Joe Calzaghe VS...................

[JonnyFolds]

Bernard Hopkins IMO beat Calzaghe or at least had a very close fight with him at 43, I don't see how him being younger makes it worse for him.

Can you lose a point in a fight for faking getting hit in the nuts? Well how about twice? How about a 5 yard penalty for delay of game.

[Taeth]

Bernard Hopkins IMO beat Calzaghe or at least had a very close fight with him at 43, I don't see how him being younger makes it worse for him.

Can you lose a point in a fight for faking getting hit in the nuts? Well how about twice? How about a 5 yard penalty for delay of game.

He got hit low, his reaction was as lame as they are in soccer sometimes, and he didn't deserve the rest, but once again he is 43. Could any other 43 year old under the heavywieght division get anything close to a split decsion against Calzaghe?

[Master]

Prime BHop at Super middle would not beat Joe, just because it was close does not make him able to beat him. Bernard was negative and that is the reason why he lost against Taylor, a peak B Hop would take it to Joe but all that means he would be open for a comprehensive beating.

[gudnite vienna]

couldnt agree more Master.......

[ICB]

Prime BHop at Super middle would not beat Joe, just because it was close does not make him able to beat him. Bernard was negative and that is the reason why he lost against Taylor, a peak B Hop would take it to Joe but all that means he would be open for a comprehensive beating.

I couldn't disagree more a prime Bernard Hopkins was like Marvin Hagler, he had unbelievable workrate. And the power to go along with it, i honestly don't know how you can say Joe Calzaghe would give a prime Bernard Hopkins a beating.

Bernard Hopkins was able to stand toe to toe with much big punchers, than Joe Calzaghe and he wasn't effected at all. And just because Bernard Hopkins was more offensive doesn't mean he was open. He was still hard to hit with flush shots.

Because he rolls with the shots very well, Bernard Hopkins has always had a sound defense. I for certain think he could force Joe Calzaghe on the backfoot, his workrate was just as good. And he was physically stronger no doubt in my mind.

[Fenster]

Prime BHop at Super middle would not beat Joe, just because it was close does not make him able to beat him. Bernard was negative and that is the reason why he lost against Taylor, a peak B Hop would take it to Joe but all that means he would be open for a comprehensive beating.

I couldn't disagree more a prime Bernard Hopkins was like Marvin Hagler, he had unbelievable workrate. And the power to go along with it, i honestly don't know how you can say Joe Calzaghe would give a prime Bernard Hopkins a beating.

Bernard Hopkins was able to stand toe to toe with much big punchers, than Joe Calzaghe and he wasn't effected at all. And just because Bernard Hopkins was more offensive doesn't mean he was open. He was still hard to hit with flush shots.

Because he rolls with the shots very well, Bernard Hopkins has always had a sound defense. I for certain think he could force Joe Calzaghe on the backfoot, his workrate was just as good. And he was physically stronger no doubt in my mind.

Against who?

And you need to bear in mind he was fighting MUCH lesser quality fighters back then

[ICB]

Prime BHop at Super middle would not beat Joe, just because it was close does not make him able to beat him. Bernard was negative and that is the reason why he lost against Taylor, a peak B Hop would take it to Joe but all that means he would be open for a comprehensive beating.

I couldn't disagree more a prime Bernard Hopkins was like Marvin Hagler, he had unbelievable workrate. And the power to go along with it, i honestly don't know how you can say Joe Calzaghe would give a prime Bernard Hopkins a beating.

Bernard Hopkins was able to stand toe to toe with much big punchers, than Joe Calzaghe and he wasn't effected at all. And just because Bernard Hopkins was more offensive doesn't mean he was open. He was still hard to hit with flush shots.

Because he rolls with the shots very well, Bernard Hopkins has always had a sound defense. I for certain think he could force Joe Calzaghe on the backfoot, his workrate was just as good. And he was physically stronger no doubt in my mind.

Against who?

And you need to bear in mind he was fighting MUCH lesser quality fighters back then

And Joe Calzaghe wasn't fighting lesser opposition back then aswell ?

Glen Johnson was 32-0 quality fighter, Bernard Hopkins fought like a mad man and stopped him with sheer workrate/skill.

Antwun Echols was also massive puncher who beat two of Joe Calzaghe's opponents. Charles Brewer/Kabary Salem. Bernard Hopkins again beat Antwun Echols with sheer workrate/skill x2.

I don't know why your even trying to debate this, it seems like anytime i comment on a Joe Calzaghe thread. You look to pick up on anything i say just to force a debate.

Bernard Hopkins was described by boxing experts. To be like the modern day version of Marvin Hagler, because of the way he used to attack his opponents.

And anyone who has seen his early fights would know this aswell. He only stopped being aggressive in the last 5 years or so, because of his age he obviously had to change his style.

[Fenster]

I couldn't disagree more a prime Bernard Hopkins was like Marvin Hagler, he had unbelievable workrate. And the power to go along with it, i honestly don't know how you can say Joe Calzaghe would give a prime Bernard Hopkins a beating.

Bernard Hopkins was able to stand toe to toe with much big punchers, than Joe Calzaghe and he wasn't effected at all. And just because Bernard Hopkins was more offensive doesn't mean he was open. He was still hard to hit with flush shots.

Because he rolls with the shots very well, Bernard Hopkins has always had a sound defense. I for certain think he could force Joe Calzaghe on the backfoot, his workrate was just as good. And he was physically stronger no doubt in my mind.

Against who?

And you need to bear in mind he was fighting MUCH lesser quality fighters back then

And Joe Calzaghe wasn't fighting lesser opposition back then aswell ?

Glen Johnson was 32-0 quality fighter, Bernard Hopkins fought like a mad man and stopped him with sheer workrate/skill.

Antwun Echols was also massive puncher who beat two of Joe Calzaghe's opponents. Charles Brewer/Kabary Salem. Bernard Hopkins again beat Antwun Echols with sheer workrate/skill x2.

I don't know why your even trying to debate this, it seems like anytime i comment on a Joe Calzaghe thread. You look to pick up on anything i say just to force a debate.

Bernard Hopkins was described by boxing experts. To be like the modern day version of Marvin Hagler, because of the way he used to attack his opponents.

And anyone who has seen his early fights would know this aswell. He only stopped being aggressive in the last 5 years or so, because of his age he obviously had to change his style.

So people are not allowed to post an opposing view to yours? Debate is what keeps the forum going

Anyone thats seen his early fights will KNOW, as you just proved, he was beating far LESSER fighters. How come his AGE didn't stop him fighting more aggressive against Pavlik?

To say he had "unbelievable workrate" is WAY over the top. What happened to that "unbelievable workrate" against Roy Jones?