Calzaghe - Hopkins would be a joke..

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 06 Sep 2007, 16:16

I think Calzaghe's aggression, speed and unorthodoxy would have been too much for Hopkins at any stage personally.

Although I think Hopkins would have been competitive in any era of middleweights, he has undoubtedly benefitted from being in a very weak talent pool.

He would probably have gone the distance with almost any middleweight great in history, but beaten them, nope.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 06 Sep 2007, 16:38

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I think Calzaghe's aggression, speed and unorthodoxy would have been too much for Hopkins at any stage personally.

Although I think Hopkins would have been competitive in any era of middleweights, he has undoubtedly benefitted from being in a very weak talent pool.

He would probably have gone the distance with almost any middleweight great in history, but beaten them, nope.

Hopkins used to be able to throw more than about 5 punches a round in his hay day. Think he would have found a way and punish Joe - remember he isn't the most orthodox of fighters.

ArtOfWar · Post by **ArtOfWar** » 06 Sep 2007, 16:38

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I think Calzaghe's aggression, speed and unorthodoxy would have been too much for Hopkins at any stage personally.

Although I think Hopkins would have been competitive in any era of middleweights, he has undoubtedly benefitted from being in a very weak talent pool.

He would probably have gone the distance with almost any middleweight great in history, but beaten them, nope.

Don't agree with that. Hopkins at his best was much better than the Hopkins you see today. His punch output was much much better and he was willing to mix it up much more than he does today. He'd be a nightmare for any middleweight in the history of the sport, because he is such a smart fighter. That's his edge of Calzaghe as well, he's a much smarter fighter than Calzaghe. I would definitely make Hopkins the underdog if they fought now, because his punch output isn't very good. He's basically turned into a spoiler. If they fought 5 or 6 years ago though Calzaghe would have been up against it for sure.

JC · Post by JC » 06 Sep 2007, 16:43

ArtOfWar wrote: He'd be a nightmare for any middleweight in the history of the sport, because he is such a smart fighter.

He wasn't a nighmare for Roy Jones, Jone's superior speed was able to neutralise Hpkins. I can't see him being a nightmare for guys like Hagler, Monzon, Robinson or Burley either. A tough opponent yes but not a "nightmare".

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 06 Sep 2007, 17:16

ArtOfWar wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:I think Calzaghe's aggression, speed and unorthodoxy would have been too much for Hopkins at any stage personally.

Although I think Hopkins would have been competitive in any era of middleweights, he has undoubtedly benefitted from being in a very weak talent pool.

He would probably have gone the distance with almost any middleweight great in history, but beaten them, nope.
Don't agree with that. Hopkins at his best was much better than the Hopkins you see today. His punch output was much much better and he was willing to mix it up much more than he does today. He'd be a nightmare for any middleweight in the history of the sport, because he is such a smart fighter. That's his edge of Calzaghe as well, he's a much smarter fighter than Calzaghe. I would definitely make Hopkins the underdog if they fought now, because his punch output isn't very good. He's basically turned into a spoiler. If they fought 5 or 6 years ago though Calzaghe would have been up against it for sure.

Hopkins isn't the only smart fighter out there.

There were plenty of other smart middleweights in the history of the division too, and guys who did things better than Hopkins. Hopkins is decent in every department, without being outstanding, in a way that's why tactically he had to be good.

I think Hopkins smarts are overrated. His best performances were against Johnson and Trinidad. He never beat another future hall of famer, and lost to the one he did face. I also think Toney would have given him a lesson too, had he not eaten himself out of the division.

I think you have to give Hopkins his due for his longevity, but this era has flattered him immensely, he never had to beat a truly outstanding middleweight to get to the top.

I'll give Hopkins his due, but there's plenty of other middleweights who I think would have beaten him although I doubt any, save perhaps Robinson would have beaten him dominatingly, Hopkins is nothing if not a spoiler.

I am also aware that Hopkins at 42 is not throwing that many punches, it's not like I started watching boxing 6 months ago.

Crew2 · Post by **Crew2** » 06 Sep 2007, 18:36

JC should fight Taylor or Chad Dawson if he gets by Kessler, fight prime fighters, he'd get ripped for fighting the balding Bitchkins I.M.O like you say .Taylor or Dawson, or Taylor and Dawson, then maybe Clinton.

Deram · Post by **Deram** » 07 Sep 2007, 03:13

IF Joe can beat Kessler (fairly) then he would have beat Hopkins at any point in their carrers.

Deram · Post by **Deram** » 07 Sep 2007, 03:15

Crew2 wrote:JC should fight Taylor or Chad Dawson if he gets by Kessler, fight prime fighters, he'd get ripped for fighting the balding Bitchkins I.M.O like you say .Taylor or Dawson, or Taylor and Dawson, then maybe Clinton.

I agree. anything Dawson does in the future will benefit Calzaghe if he can beat him. Sort of the way beating a green'ish Hopkins has kept benefitting Roy Jones.

BUT - Dawson will imo. be far more difficult to beat than an old BHop.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 07 Sep 2007, 03:23

Deram wrote:IF Joe can beat Kessler (fairly) then he would have beat Hopkins at any point in their carrers.

I fail to see the connection?

If Sam Peter can beat Oleg Maskaev, he would have beaten the shit out of Joe Louis at any time in his career.

NON SEQUITUR LOGIC

Sweet P · Post by **Sweet P** » 07 Sep 2007, 03:48

boxingchat wrote:
Autobarn wrote:Calzaghe's a classic 90s champion. Spend your prime making as many average title defenses as possible, miss the biggest fights until you're getting on a bit. Jones and Hopkins were like that as well. Boxing doesn't really accomodate that attitude as much these days. Spend as much time not risking what you have.
But it's okay for Hatton to build up a £10M fortune before taking a risk is it?

Hatton fought and beat the best fighter in his division to get the title, In 15 years Joe has not done that.

Sweet P · Post by **Sweet P** » 07 Sep 2007, 03:53

Deram wrote:IF Joe can beat Kessler (fairly) then he would have beat Hopkins at any point in their carrers.

That is the most rediculous post i have read on this site in 5 years.

Deram · Post by **Deram** » 07 Sep 2007, 03:55

Tantum wrote:
Deram wrote:IF Joe can beat Kessler (fairly) then he would have beat Hopkins at any point in their carrers.
I fail to see the connection?

If Sam Peter can beat Oleg Maskaev, he would have beaten the shit out of Joe Louis at any time in his career.

NON SEQUITUR LOGIC

The logic is the following.

We know that Joe is a very strong boxer - and we don't know where his limit is because he has never lost. Personally I believe his limit is somewhere before Kessler and as such I doubt Joe can beat Kessler.

I think Kessler would beat Hopkins. certainly the current version of Hopkins.

As such, if Joe shows that his abilities stretch beyond the Kessler-level, I will believe he also would have beaten any version of BHop.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 07 Sep 2007, 05:05

Crew2 wrote:JC should fight Taylor or Chad Dawson if he gets by Kessler, fight prime fighters, he'd get ripped for fighting the balding Bitchkins I.M.O like you say .Taylor or Dawson, or Taylor and Dawson, then maybe Clinton.

I'd prefer this to happen.

Calzaghe-Hopkins would be 1 of the worst fights in history. I agree with McDonnell though, that Calzaghe's handspeed and engine would be the difference. Hopkins, true, used to be able to throw lots of punches. But only when he's bullying decent/good 160-pounders, 154-pounders and 147-pounders. But this workrate that we saw from Hopkins stopped in 1998!

Re Hopkins - he has to be credited for mastering his own body and mastering the ring. But we saw what he's like if he hasn't got a come forward puncher coming at him. The Wright fight should have been scored 0-0. There were about 3 good punches landed. There was no mastery by Hopkins, just a lot of movement, a lot of cuffing, and a lot of holding.

30 years ago they would have got thrown the fvck out.

Where were things like true ring generalship, clean compact punching, etc etc?

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 07 Sep 2007, 05:34

What about guys like Tony Zale, Rocky Graziano?

Both these guys were inhumanly tough, and had terrific fighting hearts. They were considered poor technicians compared to some of the other middleweights of their era, but fighters served long apprenticeships back then, and were better all rounders than most modern fighters.

What about Marcel Cerdan? Another great of yesteryear? Or Jake Lamotta?

The more you think about it, the more you realise how incredibly deep the history of the middleweight division is. There are many others names which haven't even been mentioned yet.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 07 Sep 2007, 06:20

They definitely knew how to fight, those whiteys.

White fighters are spoiled badly these days. Local following, borderline world class skills and a WBO title - and you're made.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 07 Sep 2007, 06:22

jamesmcdonnell wrote:What about guys like Tony Zale, Rocky Graziano?

Both these guys were inhumanly tough, and had terrific fighting hearts. They were considered poor technicians compared to some of the other middleweights of their era, but fighters served long apprenticeships back then, and were better all rounders than most modern fighters.

What about Marcel Cerdan? Another great of yesteryear? Or Jake Lamotta?

The more you think about it, the more you realise how incredibly deep the history of the middleweight division is. There are many others names which haven't even been mentioned yet.

Graziano was tough and had the KO punch but I don't see him landing it often enough. Zale, Cerdan and LaMotta would give Hopkins a lot of trouble. It's easy to imagine the guys with a high punch output taking a decision off him.

I quite fancy Dick Tiger to be able to out hustle him over 15. Benvenuti was also a class act.

Charley Burley is another I'd fancy over Hopkins.

Going back there's Greb. We don't have any film but his record is amazing.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 07 Sep 2007, 06:55

The middleweights are all super middles these days. End up being stronger and healthier. Taylor and Pavlik to follow suit when they move up...

We could say we have a great era of "middleweights" on our doorstep - Calzaghe, Kessler, Bute, Froch, Pascal, Mundine, Allan Green, Miranda, Taylor, Pavlik, Wright, Inkin, Beyer, Lacy, Andrade.

If they're not up to scratch they can still be in great fights - can anyone imagine Pavlik v Andrade or Lacy v Miranda brawls? Good prospects coming through also, i.e. Andy Lee, Karo Murat.

For this theory to hold up Calzaghe and Kessler need to give us an intense epic fought at a high level of technical skill - to act as the barometer - which I expect to happen.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 07 Sep 2007, 07:06

Autobarn wrote:The middleweights are all super middles these days. End up being stronger and healthier. Taylor and Pavlik to follow suit when they move up...

We could say we have a great era of "middleweights" on our doorstep - Calzaghe, Kessler, Bute, Froch, Pascal, Mundine, Allan Green, Miranda, Taylor, Pavlik, Wright, Inkin, Beyer, Lacy, Andrade.

If they're not up to scratch they can still be in great fights - can anyone imagine Pavlik v Andrade or Lacy v Miranda brawls? Good prospects coming through also, i.e. Andy Lee, Karo Murat.

For this theory to hold up Calzaghe and Kessler need to give us an intense epic fought at a high level of technical skill - to act as the barometer - which I expect to happen.

Stronger, bigger, yes, healthier? Not sure about that.

Look at the pace of the fights which were fought over 15 brutal rounds back in those days, could that be done unless you were incredibly fit?

Jermaine Taylor sure as hell don't look so healthy.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 07 Sep 2007, 07:14

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Autobarn wrote:The middleweights are all super middles these days. End up being stronger and healthier. Taylor and Pavlik to follow suit when they move up...

We could say we have a great era of "middleweights" on our doorstep - Calzaghe, Kessler, Bute, Froch, Pascal, Mundine, Allan Green, Miranda, Taylor, Pavlik, Wright, Inkin, Beyer, Lacy, Andrade.

If they're not up to scratch they can still be in great fights - can anyone imagine Pavlik v Andrade or Lacy v Miranda brawls? Good prospects coming through also, i.e. Andy Lee, Karo Murat.

For this theory to hold up Calzaghe and Kessler need to give us an intense epic fought at a high level of technical skill - to act as the barometer - which I expect to happen.
Stronger, bigger, yes, healthier? Not sure about that.

Look at the pace of the fights which were fought over 15 brutal rounds back in those days, could that be done unless you were incredibly fit?

Jermaine Taylor sure as hell don't look so healthy.

I'm more talking about modern fighters involving day before weight ins.

Compare Pavlik and Tayor killig themsevles to make 160, with a guy like Pascal, whose speed and power are not compromised because he's at a weight comfortable to him at 168.

dbf · Post by **dbf** » 07 Sep 2007, 07:38

Is Andrade being a little over rated here?

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 07 Sep 2007, 07:43

I did concede that if the fighters aren't up to scratch, they can at least be in great, raw fights. The guy is made out of granite, has a punch, stamina and can improve after the Kessler loss. Not a bad fighter to fill up the lower part of the top 10 & I still think he's potentially better than the likes of Charles Brewer, Byron Mitchell and Lacy.

Let's say Pavlik beats Taylor and moves up. So, does that mean Pavlik beats Andrade? There's no such certainty IMO.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 07 Sep 2007, 07:59

dbf wrote:Is Andrade being a little over rated here?

He's doing nothing special except for beating Otis Grant who was on a comeback trail then retired after the fight.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 07 Sep 2007, 08:05

Max Molyneux wrote:
dbf wrote:Is Andrade being a little over rated here?
He's doing nothing special except for beating Otis Grant who was on a comeback trail then retired after the fight.

Andrade is okay, but nowt spectacular - would be favoured over Berrio but thats about it. Am a bit stunned at how BM rank him so highly in their independent top ten... I think Bute is down at #9 or #10. Think they should be swapped.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 07 Sep 2007, 08:33

As far as Max is concerned Andrade could die, because he's a good opponent that the evil Kessler beat.

He's a difficult guy to fight & I still maintain that Calzaghe, with his weather balloon chin and brittle hands would have had a very hard time.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 07 Sep 2007, 08:43

Talk about taking the biscuit.

Andrade only fought journymen and a former middleweight champ on the comeback trail. He's limited and Kessler exposed that.

Calzaghe would easily batter Andrade on points.

Joe only breaks his hands like once a year.

Joe's chin Is Iron and Is more proven than Kesslers.