Posted: 26 Dec 2007, 19:24
YEH, CALZAGHE KNOCKING EUBANK DOWN DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING WHEN RALPH THE DENTIST DID IT, TOO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YCtWlqmr_w
:)
:)
BoxRec
I don't see Calzaghe beating Hopkins
Page 3 of 3
Posted: 26 Dec 2007, 21:14
If Hopkins was that good he would of stopped Eastman.
Posted: 26 Dec 2007, 21:27
FTFYMax Molyneux wrote:If Hopkins was that good he would have stopped Eastman.
Posted: 26 Dec 2007, 21:32
And that Is In English?
Posted: 26 Dec 2007, 21:53
Fixed That For You.
Sorry Max, I'm just pissed now. But it's something that really pisses me off. 'Would of' makes no sense. The phrase is 'would have', which gets contracted in modern speech to 'would've' . 'Would of' doesn't actually mean anything. It's best just to ignore me now.
Sorry Max, I'm just pissed now. But it's something that really pisses me off. 'Would of' makes no sense. The phrase is 'would have', which gets contracted in modern speech to 'would've' . 'Would of' doesn't actually mean anything. It's best just to ignore me now.
Posted: 27 Dec 2007, 05:42
It was interesting to note how much bigger than Joe Hopkins looked when they stood together, but even so, I find it very hard to envisage Calzaghe being hustled out of this by Hopkins.
Bernard was beaten, albeit contraversially by Jermaine Taylor, who is nothing but a big, athletically gifted fighter with decent tools. Taylor didn't exactly use rocket science, he just outworked Bernard in enough rounds to nick it on the judges.
Joe is smarter than Taylor, is every bit as quick, and has a world of experience.
Joe wins this one by a relatively wide margin. 116-112.
Bernard was beaten, albeit contraversially by Jermaine Taylor, who is nothing but a big, athletically gifted fighter with decent tools. Taylor didn't exactly use rocket science, he just outworked Bernard in enough rounds to nick it on the judges.
Joe is smarter than Taylor, is every bit as quick, and has a world of experience.
Joe wins this one by a relatively wide margin. 116-112.
Posted: 27 Dec 2007, 05:50
Calzaghe is under rated. The better the opponent the better he will be.
He will beat Hopkins. Joe has everything. You'd never know he was a boxer, there's not a mark on him.
He will beat Hopkins. Joe has everything. You'd never know he was a boxer, there's not a mark on him.
Posted: 27 Dec 2007, 07:40
Calzaghe would take Hopkins apart, whom I have never really liked or rated. A past it Eastman, with his foot of the peddle (as usual) was able to make Hopkins look passive. And Hopkins has tasted defeat before, unlike Joe. Joe's speedand ferocity would anialate Hopkins.
In my opinion, Joe should stay at his weight and continue to defend it against the few that remain, no that he needs to....would totally understand retirement at this stage. But fighting Hopkins offers nothing but money.
In my opinion, Joe should stay at his weight and continue to defend it against the few that remain, no that he needs to....would totally understand retirement at this stage. But fighting Hopkins offers nothing but money.
Posted: 27 Dec 2007, 08:09
I dont really think thats a valid argument. Although he wasnt able to knock Eastman out, he still beat him comprehensively, and Howard's only been stopped once in his career. There's boxers a lot worse than Eastman who Calzaghe couldnt stop, Ashira, Salem, Thornberry etc, and i wouldnt say that means JC isnt that good.Max Molyneux wrote:If Hopkins was that good he would of stopped Eastman.
Posted: 27 Dec 2007, 08:32
No mate, Eastman vertainly caused Hopkins problems and the crowd were booing Hopkins. Calzaghe is leagues above Eastman and he would take Hopkins apart.Mario wrote:I dont really think thats a valid argument. Although he wasnt able to knock Eastman out, he still beat him comprehensively, and Howard's only been stopped once in his career. There's boxers a lot worse than Eastman who Calzaghe couldnt stop, Ashira, Salem, Thornberry etc, and i wouldnt say that means JC isnt that good.Max Molyneux wrote:If Hopkins was that good he would of stopped Eastman.
Posted: 27 Dec 2007, 08:39
Miranda who's terrible stopped Eastman so why not Hopkins?
Posted: 27 Dec 2007, 08:47
That's a very weak argument.
1 Miranda fights totally unlike Hopkins, who does not look for the KO.
2 Eastman was a bit further along the line by the time he got to Miranda.
1 Miranda fights totally unlike Hopkins, who does not look for the KO.
2 Eastman was a bit further along the line by the time he got to Miranda.
Posted: 27 Dec 2007, 08:52
I wouldnt say Miranda's terrible, he's not a great boxer but theres no denying he's a big puncher. Again going back to comparisons with Calzaghe, he couldnt stop Rick Thornberry but Henry Wharton did years earlier and i'd hardly say that makes Calzaghe less of a fighter. The KO isnt everything and Hopkins did win the Eastman fight well even if it wasnt exciting.
Posted: 27 Dec 2007, 09:41
Miranda ain't that much of a puncher. He couldn't even hurt Pavlik while the little less awful Taylor did hurt Kelly.
STP, why can't you see Calzaghe beating a guy who lost to Taylor? He even struggled with a chubby Winky. It will be a mismatch.
STP, why can't you see Calzaghe beating a guy who lost to Taylor? He even struggled with a chubby Winky. It will be a mismatch.
Posted: 27 Dec 2007, 09:56
It won't be a mismatch. Hopkins is too canny to allow that to happen. He will mug, hold, spoil and foul his way to surviving an ugly 12 round fight.
Posted: 28 Dec 2007, 11:43
I get the feeling Hopkins last few years at Middleweight were very hard work weight wise and took a bit of edge off his performances.
Posted: 29 Dec 2007, 17:26
I hope you are right, but I wouldn't bet on a easy victory.Max Molyneux wrote:Miranda ain't that much of a puncher. He couldn't even hurt Pavlik while the little less awful Taylor did hurt Kelly.
STP, why can't you see Calzaghe beating a guy who lost to Taylor? He even struggled with a chubby Winky. It will be a mismatch.
Posted: 30 Dec 2007, 16:40
English is so complicated - Its like people say "I didnt get none" so in other words they must have got some - Its bad English anyway - Then you hear "I did it off my own back" when it should be BAT - Then there are people who think their siblings are their children rather than their brothers and sisters - My problem is spelling but I always had a good secretary who could spell - I find reading what people have written using the wrong TO TOO or TWO a bit difficult at times - We should have a better command of the English language, for most of us its the only language we know - A lot of Asian kids these days can speak and write English better than English kids can and they also know at least one Asian language also - Its shameful that so many English kids "fink and fort" - I wasnt brought up in a middle class home, I am working class but saying "free undred and firty fousand fevvers on a frushes froat" was unnaceptable in our house.states wrote:Fixed That For You.
Sorry Max, I'm just pissed now. But it's something that really pisses me off. 'Would of' makes no sense. The phrase is 'would have', which gets contracted in modern speech to 'would've' . 'Would of' doesn't actually mean anything. It's best just to ignore me now.
Posted: 19 Apr 2008, 23:16
Guess I was wrong.
Re: I don't see Calzaghe beating Hopkins
Posted: 19 Apr 2008, 23:25
Split decision for JC!STP wrote:Joe has never fought anyone anywhere near that class against southpaws. Hopkins is 11-0 with 8 KO's against southpaws, and has beaten Antonio Tarver and Winky Wright in his two previous fights - no Peter Manfredo's or Mikkel Kessler's.
Joe can throw 1,000 'punches' if he likes. Hopkins will take one or two half-steps back, make 500 of them miss and counter with the right hand clean on the button. I hope Joe's reading this, and I'm going to bump it after the fight.
If Joe holds back, he better improve vastly in the gym after Christmas - he has to learn to not square up with his chin in the air or the best lead right hand in history will find that chin every time.
You can argue Eubank's right hand was sneakier than Hopkins's, and faster, but Eubank was outboxed and made to look very disjointed by southpaws Gary Stretch and Dan Schommer.
Aside from the few hard whacks and the flash hands, and the occasional shuffle, Calzaghe looked no better against Eubank than Stretch and Schommer did.
Charles Brewer, Byron Mitchell, Richie Woodhall and Mikkel Kessler were less than ordinary belt holders. They were no Bernard Hopkins. While Robin Reid was perhaps the worst world title holder, bar Markus Beyer and Gavin Rees, ever.
Where's Joe's pedigree to live with Hopkins, bar his workrate and the hope of Hopkins's father time?
Not agrest foight from JC - but he just nicked it over the last half.
Why anyone would pay to wach Hopkins fight is beyond me, hugs more than Hatton!
Posted: 20 Apr 2008, 03:42
Guess I was right!STP wrote:Guess I was wrong.
This is what I wrote in this thread on December 24th:"I think B-Hop is the toughest fight left out there for Joe. It won't be pretty, but Hopkins will find a way to stop Joe doing his thing. Joe won't be throwing over a thousand punches in this fight. Hopkins will tie him up, rough him up and possibly open up a cut with his head. Hopkins usually finds a way to win. Apart from the two highly debatable defeats to Taylor, B-Hop hasn't lost for 14 years and even now, at his advanced age, is ranked #4 P4P by Ring. And not for no reason. Hopkins in the US is the biggest threat to JC's undefeated record. For me, Joe just nicks it in a very ugly fight."