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

[El Kabong]

...I can't see why anyone would think more of Calzaghe than they do of Wladimir Klitschko. If Wlad crushed Evander Holyfield that would be about the same as Joe beating Roy last night.

Joe Calzaghe never really had a prime competitor to push him to his limit and test him. I guess Mikkel Kessler or Robin Reid are the closest he got but Jones, Eubank, and Hopkins are of another era.



1. Roy
2. Toney
3. Hopkins
4. Calzaghe

[BIG H]

Statistically I think JC has a good claim to be ahead of Hopkins, but my feeling is that they should be rated as

RJJ
B-Hop
JC

[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.

I don't know about that. Hopkins reign at Middleweight is a list of mediocre names apart from Tito (a Welterweight who started at Junior Welter) and ODLH (a Welterweight who started at Lightweight) His best win after Middleweight was at 170lbs against Wink (a Junior Middleweight fighting 10 pounds heavier than he ever had previously) You can pick apart any fighters resume, and RJJ, Calzaghe and Hopkins are 3 in particular that you can pick apart.

This is true. But Hopkins has very good names on his resume, something Calzaghe lacks.
Hopkins, although outsized guys, beat guys who would have moved up and dominated others in the division. Oscar has been successful at 154-160. Winky was still very game in that fight, etc etc.

Hopkins beat people who werent just great, but POUND FOR POUND great. Guys who could actually move up and do damage, hopkins beat. So the fights were definitely still in their grasps.

I still think Oscar took a fall in the hopkins fight though haha. I dont include him in bhops resume

[El Kabong]

It would have been nice had all these fighters gotten to fight each other in their primes: RJJ, Toney, Calzaghe, Hopkins, Eubank, Benn, Collins, McClellan, Jackson, Nunn, Michalczewski, Ottke.


You can make cases for most of them being over protected...which is sad, but that's life

[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.

[match]

Saying Jones' compedition was shit is unfair, because he did beat a lot of solid opposition. Sugar Boy Malinga, Merqui Sosa, Griffen, these guys were solid opposition but because their names aren't "Marvin Hagler" or "Stanley Ketchel", and because Jones iced them so easily, people just assume they were bums.

And ok, John Ruiz is not going to go down as one of the best HWs of all time, but he was a good, 240lb fighter. LIke him or not, he did beat a lot of other top HWs of the time like Rahman, Holyfield, Golota and Oquendo. Ruiz is no pushover.

Lets put it this way, how would you fancy Calzaghe's chances of moving up to cruiserweight for one fight and taking one of the "trinkets" there? Would you pick him to beat a Steve Cunningham or Tomasz Adamek? I sure as hell wouldn't, and it would be an incredible accomplishment if he were to do it, so don't try to downplay Jones' accomplishment.

Actually, I will downplay Roy's accomplishment, because his 'accomplishments' are the only thing preventing me from ranking him #1. Accomplishments are not what 'would' someone do, it's what 'did' someone do. It's like saying how would Jack Dempsey do if he fought Tony Tucker, (he'd probably lose), however Dempsey ranks higher because of what he 'did.' No one's saying Roy's competition is sh!t, we're saying both he and Joe's level of competition is far below B-Hop's, and therefore it's frivolous to compare two things that are subpar to begin with. Also, since when did we start giving ATG's credit for beating people who merely 'aren't pushovers?' I thought the whole point of this was pointing out career highlights, not career fillers.

[El Kabong]

Ray Robinson lost to Carmen Basilio....doesn't mean Carmen is rated higher all-time than him though

[intoccabile]

Ray Robinson lost to Carmen Basilio....doesn't mean Carmen is rated higher all-time than him though

thank you

[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.

[mrodub]

Someone just said jones was full of shit and hopkins tells it like it is come on hopkins made a load of stupid excuses after the calzaghe fight did you no he was sick thats why he lost(wink)
Also to say hopkins was a true middlewight champ at that time is stupid considering jones beat hopkins before he moved up in weight and the only person of substance hopkins had beat at that point was tito then hopkins was offered a fight with jones and weisled his way out of it over money.
Also jones is a natural middleweight for him to have beat ruiz was a miracle and to put him down was even better as i said earlier there has only ever been one other guy to do that and that was in the days when heavys were only the size of todays light heavys.In his prime he was one of the most talented fighter to ever grace the ring what is hopkins legacy he wins fine but how faking low blows and holding wow great champion

[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

[Tysonbruno]

Jones
Hopkins
Toney
who was the other guy ?

LOL

[Beanflicker]

Actually, I will downplay Roy's accomplishment, because his 'accomplishments' are the only thing preventing me from ranking him #1. Accomplishments are not what 'would' someone do, it's what 'did' someone do. It's like saying how would Jack Dempsey do if he fought Tony Tucker, (he'd probably lose), however Dempsey ranks higher because of what he 'did.' No one's saying Roy's competition is sh!t, we're saying both he and Joe's level of competition is far below B-Hop's, and therefore it's frivolous to compare two things that are subpar to begin with. Also, since when did we start giving ATG's credit for beating people who merely 'aren't pushovers?' I thought the whole point of this was pointing out career highlights, not career fillers.

Where in my post did I say I give credit to people for something they haven't done? You need to work on your reading comprehension.

I said Ruiz was no pushover AT HEAVYWEIGHT. So for someone to come up 2 weight divisions and and beat a SOLID fighter 40-50lbs bigger than him is absolutely incredible. If you can't see that then you have absolutely NO boxing knowledge whatsoever.