BoxRec

Kessler, without a doubt.

He was in his prime, and went to beat Froch in a war, something no other fighter did (go to war with Carl and win).

Eubank performance second, the Brewer win was very good too, to get up from that knockdown and then get the stoppage win was very impressive indeed. Great powers of recovery.

The Hopkins fight was terrible, neither man landed much, Joe's own blows were very glancing. I actually thought Joe lucky to get the win. I think the judges penalised Hopkins for his histrionics and poor sportsmanship. Agree though that he made Hopkins very negative. However the manner of the fight means I just cannot rate that as a great performance.

Bernhard, Kessler and Eubank all better opponents.

But the nature of that win, one of (if not the) single most devastating beat downs I've ever witnessed at the top level, makes the Lacy bout the stand out for me.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Kessler, without a doubt.

He was in his prime, and went to beat Froch in a war, something no other fighter did (go to war with Carl and win).

Eubank performance second, the Brewer win was very good too, to get up from that knockdown and then get the stoppage win was very impressive indeed. Great powers of recovery.

The Hopkins fight was terrible, neither man landed much, Joe's own blows were very glancing. I actually thought Joe lucky to get the win. I think the judges penalised Hopkins for his histrionics and poor sportsmanship. Agree though that he made Hopkins very negative. However the manner of the fight means I just cannot rate that as a great performance.

I think you mean Mitchell instead of Brewer.

mickey1975 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Kessler, without a doubt.

He was in his prime, and went to beat Froch in a war, something no other fighter did (go to war with Carl and win).

Eubank performance second, the Brewer win was very good too, to get up from that knockdown and then get the stoppage win was very impressive indeed. Great powers of recovery.

The Hopkins fight was terrible, neither man landed much, Joe's own blows were very glancing. I actually thought Joe lucky to get the win. I think the judges penalised Hopkins for his histrionics and poor sportsmanship. Agree though that he made Hopkins very negative. However the manner of the fight means I just cannot rate that as a great performance.

I think you mean Mitchell instead of Brewer.

Yeah the Brewer fight went the distance, was an enjoyable fight.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Kessler, without a doubt.

He was in his prime, and went to beat Froch in a war, something no other fighter did (go to war with Carl and win).

Eubank performance second, the Brewer win was very good too, to get up from that knockdown and then get the stoppage win was very impressive indeed. Great powers of recovery.

The Hopkins fight was terrible, neither man landed much, Joe's own blows were very glancing. I actually thought Joe lucky to get the win. I think the judges penalised Hopkins for his histrionics and poor sportsmanship. Agree though that he made Hopkins very negative. However the manner of the fight means I just cannot rate that as a great performance.

I think you mean Mitchell instead of Brewer.

Yeah the Brewer fight went the distance, was an enjoyable fight.

Sorry, Byron Mitchell it was indeed.

CiganoBoxer wrote:I actually think the Hopkins fight was one of his greatest performances , i mean when was the last time we eva see Hopkins the "ex con hard man from the streets" "i won't be beat by a white person " reduced to holding on for dear life to feigning low blows to crawling around on all fours begging the ref for points to be taken a way

Well said. Has to be a career low point for Hopkins.

I have to say Kessler, in my opinion the version of Kessler that Joe beat would have beaten everyone else on Joe's cv.

thread says best win rather than performance so I am going Hopkins

Kessler for me. Was a boxing masterclass by Calzaghe in the second half of the fight.

Like others, whilst the Hopkins win was a great win, it was a scrappy fight that could have gone either way. I think Calzaghe would have lost to Hopkins in his absolute prime.

SteveDow wrote:Kessler for me. Was a boxing masterclass by Calzaghe in the second half of the fight.

Like others, whilst the Hopkins win was a great win, it was a scrappy fight that could have gone either way. I think Calzaghe would have lost to Hopkins in his absolute prime.

I agree, I think Hopkins would have had too much - however, Hopkins had his opportunity after beating Trinidad, he had a contract in front of him, with terms he had asked for, and he then turned round and demanded double the money - I have to assume, that he didn't fancy fighting Calzaghe all that much at the time - and therefore turned the opportunity down - strange on his behalf, considering he then took on Calzaghe several years later when he was well past his prime and had much less chance to win. Of the shots actually landed in that awful fight, by far the best ones were by Hopkins, he was so negative however, that Calzaghe just got the nod through sheer aggression, even though it was pretty much totally ineffective. I do think Hopkins was extremely respectful of Calzaghe, which shows how good Joe was.

Personally I think Calzaghe would always have beaten Hopkins, who could always be outworked even in his last prime. But it would be an awful spectacle every time they fought.

Personally I think Lacey was the best win for Calzaghe, it was a statement fight for him, and took him on to the better fights. He put in some superb performances against other fighters, but the Lacey win was punch perfect. Many people will look at how Lacey's career panned out, but much of that can probably be accredited to the way he was dismantled in this fight.

Batley18 wrote:Personally I think Lacey was the best win for Calzaghe, it was a statement fight for him, and took him on to the better fights. He put in some superb performances against other fighters, but the Lacey win was punch perfect. Many people will look at how Lacey's career panned out, but much of that can probably be accredited to the way he was dismantled in this fight.

I think Calzaghe ruined Lacy that night,the bookies very rarely get boxing wrong and they had Lacy as the favourite,his confidence would have been shot afterwards,he got hit with nearly 1000 shots that night,can't be good for you.

Boxerbeetle wrote:Personally I think Calzaghe would always have beaten Hopkins, who could always be outworked even in his last prime. But it would be an awful spectacle every time they fought.

Yes he never liked working at a pace Hopkins, however, I think in his prime he would probably have been able to land a lot more shots. I agree it would probably have always been a stinker.

bigjack wrote:

Batley18 wrote:Personally I think Lacey was the best win for Calzaghe, it was a statement fight for him, and took him on to the better fights. He put in some superb performances against other fighters, but the Lacey win was punch perfect. Many people will look at how Lacey's career panned out, but much of that can probably be accredited to the way he was dismantled in this fight.

I think Calzaghe ruined Lacy that night,the bookies very rarely get boxing wrong and they had Lacy as the favourite,his confidence would have been shot afterwards,he got hit with nearly 1000 shots that night,can't be good for you.

Didn't he land 1008 shots?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Yes he never liked working at a pace Hopkins, however, I think in his prime he would probably have been able to land a lot more shots. I agree it would probably have always been a stinker.

?

the (37 year old?) Hopkins didn't have any problems bouncing about 80 punches per round off Trinidad's head for most of the last few rounds of that one, nor as I recall, in the days of fighting the likes of Echols or Joppy or Jackson or Glen Johnson, did he have a problem with workrate AFAIR.

though like you say the older Hopkins who fought Eastman or Taylor, had serious problems working at pace

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Didn't he land 1008 shots?

i've heard that a few times and called BS on it. joe definitely threw circa 100 punches a round IMO, but to say he LANDED 1008- either landing at 50-odd% he threw 2000 punches, or he threw around 100 per round and landed 83% of 'em... Joe wasn't that accurate.....

On paper and in the history books it will be Hopkins due to his career before and most notably after which quash all the past his prime arguments.

If you watched all his fights you'd probably say lacy for the absolute destruction job he did.

On that basis I'm going Hopkins.

Counter-puncher wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Yes he never liked working at a pace Hopkins, however, I think in his prime he would probably have been able to land a lot more shots. I agree it would probably have always been a stinker.

?

the (37 year old?) Hopkins didn't have any problems bouncing about 80 punches per round off Trinidad's head for most of the last few rounds of that one, nor as I recall, in the days of fighting the likes of Echols or Joppy or Jackson or Glen Johnson, did he have a problem with workrate AFAIR.

though like you say the older Hopkins who fought Eastman or Taylor, had serious problems working at pace

I'm referring to that guy, not the version up to about Trinidad.

I think the thing with Hopkins is that he was always happier when HE set the pace, whatever pace that was.

He didn't like pressure, but fortunately for him, he was too skilled for most people to keep him under pressure for any length of time.

ah ok, when i read it i just assumed never meant, umm, never

btw AFAIK the first person to mention the '1008 punches landed' tatistic on Calzaghe, was, noted boxing punchstat statistician, Joe Calzaghe.....

Counter-puncher wrote:btw AFAIK the first person to mention the '1008 punches landed' tatistic on Calzaghe, was, noted boxing punchstat statistician, Joe Calzaghe.....

Is that true? I thought there were some punch stats during the fight, from compubox?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:btw AFAIK the first person to mention the '1008 punches landed' tatistic on Calzaghe, was, noted boxing punchstat statistician, Joe Calzaghe.....

Is that true? I thought there were some punch stats during the fight, from compubox?

I'm pretty sure there is on the Showtime version of the fight.

Counter-puncher wrote:btw AFAIK the first person to mention the '1008 punches landed' tatistic on Calzaghe, was, noted boxing punchstat statistician, Joe Calzaghe.....

Calzaghe pretty much mentioned it in every single interview after the Lacy fight - "I can't be beaten, I throw over 1000 punches a fight, etc" -as if it was the norm for him.

well, he was the first I saw mentioning it

what do you think to the maths (i nearly said 'you do the math', then )?

assuming he was landing a really high %ge, lets say 75%, he'd need to have thrown 1344 punches/112 a round. feasible i suppose. but 75% is very high.