Ambling Alp wrote:
I think that it's a nice win for Calzaghe over Hopkins. Most other fighters wouldn't have been able to do that.
However, that doesn't mean that Calzaghe was better or would beat Hopkins if they were the same age. If they were both say 36, Hopkins would win.
Right, that's my take. When I say "he doesn't deserve all that much credit" I mean it in that context; "what if they were the same age?" With that said, it means much more than beating someone like Lacy.
Ezzard wrote:Fine that wasn't my point. My point was that Calzaghe's win over Hopkins is a good win. Hopkins had beaten 2 of his best opponents in previous fights and was top 10 P4p still. When McCallum fought Jones, Mike was not in the same state at all. Mike really was washed up. IMO that version of McCallum was not comparable to the Hopkins Calzaghe beat. Bernard was not in his prime but he was still a very, very stern test.
I could say that McCallum had a belt, he was still a top Light Heavyweight, and so it was a good win for Jones, even if Jones was at his peak and McCallum wasn't.
There's two ways to judge it, I think. There's the face of it, Calzaghe or Jones winning a championship or winning a belt over a top rated Light Heavyweight. And then there's the reality; if the situation was reversed, and McCallum or Hopkins had been at their peak and Jones and Calzaghe had been in their 40's, Jones and Calzaghe would have gotten pounded badly. Looking at it a little more realistically their wins were accidents of age; which is why I am comparing the two fights. The fact that Hopkins had a little more left than McCallum is almost irrelevant. Going into the fight Hopkins said "You're a champion, I'm a Legend." Calzaghe ended up winning the fight, and with it another title, sure, but if Calzaghe's aim was to prove that he was a legend, or that he was on Hopkins' level in an "all time" sense, then he failed.
Smokin'Moe wrote:we all know ali is a bit over rated
No, we don't.