based on both of their resumes and hopkins wins over better comp - on paper - hopkins easily is the better fighter.

What don't you understand? We can't sit here and say what would or could have happened. On paper, hopkins shits all over joe calzaghe. and so does roy jones

You're the one that don't understand. You keep contradicting yourself.

You rate Hopkins higher than Joe because you THINK Hopkins would beat MORE higher calibre fighters than Joe. You THINK. You can't PROVE it. You THINK it.

You THINK Hopkins record is better than Calzaghes? Would Joe have struggled with Tito or Oscar? Tarver and Winky?

I could equally claim i THINK Hopkins would lose to Kessler and Eubank. I can't prove it though.

The only PROVABLE thing is Hopkins LOST to Joe. No excuses. Hopkins LOST to Joe.

Therefore Joe is better. Fact.

[intoccabile]

Err.. i don't think so. What's the difference between guessing who would win the most out of 50 fantasy matches and guessing who would win should they face each others comp?

It's both equally IMPOSSIBLE to determine the outcome.

"You can only give credit for the fights that have taken place" Exactly!!!

Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. Fact. So theorise and guess all you like about the "50 men" and you will ALWAYS get Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins.

The fights that have taken place tell me that Hopkins has a much better Resume than Calzaghe and can defeat stronger opposition based on his resume. I never once discredited calzaghes win over hopkins. But i clearly stated Hopkins can possibly defeat more opposition, and the Loss to Calzaghe is disputeable.

The 50 fighters infront of them quote is perfectly valid, because it proves a point.
Although Cal defeated hopkins, does he defeat the other 49? Based on both of their resumes and hopkins wins over better comp - on paper - hopkins easily is the better fighter.

What don't you understand? We can't sit here and say what would or could have happened. On paper, hopkins shits all over joe calzaghe. and so does roy jones

You're the one that don't understand. You keep contradicting yourself.

You rate Hopkins higher than Joe because you THINK Hopkins would beat MORE higher calibre fighters than Joe. You THINK. You can't PROVE it. You THINK it.

You THINK Hopkins record is better than Calzaghes? Would Joe have struggled with Tito or Oscar? Tarver and Winky?

I could equally claim i THINK Hopkins would lose to Kessler and Eubank. I can't prove it though.

The only PROVABLE thing is Hopkins LOST to Joe. No excuses. Hopkins LOST to Joe.

Therefore Joe is better. Fact.

I clearly said, BASED ON THEIR RESUMES!
Jesus christ. The statistics do not lie. And i repeat.
ON PAPER.. HOPKINS SHITS ALL OVER JOE CALZAGHE
ITS A FACT.. Joe's accomplishments and resume doesnt even come CLOSE

[Fenster]

The fights that have taken place tell me that Hopkins has a much better Resume than Calzaghe and can defeat stronger opposition based on his resume. I never once discredited calzaghes win over hopkins. But i clearly stated Hopkins can possibly defeat more opposition, and the Loss to Calzaghe is disputeable.

The 50 fighters infront of them quote is perfectly valid, because it proves a point.
Although Cal defeated hopkins, does he defeat the other 49? Based on both of their resumes and hopkins wins over better comp - on paper - hopkins easily is the better fighter.

What don't you understand? We can't sit here and say what would or could have happened. On paper, hopkins shits all over joe calzaghe. and so does roy jones

You're the one that don't understand. You keep contradicting yourself.

You rate Hopkins higher than Joe because you THINK Hopkins would beat MORE higher calibre fighters than Joe. You THINK. You can't PROVE it. You THINK it.

You THINK Hopkins record is better than Calzaghes? Would Joe have struggled with Tito or Oscar? Tarver and Winky?

I could equally claim i THINK Hopkins would lose to Kessler and Eubank. I can't prove it though.

The only PROVABLE thing is Hopkins LOST to Joe. No excuses. Hopkins LOST to Joe.

Therefore Joe is better. Fact.

I clearly said, BASED ON THEIR RESUMES!
Jesus christ. The statistics do not lie. And i repeat.
ON PAPER.. HOPKINS SHITS ALL OVER JOE CALZAGHE
ITS A FACT.. Joe's accomplishments and resume doesnt even come CLOSE

So Hopkins resume, that includes a LOSS to Joe Calzaghe, is better than Joe Calzaghe's who has lost to NO-ONE!!!

ON PAPER Joe Calzaghe BEAT Roy Jones!!!

In REALITY Calzaghe BEAT Hopkins. The statistics don't lie. That is the ONLY fact. Fact.