Joe C Nearing The End

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » 20 Apr 2008, 18:26

Would like to have seen him take on Pavlik...

WildWaylon · Post by **WildWaylon** » 20 Apr 2008, 18:53

Nobody could look good against Hopkins and I dont think we can blame Joe at all. It was always going to be an ugly fight whatever way Joe approached it. Who next is has to be carefully considered. Jones, while not the fighter he was, is still dangerous. Kelly Pavlik would be one hell of a risk. He has to fight a credible opponent for what should be his final fight but if he wants to keep his and 0 there has to be a little risk but not too much. Very interesting to see who they pick.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 20 Apr 2008, 20:35

SticknMove wrote:
stujones wrote:
SticknMove wrote:Given that Calzaghe has already said that he will not fight beyond 2008 then I think you may be onto something.

He has had a great career. Not exceptional in terms of the annuls of the history of the sport, when his talent should have been on offer much more to merit the fact, but still great.
Not sure I entirely agree..... Great career definately - and yes his talent should have been on offer much more. However, what would he have done - fought a prime Jones and a prime Hopkins. Only one winner I am afraid.

Joe's been outstanding, and outstandingly promoted.

Actually Stu I think we are in agreement. Calzaghe's career will be defined by the absence of fighting prime fighters at the right time. Whether he would have lost or won is neither here nor there. He didn't face them within his own prime for all the reasons that Autobarn pointed out.

Time and space will always put a boxer's career into perspective. JC is a quality fighter and has had a great career, but I will always have difficulty placing him in any ATG list of fighters. And fortunately or unfortunately we do judge our best along those lines.

Well of course I think its an important moment.

Lets look a Lacy... he could have beaten up the faded Robin Reids of this world for 10 years then Longetivity alone would hold him in great stead... What Lacy did though was take on the #1 in the Devision, been exposed and outclassed and will never be the same fighter, and never be considered a great even if he does recover - cause of the manner of the defeat.

I'm sorry, but Joe would have lost and he would have lost emphatically (as would have Eubank, Benn and Collins) to prime Hopkins and prime Jones. Of course that would have perminantly damaged his career - both physically, mentally and financially.

In my opinion, Hopkins never earned the respect and money in his early career as champion, cause he lost to Jones pretty decisively. It took till the Unification series for people to realise he is not just a belt holder and the best of the rest type of fighter.

Benn, Eubank and Collins are held in such esteem and earned the money they did cause they didn't fight Roy Jones. Roy embarreses them, how can they be called a champion - Roy doesn't fight them... there that "well, you never know" mentality.

What my main point was.. is that Joe, like Eubank, like Collins and too a much lesser extent like Benn, will always be a overated cause he didn't fight them... earned more long term money cause he didn't fight them (and lose) and IMO did the best that he talent can offer. Because if he stepped it up to the Jones/Hopkins/Toney level... he would have lost. He beat about the best fighters he could have.

What I disagreed with is "his talent should have been on offer more" - I'm afraid had he shown it more, then his talent would have questioned...as has Jeff Lacy.

While I said before the fight - Prime for Prime I would have favoured Hopkins, now I am definately certain and I am sure others have joined me. Hopkins might not have got his hands raised - but he showed his limitations and showed, beyond doubt, that prime for prime - Hopkins was a different class.... I never thought that before, thought he would win - but never thought he was in a different league.

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 20 Apr 2008, 21:25

I agree with much of what you say - dont see where there is much difference in outlining JC's career tbh, only a steadfast obstinate point from you to impose a view which I doubt I would be in total disagreement with.

You single out one particular fighter, who faced Joe, and draw a hard and fast conclusion that's what would have happened if Joe stepped up earlier by 'putting his talent on offer'. Maybe that may have been the case and Joe would have been ruined by the experience. I don't know with certainty whether that would have been the case - but you seem to have absolute opinion on it.

Grilling Machine · Post by **Grilling Machine** » 21 Apr 2008, 02:05

SticknMove wrote:Maybe that may have been the case and Joe would have been ruined by the experience. I don't know with certainty whether that would have been the case - but you seem to have absolute opinion on it.

I think Stu's outlook is very fair. Calzaghe's greatest prime opponent to date is Kessler. Much as I like and respect Mik, he wouldn't have been considered as someone beyond Euro-class ten years ago.

Joe didn't fight Toney, Jones, Hopkins, Ottke, Reggie or Glen Johnson, Griffin, Rocchigiani or Francis. There was plenty of quality opposition out there during the 'wilderness' years. Now there's to be no Pavlik, Froch, Bute or Erdei...

theHitman · Post by **theHitman** » 21 Apr 2008, 02:10

Grilling Machine wrote:
SticknMove wrote:Maybe that may have been the case and Joe would have been ruined by the experience. I don't know with certainty whether that would have been the case - but you seem to have absolute opinion on it.
I think Stu's outlook is very fair. Calzaghe's greatest prime opponent to date is Kessler. Much as I like and respect Mik, he wouldn't have been considered as someone beyond Euro-class ten years ago.

Joe didn't fight Toney, Jones, Hopkins, Ottke, Reggie or Glen Johnson, Griffin, Rocchigiani or Francis. There was plenty of quality opposition out there during the 'wilderness' years. Now there's to be no Pavlik, Froch, Bute or Erdei...

And Kessler would probably beat "Pavlik, Froch, Bute or Erdei".

Wrists · Post by **Wrists** » 21 Apr 2008, 08:48

Stu - you talk alot of rubbish.

Hopkins never beats Calzaghe at any point as he simply does not punch hard enough to KO him and is not and never was busy enough to outpoint him.

There is a reason why he asked at the last minute for double the money all those years ago.

Calzaghe fought poorly on saturday, hopkins was hopkins and still lost

Do the math.

Your constant sniping at JC is becoming almost as bad as pundit's. Try at least be a little impartial

Wrists

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Apr 2008, 09:06

stujones wrote:
SticknMove wrote:
stujones wrote: Not sure I entirely agree..... Great career definately - and yes his talent should have been on offer much more. However, what would he have done - fought a prime Jones and a prime Hopkins. Only one winner I am afraid.

Joe's been outstanding, and outstandingly promoted.

Actually Stu I think we are in agreement. Calzaghe's career will be defined by the absence of fighting prime fighters at the right time. Whether he would have lost or won is neither here nor there. He didn't face them within his own prime for all the reasons that Autobarn pointed out.

Time and space will always put a boxer's career into perspective. JC is a quality fighter and has had a great career, but I will always have difficulty placing him in any ATG list of fighters. And fortunately or unfortunately we do judge our best along those lines.
Well of course I think its an important moment.

Lets look a Lacy... he could have beaten up the faded Robin Reids of this world for 10 years then Longetivity alone would hold him in great stead... What Lacy did though was take on the #1 in the Devision, been exposed and outclassed and will never be the same fighter, and never be considered a great even if he does recover - cause of the manner of the defeat.

I'm sorry, but Joe would have lost and he would have lost emphatically (as would have Eubank, Benn and Collins) to prime Hopkins and prime Jones. Of course that would have perminantly damaged his career - both physically, mentally and financially.

In my opinion, Hopkins never earned the respect and money in his early career as champion, cause he lost to Jones pretty decisively. It took till the Unification series for people to realise he is not just a belt holder and the best of the rest type of fighter.

Benn, Eubank and Collins are held in such esteem and earned the money they did cause they didn't fight Roy Jones. Roy embarreses them, how can they be called a champion - Roy doesn't fight them... there that "well, you never know" mentality.

What my main point was.. is that Joe, like Eubank, like Collins and too a much lesser extent like Benn, will always be a overated cause he didn't fight them... earned more long term money cause he didn't fight them (and lose) and IMO did the best that he talent can offer. Because if he stepped it up to the Jones/Hopkins/Toney level... he would have lost. He beat about the best fighters he could have.

What I disagreed with is "his talent should have been on offer more" - I'm afraid had he shown it more, then his talent would have questioned...as has Jeff Lacy.

While I said before the fight - Prime for Prime I would have favoured Hopkins, now I am definately certain and I am sure others have joined me. Hopkins might not have got his hands raised - but he showed his limitations and showed, beyond doubt, that prime for prime - Hopkins was a different class.... I never thought that before, thought he would win - but never thought he was in a different league.

I think though Stu, you need to consider that in his earlier years, Hopkins would have been less negative, and therefore offered more opportunities for Calzaghe to punch.

Joe had a terrible opening and threw the first three rounds away, and still prevailed. He gained in confidence and was definetly coming on the later it went. I think the occasion got to Joe a little bit, he showed Hopkins a lot of respect, but also that big right hand did change the complection of the fight.

Jones was on another level to Hopkins for me, and incredibly virtually unbeatable talent in his prime. At 168, Jones was godlike, he would have battered Calzaghe, and even Joe has said as much.

I do wonder whether Jones Junior might be able to win against Joe. Jones is reportedly fresher at the weight, and has a big punch on him too and still has the handspeed to go with it, though he only punches in bursts these days.

Calzaghe looked worryingly amateurish at times against Hopkins, but I believe he underperformed, in part due to the nature of Hopkins' style, and to a lesser extent the occasion.

Arbachakov · Post by **Arbachakov** » 21 Apr 2008, 09:43

Ultimately i think Calzaghe benefited from the modern pay-per-view, "superfight" culture that hypes up any decent competitive matchup to a ridiculous degree.

A couple of big wins against a slim variation of styles(and one fighter in Lacy who is imo thoroughly mediocre regardless of the Larocca-esque hype he got)ended up getting far more focus and importance attached to them than they should have.

Dioufy · Post by **Dioufy** » 21 Apr 2008, 12:16

I like Pavlik and have watched his career a lot but he's definitely beatable if he were to come across someone with a good chin and very good boxing skills. I don't think Gary Lockett will beat him but I like Arthur Abraham's chances.

I actually rate Pavlik very highly but in my opinion Calzaghe would box his ears off. I actually had Taylor nicking their second fight even though I was in the minority - he looked so one dimensional that night it was unreal. If Calzaghe could get past that long reach and be able to take a shot from Pavlik then he should win either by a decision or a late stoppage as Pavlik has shown vulnerabilities in the past with that chin. It would actually be like the Lacy fight I reckon with Pavlik coming forward and being picked off, although Pavlik's boxing skills are far superior to that of Lacy's skills.

But I agree with you Kelvin. It won't happen in a million years. Pavlik seems tied up with Lockett then Abraham, although if Franky Boy came in with a massive bid then that could tempt Bob Arum/Pavlik to fight him.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 21 Apr 2008, 12:26

Joe can't leave boxing having beaten a 43 yo Hopkins and a 40 yo Jones. In awkward, ugly fights.

The old men are going to be defensive and spoil, and it's taking the shine off Joe a bit.

Even Evander Holyfield struggled badly vs 40+ versions of Holmes an Foreman. They specialise in making you look bad without doing enough to win, these old veterans.

Pavlik will be like one of Joe's super middleweight unification. But eff Wales, it would be another great event in America. Make a couple of concessions - locale, weight i.e. 168-lbs - and Pavlik will move up. Joe seemed to like it out there so how about 1 more time, this time vs a more suitable style.

Pavlik is the middleweight champ but it's a wasteland TBH.

Asterix · Post by **Asterix** » 21 Apr 2008, 12:51

Dioufy wrote:I like Pavlik and have watched his career a lot but he's definitely beatable if he were to come across someone with a good chin and very good boxing skills. I don't think Gary Lockett will beat him but I like Arthur Abraham's chances.

I actually rate Pavlik very highly but in my opinion Calzaghe would box his ears off. I actually had Taylor nicking their second fight even though I was in the minority - he looked so one dimensional that night it was unreal. If Calzaghe could get past that long reach and be able to take a shot from Pavlik then he should win either by a decision or a late stoppage as Pavlik has shown vulnerabilities in the past with that chin. It would actually be like the Lacy fight I reckon with Pavlik coming forward and being picked off, although Pavlik's boxing skills are far superior to that of Lacy's skills.

But I agree with you Kelvin. It won't happen in a million years. Pavlik seems tied up with Lockett then Abraham, although if Franky Boy came in with a massive bid then that could tempt Bob Arum/Pavlik to fight him.

I don't think Abraham would beat Pavlik. His work rate is way to low so he'd be depending on a knockout, which I think Pavlik would be more likely to get. Maybe I'm overrating Pavlik, but that's what I think.

Pavlik is the perfect match-up for Calzaghe. He's a great fighter, but made to fit Calzaghe's style.

Zhuge · Post by **Zhuge** » 21 Apr 2008, 12:55

I'm not sure why Calzaghe would quit after '08. He truly has a load of options, none of which are terribly difficult given his skills. He's at the point where he can simply fight the "big names" in and around 175, and when you consider that constitutes guys like Tarver, RJJ or even Jermain Taylor; I'm not sure why Joe wouldn't capitalize on the opportunities. As long as he isn't "forced" to fight someone like Lucian Bute or Chad Dawson, why quit (I'm not saying he couldn't defeat those guys, it's just that they are high-risk, low-reward fights at this stage of his career.

Dioufy · Post by **Dioufy** » 21 Apr 2008, 13:22

Asterix wrote:
Dioufy wrote:I like Pavlik and have watched his career a lot but he's definitely beatable if he were to come across someone with a good chin and very good boxing skills. I don't think Gary Lockett will beat him but I like Arthur Abraham's chances.

I actually rate Pavlik very highly but in my opinion Calzaghe would box his ears off. I actually had Taylor nicking their second fight even though I was in the minority - he looked so one dimensional that night it was unreal. If Calzaghe could get past that long reach and be able to take a shot from Pavlik then he should win either by a decision or a late stoppage as Pavlik has shown vulnerabilities in the past with that chin. It would actually be like the Lacy fight I reckon with Pavlik coming forward and being picked off, although Pavlik's boxing skills are far superior to that of Lacy's skills.

But I agree with you Kelvin. It won't happen in a million years. Pavlik seems tied up with Lockett then Abraham, although if Franky Boy came in with a massive bid then that could tempt Bob Arum/Pavlik to fight him.
I don't think Abraham would beat Pavlik. His work rate is way to low so he'd be depending on a knockout, which I think Pavlik would be more likely to get. Maybe I'm overrating Pavlik, but that's what I think.

Pavlik is the perfect match-up for Calzaghe. He's a great fighter, but made to fit Calzaghe's style.

I'm not so sure. I like Abraham a lot and think he can get a knockout over Pavlik. He's good and strong with the jab, he has genuine punch power and is fairly accurate. Not to mention that the man is as tough as nails.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 21 Apr 2008, 13:43

Zhuge wrote:I'm not sure why Calzaghe would quit after '08. He truly has a load of options, none of which are terribly difficult given his skills. He's at the point where he can simply fight the "big names" in and around 175, and when you consider that constitutes guys like Tarver, RJJ or even Jermain Taylor; I'm not sure why Joe wouldn't capitalize on the opportunities. As long as he isn't "forced" to fight someone like Lucian Bute or Chad Dawson, why quit (I'm not saying he couldn't defeat those guys, it's just that they are high-risk, low-reward fights at this stage of his career.

therein lies the beauty of holding non-sanctioning body world titles. Joe doesn't have to fight anyone, he can decide whom he's fighting without ever getting stripped. He has these Ring belts at 2 weights, and has the pick of all he wants. He has HBO on his side, probably GBP as well (especially if they want a piece of stablemate Khan).

Wouldn't it be great if he kept both titles and defended both, just the once? Give him RJJ at light heavy and Pavlik at super middle methinks.

Twinkle Toes · Post by **Twinkle Toes** » 21 Apr 2008, 14:31

It seems to be bypassing a lot of people's attention, but what about Joe's mindset.

He's already got one eye on retiring, in fact I think he had once Kessler was out of the way. Even more so now Hopkins has been beaten.

I always felt the Hopkins and a Jones fight would be to cement his bank account rather than his legacy.

Chuck him in with a Pavlik or some other young gun and I think he might come unstuck in spectacular fashion. I think some of you are expecting too much from the man to see him fight a young lion.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 21 Apr 2008, 15:15

actually i am surprised at the lack of understanding of pro boxing on this thread. why the hell should calzaghe put himself thru torture weight-wise to fight a here-today-gone-tomorrow guy like kelly pavlik? thats not gonna enhance his legacy one iota! tarver? not a big name, faded, no reason to fight him. jones? the only fight out there that ticks most of the boxes.

joe still has his marbles, a bunch of money and doesnt even lok like a guy who is 45 unbeaten at that level.

put yourselves in his position and think about it

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 21 Apr 2008, 17:24

SticknMove wrote:I agree with much of what you say - dont see where there is much difference in outlining JC's career tbh, only a steadfast obstinate point from you to impose a view which I doubt I would be in total disagreement with.

You single out one particular fighter, who faced Joe, and draw a hard and fast conclusion that's what would have happened if Joe stepped up earlier by 'putting his talent on offer'. Maybe that may have been the case and Joe would have been ruined by the experience. I don't know with certainty whether that would have been the case - but you seem to have absolute opinion on it.

Had Joe fought to Hopkins and lost (which I think most think is the case)... then sorry, in this day and age, of undefeated means everything - then even if Joe was physically and mentally fine after the defeat - he would have 1) Struggled to get the opportunities 2) FOREVER remembered as the guy who lost to Hopkins - just like Hopkins will never be considered QUITE in the Hagler/Monzon's class cause he lost to Jones.

Despite Hopkins getting better as a fighter, he always be remembered as the guy who batter Light Middleweights, but not in Jones' class.

Eubank, Collins, Benn etc - didn't fight them... so in someways - they have a better reputation (or should I say overated reputation) cause its is a "what might have been situation" - as Joe has had also.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 21 Apr 2008, 17:33

I think they genuinely wanted to get Hopkins in 2002. Hopkins would have been moving up for the 1st time, maybe not settled at 168-lbs so easily and had it been in the UK, we don't quite know how Hopkins would have fared in a different sort of atmosphere. I think playing the percentages, they saw Hopkins could definitely be beaten in Wales.

On the whole though, it is a well timed career in which the promoter gets the right fights at the right time and the fighter delivers in the ring. Provided they extend this unbeaten record into retirement, then it is a big achievement. Although it does make you wonder, with better sparring, a bit better comp and fighting in America earlier to sample things, whether Joe could have made this last fight a bit easier.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 21 Apr 2008, 17:33

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
I think though Stu, you need to consider that in his earlier years, Hopkins would have been less negative, and therefore offered more opportunities for Calzaghe to punch.

Joe had a terrible opening and threw the first three rounds away, and still prevailed. He gained in confidence and was definetly coming on the later it went. I think the occasion got to Joe a little bit, he showed Hopkins a lot of respect, but also that big right hand did change the complection of the fight.

Jones was on another level to Hopkins for me, and incredibly virtually unbeatable talent in his prime. At 168, Jones was godlike, he would have battered Calzaghe, and even Joe has said as much.

I do wonder whether Jones Junior might be able to win against Joe. Jones is reportedly fresher at the weight, and has a big punch on him too and still has the handspeed to go with it, though he only punches in bursts these days.

Calzaghe looked worryingly amateurish at times against Hopkins, but I believe he underperformed, in part due to the nature of Hopkins' style, and to a lesser extent the occasion.

Hopkins is the MASTER tactition..... as adaptable as Joe. Just because Hopkins had more in the tank, doesn't mean he wouldn't have fought just a slightly better fight and prevail by wide scores. It doesn't mean that he was definately going to be more agressive.

I think Hopkins would have pot shot, but when he caught Joe flush... followed up a bit better than he did on Saturday. It would have still be primarly a negative Hopkins... because thats the tactic to use.

Jones still looks weak at Light Heavy to me now, but I think it could be competitive - if Joe cannot hurt Jones.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 21 Apr 2008, 17:42

Autobarn wrote:I think they genuinely wanted to get Hopkins in 2002. Hopkins would have been moving up for the 1st time, maybe not settled at 168-lbs so easily and had it been in the UK, we don't quite know how Hopkins would have fared in a different sort of atmosphere. I think playing the percentages, they saw Hopkins could definitely be beaten in Wales.

On the whole though, it is a well timed career in which the promoter gets the right fights at the right time and the fighter delivers in the ring. Provided they extend this unbeaten record into retirement, then it is a big achievement. Although it does make you wonder, with better sparring, a bit better comp and fighting in America earlier to sample things, whether Joe could have made this last fight a bit easier.

Top post. Agree entirely... I have been criticised for my slant of the fight and view of what this means of Calzaghe's legacy.

However, aint disputing the talent... would have loved to have seen him based in the states. Yeah, then it could have been different. But I am judging it on Hopkins 2002 and Calzaghe 2002.

No way would the occasion get to B HOP. He'd just beaten Trinidad in one of the most fired up fights ever.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 21 Apr 2008, 17:44

Wrists wrote:Stu - you talk alot of rubbish.

Hopkins never beats Calzaghe at any point as he simply does not punch hard enough to KO him and is not and never was busy enough to outpoint him.

There is a reason why he asked at the last minute for double the money all those years ago.

Calzaghe fought poorly on saturday, hopkins was hopkins and still lost

Do the math.

Your constant sniping at JC is becoming almost as bad as pundit's. Try at least be a little impartial

Wrists

Thats why he had Joe on the floor, thats why he was outpointing for a large portion of the fight - just gassed. Oh yeah, over course he is the same fight as the one that battered Trinidad.

Hopkins WASN'T Hopkins - try watching some OLD videos of him.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 21 Apr 2008, 17:46

I think Calzaghe, Hopkins and Jones all have equal bodies of work. But none were perfect; all of them had their comfort zones and they all have their weaknesses.

Hopkins clearly is out of sorts vs 6' plus athletic Americans with explosive speed/power. See Jones Jr and Taylor 1 and 2 bouts.

Calzaghe clearly doesn't like defensive fighters who can counter him when he leads. Ottke and Mundine would have troubled him IMO.

Jones clearly hates fighting tall southpaws because he relied on reflexes - leaping into shots and seeming to pull away before it has even landed - while always circling to his right. For anyone with the reach/timing he is open to a left hand KO. Tarver did it (when Jones was fading, but also Tarver was the same age) and it's very possible that peak Michael Nunn and - maybe - Frankie Liles (who did it to Jones in the amas) could have done it.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 21 Apr 2008, 18:25

Autobarn wrote:I think Calzaghe, Hopkins and Jones all have equal bodies of work. But none were perfect; all of them had their comfort zones and they all have their weaknesses.

Hopkins clearly is out of sorts vs 6' plus athletic Americans with explosive speed/power. See Jones Jr and Taylor 1 and 2 bouts.

Calzaghe clearly doesn't like defensive fighters who can counter him when he leads. Ottke and Mundine would have troubled him IMO.

Jones clearly hates fighting tall southpaws because he relied on reflexes - leaping into shots and seeming to pull away before it has even landed - while always circling to his right. For anyone with the reach/timing he is open to a left hand KO. Tarver did it (when Jones was fading, but also Tarver was the same age) and it's very possible that peak Michael Nunn and - maybe - Frankie Liles (who did it to Jones in the amas) could have done it.

Mmm... interesting. Again, though, I'll be criticised of being bias here, but Hopkins and Jones' scenerios are a bit sort of guess work - cause Jones was past his prime vs Tarver and didn't really have any struggles in his pro career before that point.

Hopkins lost to Jones - mainly because Jones is one of the all time greats and for me, as I think it is a level ahead IMO of both of them. He was untouchable -as good as Floyd Mayweather Jnr for me.

He lost to Taylor, but did he?, mainly cause of age.... and Taylor may have won, but he didn't BEAT him - which is how I will always view Calzaghe vs Hopkins.

Okay, I'm sure Wrists et al, will say Stu your talking bollocks again and showing hatred for Joe.... Joe is undefeated - how can you say Hopkins' and Jones' scenerios are guess work and Joe's isn't.... Well... maybe, but for me Joe's flaw has been shown time and time again, even against less great fighters like Bika, even if they didn't do enough to beat him - although 2 of them have on my card.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 21 Apr 2008, 18:37

With Joe being undefeated argument, obviously being undefeated is all down to timing. Joe would not be undefeated if he'd fought Jones, instead of Eubank, in 1997. Even Marciano, he fought cagey old greats Charles and Moore who were smaller men (similar with Calzaghe having life and death with the well preserved Hopkins).

Jones Jr did make tactical errors, always circling right and leaping in/pulling out with shots. Lou del Valle did drop him, Eric Harding did trouble him so i think it's something that a very good, long, lean lefthander with some pop in his punch could take advantage of.

Anyway, all 3 have done well, all 3 deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

I think Hopkins is 1-1 v Taylor. Taylor ended up nt being a great fighter anyway. And I think Joe beat Hopkins by 1 point - 7-5 in rds minus a point from the KD. Joe's win over Hopkins was ugly and unsatisfying - as was Hopkins' over Winky - but I think Joe found a way to time his left hand on Hopkins & Joe's pace told on Hopkins over the 2nd half. Horrid, wonky fight - I hated watching it - but the right man won. We're being harder on Joe on the British boards, while the Yanks on the Current Scene mainly have Joe winning.

I just think Hopkins, Jones and Calzaghe are perfect examples of ppl who have had cautious, highly planned careers. All 3 blokes waited many years for big fights. After beating Toney, Jones didn't have another superfight until Ruiz. After losing to Jones, Hopkins couldn't get a meaningful opponent til the unifications and after Holmes/Tito he waited 3 yrs for DLH to move up. Joe didn't unify til he was 34-36 but beat two good fighters in their primes.