BoxRec

nickd wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:

nickd wrote: Hopkins outpointed Vanderpool at MIDDLEWEIGHT while Lacy KO'd him at SUPERMIDDLEWEIGHT. What does that prove exactly? Other than Vanderpool being at a size disadvantage against Lacy.

You may think Calzaghe could have beaten Hopkins at any time and that is quite possible but they never fought. But Hopkins without doubt had a better championship career than Calzaghe has had to date.

Calzaghe has 18 defences of the WBO belt and has just won the IBF title.

Hopkins has 13 defences of the IBF middleweight belt and 7 of the undisputed title and just moved up TWO weight divisions and beat the widely recognised man at 175.

Which is better?

And that is not even taking into account some of the shocking opponents Calzaghe fought for his title.

It proves that their is a case to compare some of their opp as simular.

They would of fought if Hop didn't over price himself since he wasn't a big draw enough to demand more.

Good win over Tarver but he seriously was only recognised by whoever listened to the HBO hype so no wonder Hopkins fought him. Most proper fans hate Tarver and were glad that Hopkins shut him up.

Out of his title defences the only ones worth mentioning who he didn;t lose to are the limited Tito, Johnson and I guess blown up La Hoya who Sturm was robbed fighting.

Jesus christ take the the blinkers off!

Hopkins has had a better career than Calzaghe without question to anyone but the blindest Calzaghe fan.

You discredit Hopkins moving up to beat Tarver, yet Calzaghe has flirted many times with moving up and fighting a guy Tarver is 2-1 against (Johnson) and never actually done so. Come on! Hopkins moved up TWO divisions and did it, Calzaghe has talked for years about moving up a single division and never gone through with it.

You obviously have no idea who some of the guys Hopkins has faced are, they were all contenders. He never defended against anyone as woeful as McIntyre, Pudwill, Ashira.

Morade Hakkar?

Point taken though, B-Hop is a far better champion, despite the weakness of his division, he's beaten pretty much every available challenger, which is more than can be said for Calzaghe.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

nickd wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote: It proves that their is a case to compare some of their opp as simular.

They would of fought if Hop didn't over price himself since he wasn't a big draw enough to demand more.

Good win over Tarver but he seriously was only recognised by whoever listened to the HBO hype so no wonder Hopkins fought him. Most proper fans hate Tarver and were glad that Hopkins shut him up.

Out of his title defences the only ones worth mentioning who he didn;t lose to are the limited Tito, Johnson and I guess blown up La Hoya who Sturm was robbed fighting.

Jesus christ take the the blinkers off!

Hopkins has had a better career than Calzaghe without question to anyone but the blindest Calzaghe fan.

You discredit Hopkins moving up to beat Tarver, yet Calzaghe has flirted many times with moving up and fighting a guy Tarver is 2-1 against (Johnson) and never actually done so. Come on! Hopkins moved up TWO divisions and did it, Calzaghe has talked for years about moving up a single division and never gone through with it.

You obviously have no idea who some of the guys Hopkins has faced are, they were all contenders. He never defended against anyone as woeful as McIntyre, Pudwill, Ashira.

Morade Hakkar?

Point taken though, B-Hop is a far better champion, despite the weakness of his division, he's beaten pretty much every available challenger, which is more than can be said for Calzaghe.

Well Hakkar is Hopkins' weakest yet still better than some of the guys Calzaghe has faced.

The point is that Lacy was a shoe in for Calzaghi, slower than the queen mary nothing more than a big punch. Joe has always had good hand speed and a good chin as well. Realistically speaking you can not possibly compare the Welshman's career to Hopkins' one is a future HOF and the other one wont be as long as his ass points downwards. I doubt even Enzo would claim his little soldier is that good.

Lacy isn't that slow. In fact in the run in to this fight, there were a number of pundits who were saying Lacy had quicker hands that Calzaghe. Watch the fight with Reid again, Lacy is clubbing him with 4 punch combinations.

What he lacked was good footwork, and that is what Calzaghe exploited. Lacy lacked the experience to take on Calzaghe, but prior to the fight it seemed like he was getting Joe at the right time, as Calzaghe hadn't looked devastating in some time, was injury prone, knocking on a bit and perceived to be there for the taking by a young hungry fighter.

nickd wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:

nickd wrote: Hopkins outpointed Vanderpool at MIDDLEWEIGHT while Lacy KO'd him at SUPERMIDDLEWEIGHT. What does that prove exactly? Other than Vanderpool being at a size disadvantage against Lacy.

You may think Calzaghe could have beaten Hopkins at any time and that is quite possible but they never fought. But Hopkins without doubt had a better championship career than Calzaghe has had to date.

Calzaghe has 18 defences of the WBO belt and has just won the IBF title.

Hopkins has 13 defences of the IBF middleweight belt and 7 of the undisputed title and just moved up TWO weight divisions and beat the widely recognised man at 175.

Which is better?

And that is not even taking into account some of the shocking opponents Calzaghe fought for his title.

It proves that their is a case to compare some of their opp as simular.

They would of fought if Hop didn't over price himself since he wasn't a big draw enough to demand more.

Good win over Tarver but he seriously was only recognised by whoever listened to the HBO hype so no wonder Hopkins fought him. Most proper fans hate Tarver and were glad that Hopkins shut him up.

Out of his title defences the only ones worth mentioning who he didn;t lose to are the limited Tito, Johnson and I guess blown up La Hoya who Sturm was robbed fighting.

Jesus christ take the the blinkers off!

Hopkins has had a better career than Calzaghe without question to anyone but the blindest Calzaghe fan.

You discredit Hopkins moving up to beat Tarver, yet Calzaghe has flirted many times with moving up and fighting a guy Tarver is 2-1 against (Johnson) and never actually done so. Come on! Hopkins moved up TWO divisions and did it, Calzaghe has talked for years about moving up a single division and never gone through with it.

You obviously have no idea who some of the guys Hopkins has faced are, they were all contenders. He never defended against anyone as woeful as McIntyre, Pudwill, Ashira.

fornicate off I'll stand by what I say thank you.

Yes Hopkins has achieved more and I don't deny that but most of those guys ain't in Calzaghe's league who he;s fought. There is a case that some of the opp is simular accept for some like Pudwill and Ashira.

I have said the Tarver win was good but what I mostly say is if Tarver won where would his credit be? He'd get none because most thought Hopkins was done and out to take a payday before this and would of just accused him of beating on blown up Middleweights.

Plus I discredit it partly because it was seen as a world title yet Tarver's no champ so Hopkins just beat a top 10 LHW, not the champ as thats Erdei but HBO tells America it's Tarver.

Seriously In my opinion only few of Hops opp is only worth a mention just like about 8 of Calzaghe's opp is worth a mention.

Max Molyneux wrote:

nickd wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote: It proves that their is a case to compare some of their opp as simular.

They would of fought if Hop didn't over price himself since he wasn't a big draw enough to demand more.

Good win over Tarver but he seriously was only recognised by whoever listened to the HBO hype so no wonder Hopkins fought him. Most proper fans hate Tarver and were glad that Hopkins shut him up.

Out of his title defences the only ones worth mentioning who he didn;t lose to are the limited Tito, Johnson and I guess blown up La Hoya who Sturm was robbed fighting.

Jesus christ take the the blinkers off!

Hopkins has had a better career than Calzaghe without question to anyone but the blindest Calzaghe fan.

You discredit Hopkins moving up to beat Tarver, yet Calzaghe has flirted many times with moving up and fighting a guy Tarver is 2-1 against (Johnson) and never actually done so. Come on! Hopkins moved up TWO divisions and did it, Calzaghe has talked for years about moving up a single division and never gone through with it.

You obviously have no idea who some of the guys Hopkins has faced are, they were all contenders. He never defended against anyone as woeful as McIntyre, Pudwill, Ashira.

smeg off I'll stand by what I say thank you.

Yes Hopkins has achieved more and I don't deny that but most of those guys ain't in Calzaghe's league who he;s fought. There is a case that some of the opp is simular accept for some like Pudwill and Ashira.

I have said the Tarver win was good but what I mostly say is if Tarver won where would his credit be? He'd get none because most thought Hopkins was done and out to take a payday before this and would of just accused him of beating on blown up Middleweights.

Plus I discredit it partly because it was seen as a world title yet Tarver's no champ so Hopkins just beat a top 10 LHW, not the champ as thats Erdei but HBO tells America it's Tarver.

Seriously In my opinion only few of Hops opp is only worth a mention just like about 8 of Calzaghe's opp is worth a mention.

Well you're entitled to your opinion, but I dont think you'd find many if any boxing writers or fans agreeing with you.

Doesn't bother who disagrees, I like to join and post.

I remember everyone disagreeing with me on Lacy and now some changed.

Max mate I am a huge JC fan but it has be said Bhop has fought better competition

Tarver, Taylor, Trinidad, De La Hoya,

As opposed to Lacy, reid, woodhall etc etc

JC has fought good fighters Hopkins has fought and beaten hall of famers

The mistake everyone makes regarding the two guys (JC and Hopkins) is to do with perception.

Let me explain:

Hopkins is seen as the genial 40 year old who spent time inside, turned his life around and as a result he is looked at with rose tinted glasses sometimes, for example he is forgiven some of his bad fights Hakkar, Allen, Eastman etc because he's Hopkins.

Calzaghe is perceived as protected, unwilling etc etc where those with intelligence know the truth - he has not progressed due to injury FACT.
The problem is that often in boxing (and society) people's perceptions once made very rarely change (due to ignorance and lack of intelligence) therefore when say for example I dunno a Jeff Lacy comes along who ois young, marketable they clamour for him to KTFO of Calzaghe and predict that this will happen, not through any sound logic but moreso because of the PERCEPTION of the JC.

When of course this does not happen and JC produces a masterclass the talk is 'Lacy was not ready' bla bla bla

Whereas Hopkins does the same to Tarver and consequently gets sucked off.

Once people 'don't like you' as a boxer you have no chance - Naz was another one, yes he was exposed, yes he became a tit, but there are those who choose to demegrate what he did when in fact those who know know that Medina, Johnson, Kelley, Ingle, Vasquez, Bungu is a good dance card yet people concentrate on ONE loss and use that to say 'ooh he was exposed' 'he is shit'.

Good example the Augie Sanchez fight - Naz was floored by a young guy with a very high KO % whom Manny Steward a year previous had said was a huge threat - and people go on about this performance was shit yet choose to ignore the 6 knockdowns naz should have had and the small touches of genuine genius (trust me watch the fight without the blinkers guys) that naz showed in that fight.

Ok I have digressed, my point is about perception and people's unwillingness to change/adapt opinions - christ if Jc Ko's kessler people like Pundit will then look to make even more excuses because of the simple fight he does not like the guy full stop.

Regards

Wrists

Some seem to be forgetting Hopkins 2 biggest wins are against Welterweights, not LMW or MW. Hopkins at 6'1 has always been big for a Middleweight. Calzaghe is only 5'11 himself and remains a Supermiddleweight.

I think after Hopkins last showing, that's enough evidence to perceive Hopkins could of easily been a Supermiddle weight for the last good few years of his careeer, but he chose to feast off smaller men. Why didn't he move up sooner.....

I won't dispute Hopkins record is better than Calzaghe, but if you put their 5 biggest wins next to eachother and dissect them, you will find Hopkins record is only slightly better than Joes. Both will get into Hall of Fame no probs. Still must give major respect to Hopkins for fighting fit at world class level at age of 41.

lvlarc_uk wrote:Some seem to be forgetting Hopkins 2 biggest wins are against Welterweights, not LMW or MW. Hopkins at 6'1 has always been big for a Middleweight. Calzaghe is only 5'11 himself and remains a Supermiddleweight.

I think after Hopkins last showing, that's enough evidence to perceive Hopkins could of easily been a Supermiddle weight for the last good few years of his careeer, but he chose to feast off smaller men. Why didn't he move up sooner.....

I won't dispute Hopkins record is better than Calzaghe, but if you put their 5 biggest wins next to eachother and dissect them, you will find Hopkins record is only slightly better than Joes. Both will get into Hall of Fame no probs. Still must give major respect to Hopkins for fighting fit at world class level at age of 41.

yeah it's terrible, Hopkins made a division record 20 defenses, could easily have been 22 if the industry didn't want to fall in love with taylor.

So you think he won those fights? I scored first fight a draw, second fight to Taylor, he didn't do enough to win those fights. Thought the scores of 115-113 were solid, although Duane Fords score of the 10-9 round to Taylor in 12th round of 1st fight fucked up the deserved Draw.

Max mate I am a huge JC fan but it has be said Bhop has fought better competition

Tarver, Taylor, Trinidad, De La Hoya,

As opposed to Lacy, reid, woodhall etc etc

There two separate opps, they were both top opp for their division(Lacy,Reid and Woodhall proved that being champs) except Hopkins opp were bigger in name as they were and some still are PPV stars in America. And that Middleweight has been a more popular division.

I like your points anyway.

Nah I think Pundit will give respect if he faces Kessler unless he states otherwise.

yiddo14 wrote:The biggest difference between De La Hoya's/Bowe's WBO reign and Calzaghe's is that the 2 aforementioned fighters did'nt try and kid anyone by building a career on the 4th most important belt.
They saw it as a step to the proper alphabet titles.

I'am a converted Calzaghe fan if I am being honest.I think he is a quality fighter with all the skills necessary to become a star,but I cannot help thinking he has been poorly managed.
With his ability,he could have cemented a legacy for himself years ago.If only he had travelled to the USA earlier in his career,and hunted down the big names,he would be a lot more popular and a hell of a lot richer than what he is now.
I would'nt go as far as to say he is a waste!! But,he won't go down alongside current greats such as B-Hop,DLH,Jones jnr etc.
He still arguably has a point to prove,which at 34 and unbeaten proves my point.
His biggest wins to date are over an old Eubank and an over-hyped Lacy.

calzaghe should be out of it by now with his name up there with the likes of hopkins and de la hoya.

but as u say, he's been poorly managed and not had the opportunities to prove how good he is.

i do think calzaghe has already secured a place in the hall of fame though.

Better late than never though as Warren nearly did get him Johnson until he pulled out so it's not he's got him a few easy touches on purpose.

lvlarc_uk wrote:So you think he won those fights? I scored first fight a draw, second fight to Taylor, he didn't do enough to win those fights. Thought the scores of 115-113 were solid, although Duane Fords score of the 10-9 round to Taylor in 12th round of 1st fight smeg up the deserved Draw.

i thought taylor won both fights.

hopkins fought exactly the same fight in the 2nd fight. he lost a bit of respect off me on that 2nd fight.

truly great fighters at least attempt to change things in a rematch and he did fornicate all to change it.

i still rate hopkins a great fighter, but he loses browny points for that rematch with taylor.

stujones wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

nickd wrote: Come on Hopkins' record is far superior to Calzaghe's.

Calzaghe has fought plenty of smaller men himself.

BHOPs resume is pretty poor really. His best opponents are Trinidad and DLH who are both not that special beyond Welter. He was owned by the best fighter he faced RJJ a

Whos the other best opponent at MW? Vanderpool - battered by Lacy, Echols - schooled by Mundine, Johnson - lost to an awful lot of foes.

It could be arguead - Mitchell, Eubank, Brewer, Lacy, Woodhall, Reid - are better in terms of a reign or on par.

I think you have forgotton the best Middleweights on Hopkins' resume.

Lets look at.....

John David Jackson - 2 weight world champion, maybe in slight decline when they fought but still gave Jorge Castro fits after the Hopkins fight. Beat the likes of Chris Pyatt and Reggie Johnson (both future world champions)

William Joppy - Twice Middleweight champion, only unavenged loses are to Taylor, Hopkins and Trinidad. Has beaten good fighters likes Eastman, Green, and Cherifi.

Robert Allen - Beaten by Hopkins twice, but doesn't lose that often... been around in the top ten for a long time. Has wins over the decent Andrew Council and Tito Mendoza.

Keith Holmes - two time WBC champion, beating the likes of the excellent Quincy Taylor, Richie Woodhall, Hassine Cherifi (avenged), Paul Vaden, McCraken, Council and even when well over the hill took Roman Karmizan to a majority decision.

Even Morrade Hakkar was a two time EBU champion.

That is a miserable resume for someone that has been a champ for so long.

His best wins are BY FAR the two smaller men and the mediocre LH he just met. Calzaghe's resume also ought to be better after so many years, but is at least as good (well.. as little bad) as Hopkins in terms of names from his own division.

What puts Hopkins above Calzaghe is his two smaller men and the mediocre LH. They are not GREAT wins, but still enough to put him above Joe. And even if Tarver was hugely overrated and in fact not a very good fighter - it is still impressive to go two divisions up at 41 and beat him convincingly. Respect for that. It doen't mean Hop would beat Joe (because he wouldn't) but in terms of legacy it is impressive. Sure, Joe would also beatTarver convincingly, but I am not sure he could do so as 41 y-o.

Hopkins resume is a B+. Calzaghe's a B maybe B- as champion.

I feel it is only fair to point out to some of the people that have written about Hopkins in favourable or non-favourable lights, a couple of small things. Whether you believe he won or lost to taylor or not it was certainly not to do with judges or anyone else doing Taylor any favours, IF they did lean towards him it was to teach Hopkins a lesson rather than anything else. It is the same with WRISTS post about perceptions. There is no need for perceptions about Bernard, its the worst kept secret in the world that just about everyone in the game that doesn't enter a ring HATES the poor sod. He's had more law suits than Cherie Blair against managers promoters, and all sorts to fight for what he considers to be right. He is definitely the most unpopular fighter in the game since Larry Holmes and considered to be a thorn in the side, and I think that the negative publicity that goes with that could have affected his true rating.

The difference is Hopkins fought all available challengers at 160, can the same be said for Calzaghe at 168? Calzaghe gets a B? No way not with F level opponents Pudwill, McIntyre etc on his list. Other than perhaps Hakkar all Hopkins' defences were againt top 10 fighters. Calzaghe's little over half would be top 10 at a rough guess.

He beat his share of former champs, Reid, Brewer, Mitchell, Eubank (yes I know, Eubank was a late sub), there are plenty of champions with worse resumes than Calzaghe. Perhaps a B- is more apt. However, you have to give him some props for staying unbeaten so long. Whilst a lot of Hopkins opponents were considered top 10, the middleweight division sucked arse for a very long time.

Hagler competed in a much tougher Era, there's some good names on that record, big rugged middleweights who were mean as hell. Most of these names are better than anyone on Hopkins resume.

Mugabi, limited, but tough, mean as hell, and a hell of a punch, not the sort of guy you want to face near the end of your career.
Hearns -nuff said.
Hamsho, underrated, would probably have held a belt in the era of multiple champs, unluckily for him, Hagler had the lot.
Roldan, big, tough, rugged,
Minter - good fighter, again would have been more than a minor beltholder today.
Briscoe, old, but tough and seasoned like a pair of old cowboy boots. Glen Johnson of his day.
Watts, Monroe, Seales, all good and very tough Philly fighters, Seales was ruined by his fight with Hagler.
As for Leonard and Duran, they are both better than Oscar and Trinidad were at any weight. Oscar had no business at MW, and Trinidad was nowhere near as skilfull as either Hearns or Duran.

So get to the point...Hagler beats Hopkins, does Bernard last the distance?

Some folks believe Hopkins by KO.

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 05&start=0

I think it may well have been a cagey fight, as Hagler was a very good boxer when he needed to be, perhaps a little like Hagler v Duran, but Hagler would have done what was needed to win a UD12.

I don't think anyone except maybe a slick hard hitter like Sugar Ray could have stopped Bernard.

lvlarc_uk wrote:So get to the point...Hagler beats Hopkins, does Bernard last the distance?

Some folks believe Hopkins by KO.

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 05&start=0

I've believed for a good few years that Hopkins could beat him. Can't be arsed to get into the technicalities again. But it's not so outrageous to pick one great over another great. Hagler isn't the technician that Hopkins is. Not as meticulous. More intimidating, however.

I don't see anyone stopping Hopkins. His defense has been brilliant through his career, and he's a hard case. IMO he can hang with any of the greats.

He can definetly hang with the greats, Greb, Monzon, Hagler but to pick Hopkins by KO is abit rediculous. Hagler took full blooded shots from the hardest hitting middleweights, notably Hearns & Mugabi and came back stronger. Hagler by UD for me.