Hopkins Record

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 21 Nov 2007, 08:56

DavidPayne wrote:During his reign Calzaghe missed

Catley and Beyer - WBC
Mundine, Ottke, Sanavia - WBA
Vanderpool, Ottke, Lucas - IBF

Off the top of my head. Not to mention, if I'm correct Reid rematch, Haussler, Green, Echols and Froch.

I'm not saying he would have lost to any of them but he accomodated much inferior fighters.

Was Vanderpool ever champion - thought his fight with Lacy was for the Vacant title. I think Sarnavia was a WBC and WBA champion.

You could add Larsen nd Francis as respectable non champions.

Other (albeit breif champions) you could mention are Malinga (WBC), Nardiello (WBC), Davey Hilton (WBC), Thobela (WBC), Girard (WBA), Liles (WBA), Berrio (IBF) and Bute (IBF).

Plus the added fact that former champions - Woodhall, Brewer, Mitchell, Reid etc were exactly that former champion who never regained their titles.

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 21 Nov 2007, 09:00

Didn't Vanerpool beat someone like Lucas or Reggie Green ?

Scrap · Post by **Scrap** » 21 Nov 2007, 09:43

Tkye I agree he Hopkins bores the pants of me. A great I cant see it.

Tykemania · Post by **Tykemania** » 22 Nov 2007, 15:39

stujones wrote: As for Joe Calzaghe - I'll repeat it again - Sven Ottke IBF champion for 8 of Joe's 10 year reign. IBF/WBA champion for 1 of those years. Markus Beyer WBC champion for at least 5 of Joe's 10 year reign..... Like them or not, these are HUGE factors. These two were Joe's natural rivals.... Just like Dariuz's was Roy Jones.

I agree those matches SHOULD have taken place, though I think you have to be fair to Calzaghe and ask whether either Ottke or Beyer would have been willing? The former, especially, had a reputation for fighting only relatively easy opposition, and then only in Germany and only when he had control of the judges (wirness the hoirrific decisions he "won" against Robin Reid, Byron Mitchell and Mads Larsen). No doubt Sven would have insisted on home advantage, the big end of the money and control of the judges!!!!!

Tykemania · Post by **Tykemania** » 22 Nov 2007, 15:41

DavidPayne wrote:Tyke,

I've enjoyed the discussion. I guess in summary, it's a subjective proposition Hop's career. And like you, it is possible to argue the point eitherway.

Sometimes, it depends which way the wind is blowing which argument I take up. As you suggest are opinion isn't as far as apart as it may appear. I do however believe the crossover you propose of his career with McCallum, McClellan and Toney is very, very fleeting and then, even more than now, Hop was far from the type of opponent any of three you mention would have pursued either. Though I appreciate I risk sounding like Bernard in saying that. Hop fought Jones at that time, so he was far from shy of a challenge.

You make a good case though. Hopkins and Calzaghe's careers are very comparable for they contain a lot of mediocrity.

See you on the next topic.

Agreed, its been fun.

One more point though - its a big leap between crediting Hopkins for taking on Jones when he was not a beltholder and stretching that to account for his evasive tactics thereafter...

Tykemania · Post by **Tykemania** » 22 Nov 2007, 15:45

DavidPayne wrote:During his reign Calzaghe missed

Catley and Beyer - WBC
Mundine, Ottke, Sanavia - WBA
Vanderpool, Ottke, Lucas - IBF

Off the top of my head. Not to mention, if I'm correct Reid rematch, Haussler, Green, Echols and Froch.

I'm not saying he would have lost to any of them but he accomodated much inferior fighters.

Some of those would have been good matches, if they could have been made - Beyer, Ottke (though I don't for a moment blame Joe if he did avoid a short purse trip to Germany) and Sanavia especially. However, to incorporate all of those with his mandatories would have been one hell of an acheievment....

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 22 Nov 2007, 17:45

Tykemania wrote:
stujones wrote: As for Joe Calzaghe - I'll repeat it again - Sven Ottke IBF champion for 8 of Joe's 10 year reign. IBF/WBA champion for 1 of those years. Markus Beyer WBC champion for at least 5 of Joe's 10 year reign..... Like them or not, these are HUGE factors. These two were Joe's natural rivals.... Just like Dariuz's was Roy Jones.
I agree those matches SHOULD have taken place, though I think you have to be fair to Calzaghe and ask whether either Ottke or Beyer would have been willing? The former, especially, had a reputation for fighting only relatively easy opposition, and then only in Germany and only when he had control of the judges (wirness the hoirrific decisions he "won" against Robin Reid, Byron Mitchell and Mads Larsen). No doubt Sven would have insisted on home advantage, the big end of the money and control of the judges!!!!!

You obviously haven't seen Ottke vs Mitchell then. Marcus Beyer challenged for the WBC in the UK and the WBA title in Denmark.

Tykemania · Post by **Tykemania** » 22 Nov 2007, 18:25

stujones wrote:
Tykemania wrote:
stujones wrote: As for Joe Calzaghe - I'll repeat it again - Sven Ottke IBF champion for 8 of Joe's 10 year reign. IBF/WBA champion for 1 of those years. Markus Beyer WBC champion for at least 5 of Joe's 10 year reign..... Like them or not, these are HUGE factors. These two were Joe's natural rivals.... Just like Dariuz's was Roy Jones.
I agree those matches SHOULD have taken place, though I think you have to be fair to Calzaghe and ask whether either Ottke or Beyer would have been willing? The former, especially, had a reputation for fighting only relatively easy opposition, and then only in Germany and only when he had control of the judges (wirness the hoirrific decisions he "won" against Robin Reid, Byron Mitchell and Mads Larsen). No doubt Sven would have insisted on home advantage, the big end of the money and control of the judges!!!!!
You obviously haven't seen Ottke vs Mitchell then. Marcus Beyer challenged for the WBC in the UK and the WBA title in Denmark.

I have to confess not, though two good friends who did (in the arena) were both of the opinion that it was not a fantastic call by the two judges who opted for the German (and they, bear in mind, are of a teutonic bent themselves)

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 22 Nov 2007, 18:29

No - Ottke won clear - a SD flattered Mitchell. In some ways it was as emphatic as the Joe Calzaghe win over Mitchell - it was a bit of a boxing lesson.

I don't want to be sounding like an Ottke fan, he was so dull to watch - but he does get unduly bad press/image IMO. That was easily his best display. His last decent display.

Tykemania · Post by **Tykemania** » 22 Nov 2007, 21:55

stujones wrote:No - Ottke won clear - a SD flattered Mitchell. In some ways it was as emphatic as the Joe Calzaghe win over Mitchell - it was a bit of a boxing lesson.

I don't want to be sounding like an Ottke fan, he was so dull to watch - but he does get unduly bad press/image IMO. That was easily his best display. His last decent display.

Well, I'll call it a split decision then - your word against theirs!!!

The other two I did see though, and there was no way he won either - the Robin Reid one was one of the most farcical ever.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 23 Nov 2007, 06:48

Tykemania wrote:
stujones wrote:No - Ottke won clear - a SD flattered Mitchell. In some ways it was as emphatic as the Joe Calzaghe win over Mitchell - it was a bit of a boxing lesson.

I don't want to be sounding like an Ottke fan, he was so dull to watch - but he does get unduly bad press/image IMO. That was easily his best display. His last decent display.
Well, I'll call it a split decision then - your word against theirs!!!

The other two I did see though, and there was no way he won either - the Robin Reid one was one of the most farcical ever.

Well these are the ONLY two who I have heard of that gave it to Mitchell. Ask ANY British poster here who has seen the fight.

Robin Reid fight = Farcical refereeing, not farcical final total. Give Reid the KD and not the point deduction then he would have won - not though when you take the potentially 3 point turn around.... Ottke was past it by then, and he soon realised it.

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 23 Nov 2007, 07:31

DavidPayne wrote:During his reign Calzaghe missed

Catley and Beyer - WBC
Mundine, Ottke, Sanavia - WBA
Vanderpool, Ottke, Lucas - IBF

Off the top of my head. Not to mention, if I'm correct Reid rematch, Haussler, Green, Echols and Froch.

I'm not saying he would have lost to any of them but he accomodated much inferior fighters.

The only match to my mind there that would have a bearing on how we view Calzaghe now is Ottke. The others might have been better matches that McIntyre, Pudwill etc, but don't represent anything particularly career-defining.
And as for Ottke, as confirmed by Ottke's own trainer, that was a match that was offered to them, but Sven himself didn't want to take it, despite his trainer's urgings.

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 23 Nov 2007, 07:37

I don't buy this 'career defining' fight theory. A career defines a career.

Had Joe fought the likes of Lucas, Mundine, Beyer, Catley, Sanavia, Reid II, Echols, Green, Haussler instead of the host of stiffs he did, he would much better thought of and already pressing Mayweather at the top of the fictional P4P rankings.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 23 Nov 2007, 07:44

DavidPayne wrote:I don't buy this 'career defining' fight theory. A career defines a career.

Had Joe fought the likes of Lucas, Mundine, Beyer, Catley, Sanavia, Reid II, Echols, Green, Haussler instead of the host of stiffs he did, he would much better thought of and already pressing Mayweather at the top of the fictional P4P rankings.

I agree, however there are one or two "rivals" in a devision that you really must have to fight - for the sakes of both of your careers. For RJJ its Michaelswecki, For Joe is Svenny.

Incidently, did you acidentally miss out the main man Ottke - or was that a purposeful thing.

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 23 Nov 2007, 08:37

DavidPayne wrote:I don't buy this 'career defining' fight theory. A career defines a career.

Had Joe fought the likes of Lucas, Mundine, Beyer, Catley, Sanavia, Reid II, Echols, Green, Haussler instead of the host of stiffs he did, he would much better thought of and already pressing Mayweather at the top of the fictional P4P rankings.

I'd tend to disagree. There are plenty of titlists throughout history who had good, solid reigns but failed to achieve boxing 'immortality'. The emphasis has always been on 'career defining fights'. I'm not saying I subscribe to this view, but it's undoubtedly the dominant one.

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 23 Nov 2007, 08:44

In the cases you mentioned, aren't those fighters simply, good solid titlist then?

Now we've redefined it as 'boxing immortality'.

In a hundred years will Calzaghe v Lacy really be regarded as a super-fight?

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 23 Nov 2007, 08:49

DavidPayne wrote:In the cases you mentioned, aren't those fighters simply, good solid titlist then?

Now we've redefined it as 'boxing immortality'.

In a hundred years will Calzaghe v Lacy really be regarded as a super-fight?

I do think that Calzaghe will be regarded historically as the pre-eminent Super-Middle, and that belief, will be based (rightly or wrongly) on the two 'defining' fights to date of Lacy and Kessler, along with the longevity of his reign. The names of the 'second-tier' opponents will be fairly immaterial.
You only have to look at Hopkins to see how this has already played out to a degree.

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 23 Nov 2007, 08:55

True, but a large body of opinion in this thread is already questionning Hopkins standing in the list of great middleweights of the past.

He's gone out of the top 10 if you listen to somehere despite that longevity of which you speak, of course Calzaghe doesn't have the history in his division to overshadow his own achievements as its only 20 years old and he's been king for 10.

DP

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 23 Nov 2007, 10:14

Deserter wrote:
DavidPayne wrote:In the cases you mentioned, aren't those fighters simply, good solid titlist then?

Now we've redefined it as 'boxing immortality'.

In a hundred years will Calzaghe v Lacy really be regarded as a super-fight?
I do think that Calzaghe will be regarded historically as the pre-eminent Super-Middle, and that belief, will be based (rightly or wrongly) on the two 'defining' fights to date of Lacy and Kessler, along with the longevity of his reign. The names of the 'second-tier' opponents will be fairly immaterial.
You only have to look at Hopkins to see how this has already played out to a degree.

Might be going round in circles now BUT - the fundamental differences between Calzaghe's and Hopkins' reign is that Hopkins had no option - he fought pretty much EVERYBODY he could as a Middleweight.

Calzaghe missed a definate contender and threat to his "10 year" # 1 position for 8 of those 10 years - and Beyer was a 3 time Champion over at least 5 years of Joe's 10.

Hopkins beat the lot... Took all his mandatories, unified the titles, ex champions, champions moving up everything at Middleweight. Unfortunately, the best wasn't very good - no doubting that... nout Hopkins could do about it though.

Calzaghe missed 3 really important names - and the thing is they were very beatable. When Calzaghe beat Eubank, many say the aging Frankie Liles as the man - and Ottke and Beyer. Prior to Kessler and (maybe Lacy) there is a big big case to say Ottke had a better reign/record than Joe did.

All winnable, and Joe could have and should have fought them.... Someways it could be argued that Joe didn't have his own DLH or Tito (which would have Hopkins) - but thats by the by. The fact is Joe had options that Hopkins didn't and for some reason - they didn't happen.

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 23 Nov 2007, 11:25

stujones wrote:
Deserter wrote:
DavidPayne wrote:In the cases you mentioned, aren't those fighters simply, good solid titlist then?

Now we've redefined it as 'boxing immortality'.

In a hundred years will Calzaghe v Lacy really be regarded as a super-fight?
I do think that Calzaghe will be regarded historically as the pre-eminent Super-Middle, and that belief, will be based (rightly or wrongly) on the two 'defining' fights to date of Lacy and Kessler, along with the longevity of his reign. The names of the 'second-tier' opponents will be fairly immaterial.
You only have to look at Hopkins to see how this has already played out to a degree.
Might be going round in circles now BUT - the fundamental differences between Calzaghe's and Hopkins' reign is that Hopkins had no option - he fought pretty much EVERYBODY he could as a Middleweight.

Calzaghe missed a definate contender and threat to his "10 year" # 1 position for 8 of those 10 years - and Beyer was a 3 time Champion over at least 5 years of Joe's 10.

Hopkins beat the lot... Took all his mandatories, unified the titles, ex champions, champions moving up everything at Middleweight. Unfortunately, the best wasn't very good - no doubting that... nout Hopkins could do about it though.

Calzaghe missed 3 really important names - and the thing is they were very beatable. When Calzaghe beat Eubank, many say the aging Frankie Liles as the man - and Ottke and Beyer. Prior to Kessler and (maybe Lacy) there is a big big case to say Ottke had a better reign/record than Joe did.

All winnable, and Joe could have and should have fought them.... Someways it could be argued that Joe didn't have his own DLH or Tito (which would have Hopkins) - but thats by the by. The fact is Joe had options that Hopkins didn't and for some reason - they didn't happen.

Stu, as with my debate with Dave, I'm not actually disagreeing with any of this in principle, I'm merely pointing out that when put in the context of history, most people won't distinguish the nuances. I'm exaggerating to stress a point here, but when you think of Leonard's place in history the vast majority of people will focus in part on the various titles won in different weight divisons, but mostly on the 'career-defining' fights against the likes of Hearns, Hagler and Duran. He beat Ayub Kayule, which was in reality a far more significant win than overcoming Dave Boy Green, but 20 years on, these two fights, for example, will barely register on most people's radar, and consequently will play no real part in defining Leonard's legacy.
On a separate note, I should also stress the fact that Ottke's own trainer said Sven wanted no part of a match-up with Calzaghe, so it's rather harsh in this particular instance to blame Joe/Warren for this fight not taking place.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 23 Nov 2007, 15:27

Unfortunately, the records books won't say "Well, Calzaghe would have been up for fighting Ottke and would have won - but Ottke's trainer didn't want it". Thats all their going to see is two guys at the same weight that made FORTY defences between them - never fighting each other.

I know my posts in recent weeks has had a negative slant towards Calzaghe - and believe me, its nothing personal or anything. I say the same thing applies for RJJ and Dariusz Michaelsweki, DLH and Tszyu. However, whether they knew these fights would happen or not, what they did was seek an alternative - but equally significant challenge.

What your suggesting (or how I am reading it) is that, in this hypothetical situation - say Eastman beat Holmes, Joppy, Green, Abraham, Sturm, Ikeke etc etc - but didn't fight Hopkins - would he be an all time great? Thats essentially what JC has done... like Ottke or hate him, during his career we was everybit as equal as Joe in terms of his resume and title linaerage. Kessler and Lacy are going to have to have a marvelous career to equal Ottke's.

There is defining fights, and then there are real defining fights.... when the fighter was completely up against it, against a proven fighter. The only time Joe has ever been betting underdog was against an unproven Lacy.

Ottke was in the same boat, so he misses out also for me.

Tykemania · Post by **Tykemania** » 25 Nov 2007, 06:17

Deserter wrote:
DavidPayne wrote:I don't buy this 'career defining' fight theory. A career defines a career.

Had Joe fought the likes of Lucas, Mundine, Beyer, Catley, Sanavia, Reid II, Echols, Green, Haussler instead of the host of stiffs he did, he would much better thought of and already pressing Mayweather at the top of the fictional P4P rankings.
I'd tend to disagree. There are plenty of titlists throughout history who had good, solid reigns but failed to achieve boxing 'immortality'. The emphasis has always been on 'career defining fights'. I'm not saying I subscribe to this view, but it's undoubtedly the dominant one.

I think that is largely psychological - a great fight lives in the memory regardless of who was involved, ergo a great fight between two great fighters comes to define them both.