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

[The Fightfan]

Calzaghe hey he did beat both of them by pretty wide margins IMO
Jones did beat BHop
Hopkins lost too both of them

As plain as I can see it.

[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.

[Taeth]

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.

1. Roy
2. Calzaghe
3. Hopkins

No he didn't lol people are gettin way to hyped up on the Pavlik win, Bernard would have taken him out in the middle rounds in his prime. He looked horrid against Winky Wright before Calzaghe, adn they fought a super close fight. When there is a 7 year age factor I think it is very relevant, all in all I think Hopkins because I thought he beat Calzaghe, and would have beaten Calzaghe in their prime deserves the nod for being the best ATG, then Roy just because in his prime he was the best, and then Calzaghe or Toney.
People forget that Toney won the cruiserweight title, and almost the heavyweight title but he was on steriods for an arm injury. He deserved that title from Ruiz IMO. Toney has had just a long and fulfilled career full of great opponents and great fights that he deserves to be in the running with any of these guys even if Roy outclassed him.

[Taeth]

How is demanding 60/40 hiding behind money? Or demanding 70/30 From Calzaghe? Thats what Mayweather the p4p #1 took to fight Oscar De La Hoya, why wouldn't they? Roy from 1998-2002 was far more accomplished then either Hopkins or Calzaghe, they hid as much from fighting Roy as vice virsa, Bernard expected Roy to change weight divisions, as did Joe Calzaghe because they both wanted catch weights which is fine in and of itself, but Roy wanted to go up to heavyweight, and by that point he was around 30, Calzaghe definitely wouldn't drop down to face Bernard, Bernard wouldn't drop down at all to face Winky, or even face Winky at 160.

I think the fact of the matter none of them truly wanted to face eachother at the other person's advantage, they all knew how good the others were, and they knew they had easier fights against other guys, but if Joe wanted Roy so bad why didn't he move up to the LHW division to force Roy to fight him? If Bernard wanted Roy so bad why didn't he go up to LHW in 2000 as opposed to waiting until after he lost at MW. ONCE again Mayweather went up to 154 to fight Oscar De La Hoya. Oscar was the best fighter he could fight the most money, etc, etc. He chased taht fight and said fuck everything else(despite winning the legitimate WW belt at the time before doing so). Roy would have made Hopkins and Calzaghe HUGE money back then, he was p4p #1, he was the won who moved up from their weightclasses to dominated at 175. ITS THEIR JOB TO fight the more popular fighter on his terms. Thats how boxing works. Do you think Billy Conn tried for a catch weight against Joe Louis? Did Leonard demand a catch weight against Hagler? IMO it was way easier for Joe Calzaghe and especially Bernard Hopkins to move up to the LHW division that it was for Roy to move back down, Roy was way too big to get back down to 168 let alone 164. Hell even when he fought Trinidad at 170, he looked WAY smaller then he did back when he ruled the LHW division.

[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.

1. Roy
2. Calzaghe
3. Hopkins

No he didn't lol people are gettin way to hyped up on the Pavlik win, Bernard would have taken him out in the middle rounds in his prime. He looked horrid against Winky Wright before Calzaghe, adn they fought a super close fight. When there is a 7 year age factor I think it is very relevant, all in all I think Hopkins because I thought he beat Calzaghe, and would have beaten Calzaghe in their prime deserves the nod for being the best ATG, then Roy just because in his prime he was the best, and then Calzaghe or Toney.
People forget that Toney won the cruiserweight title, and almost the heavyweight title but he was on steriods for an arm injury. He deserved that title from Ruiz IMO. Toney has had just a long and fulfilled career full of great opponents and great fights that he deserves to be in the running with any of these guys even if Roy outclassed him.

No he didn't lol.. what?

Hopkins-Winky was always going to be a shit fight. The important part is Hopkins beat him.

Tarver = Won.
Winky = Won.
Calzaghe = Lost.
Pavlik = Won.

These are facts.

You can't praise Hopkins for beating these guys, through this period of his career, then discredit Calzaghe for beating Hopkins.

That is totally flawed and inconsistent.

[Taeth]

Once again FENSTER, if you ever read what I post, I don't think Joe beat Bernard. So I don't consider that any more of victory for Joe then what Bernard did against Winky.

Tarver=weight drained junk when Bernard fought him
Wright=natural 154 pounder who moved up to fight Bernard because Winky fights anyone, anywhere, anytime, and he still lost by maybe a point on my scorecard. This doens't show to me that Bernard was in his prime that he could barely beat a guy way above his natural weight and past his own prime.
Against Calzaghe I saw a similar fight to Hopkins-Wright, except Bernard was able to land cleaner on Calzaghe. I think compubox was out to lunch on this fight.