BoxRec

At the time I remember everybody thinking both Joe and Hopkins were well past their primes when they fought. Not many were even interested in a rematch.

But who was further past their prime, and would the result have been any different, or any more decisive had the fight occurred in any other year previous?

Hopkins came into the fight on the back of decisive wins over Wright and Tarver, having lost close controversial decisions to a prime Jermain Taylor. Since the Calzaghe fight he put on a masterclass against Pavlik before a couple of dominant but less impressive performances against Ornelas and Jones. Then we have the brilliant performance against Pascal, which for me was one of the most impressive performances I've ever seen from Hopkins.

As much as a case can be made for Hopkins winning the fight against Calzaghe, it can also be argued (by those who thought Hopkins won both fights with Taylor - and I'm one of them) that Joe was the first person to beat Hopkins since Jones back in 1993.

Given Hopkins performances against Wright, Tarver, Pavlik and Pascal, does the win for Calzaghe make it one of his finest, given he had to come back from an early knockdown?

Would Calzaghe have won more convincingly in a rematch and was there anytime when Hopkins would have beaten Joe?

Joe's victory looks better the longer Bernard goes on. Had he beat Pascal....a full...3 years after Joe beat him.

I think a younger Bernard may have been more offensive against Joe, would have suited Joe more. The Hop that waited, set traps and dropped him was arguably a tougher opponent for Joe.

One of the all-time greats is Hopkins and while Joe would have had his number I think - remember he hit harder when he was younger too - but he will always lack Hopkins resume.

With hindsight, I agree the win looks even better.

Look what he did to Pavlik, and against Pascal...

... pulls up chair and waits for the Calzaghe-hater to pass comment ...

He lost to B-HOP.... just, mind.

You'll have to check the records again Dioufy, was definitely a victory mate :)

I had it by 2 rounds

To who?

My 2 Cents / Pence:
It doesn't matter what Bernard Hopkins or Joe go on to do onwards.


It matters what happened then and before.

Once Joe left Fwnk Warrn, Warren pretty much expose Joe as reluctant to face the best, and content with defending the pretty much infamous WBO belt in the UK. Not to mention pulling out of a bout which posed a big threat i.e. Glen Johnson THREE times. This is not ME saying this, it's well documented what WRREN said about Joe.

This should have happened around 2001-2005.

However Calzaghe was unwilling to fight outside the UK. Again, Well Documented.

Hopkins, finally obtaining some mainstream attention after the Trinidad bout had opportunities to get his long awaited Pay-Days. Which would only be possible in places like Las Vegas. There was no way he was going to have a big fight outside here. Especially to face someone like Joe, having the Shabby WBO belt, in another country.

This was the case with Roy Jones too. He was the PPV draw, and was going to exploit that.

However, once Hopkins and RJJ were sidelined and were no longer the PPV draws due to their old age and visible diminished skills. They were practically shelved by HBO and co.

Suddenly Calzaghe's apparent "Fear of Flying" was overcome and felt the urge to face these two who were on the brink of retirement.

He could manage only a debatable SD against a 43 year old Hopkins.

As for the RJJ bout, Frnk Wrren pretty much exposed Joe before it anyway. RJJ could not get any decent bout, but managed a 50:50 split with Joe, which turned out to be a Flop
RJJ's career since 2005 has been a train wreck. I need not say anything else. The whole thing was a farce, which the immense PPV flop it was proves.

It's been proven throughout Boxing, Triangle theories don't work
Just because Hopkins RJJ performed well against X,Y,Z does not mean Joe would also too, because he didn't ever even face X, Y, Z.
Likewise, just because JOE performed well against X, Y, Z does not mean Hopkins or RJJ would too.

But to compare their Resume's, Calzaghe's is pretty much farcical.


Hatton may have got his face kicked in against the best, but at least he faced them.

Dioufy wrote:To who?

Calzaghe

Did you have it close the other way?

Captain Hook wrote:

Dioufy wrote:To who?

Calzaghe

Did you have it close the other way?

Yes, to BHOP, but close - one point I think. I also actually enjoyed the fight, something that peeps don't understand.

DavidPayne wrote:Joe's victory looks better the longer Bernard goes on. Had he beat Pascal....a full...3 years after Joe beat him.

I think a younger Bernard may have been more offensive against Joe, would have suited Joe more. The Hop that waited, set traps and dropped him was arguably a tougher opponent for Joe.

One of the all-time greats is Hopkins and while Joe would have had his number I think - remember he hit harder when he was younger too - but he will always lack Hopkins resume.

Disagree, a prime Hopkins was a master tactition. I just think he would have found a way. All he needed to have done was land, say 5 punches more per round and he would have beaten Joe by a clear margin.

stujones wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:Joe's victory looks better the longer Bernard goes on. Had he beat Pascal....a full...3 years after Joe beat him.

I think a younger Bernard may have been more offensive against Joe, would have suited Joe more. The Hop that waited, set traps and dropped him was arguably a tougher opponent for Joe.

One of the all-time greats is Hopkins and while Joe would have had his number I think - remember he hit harder when he was younger too - but he will always lack Hopkins resume.

Disagree, a prime Hopkins was a master tactition. I just think he would have found a way. All he needed to have done was land, say 5 punches more per round and he would have beaten Joe by a clear margin.

I can see the argument, Hopkins has gotten more precise as he's gotten older because he cannot sustain the work-rate he could, its easier to make the assumption he could ramp up the output and be more offensive and maintain the precision. Calzaghe has faster hands and would have benefitted from a more offensive Hopkins.

But on another day I could wilt to your argument.

joe was awarded the fight for clawing he's way back in the fight. b-hop was a mile ahead & shut up shop i felt the only winner was b-hop.

Calzaghe won the fight in the judges eyes, and in my eyes, though it seems to be around 50/50 on Boxrec.

Predictable with Calzaghe though....never really looked in danger of losing in his career, but Boxrec posters would have you think differently :)

DavidPayne wrote:

stujones wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:Joe's victory looks better the longer Bernard goes on. Had he beat Pascal....a full...3 years after Joe beat him.

I think a younger Bernard may have been more offensive against Joe, would have suited Joe more. The Hop that waited, set traps and dropped him was arguably a tougher opponent for Joe.

One of the all-time greats is Hopkins and while Joe would have had his number I think - remember he hit harder when he was younger too - but he will always lack Hopkins resume.

Disagree, a prime Hopkins was a master tactition. I just think he would have found a way. All he needed to have done was land, say 5 punches more per round and he would have beaten Joe by a clear margin.

I can see the argument, Hopkins has gotten more precise as he's gotten older because he cannot sustain the work-rate he could, its easier to make the assumption he could ramp up the output and be more offensive and maintain the precision. Calzaghe has faster hands and would have benefitted from a more offensive Hopkins.

But on another day I could wilt to your argument.

The point I disagree with is the faster hands argument. Joe's fast, but I think the matched showed - Hopkins was quicker in the hands speed department. Always was a defensive master, I don't think Hopkins would have done the defensive errors that people, who have made the claim that a prime Hopkins would have suited more, think he would have. Hopkins just needed to sustain what he was doing down the stretch to win clear. I don't think it was Calzaghe who dramatically changed, more so than Hopkins seem to tire (possibly assuming its in the bag). Roach didn't seem to be telling hopkins to do anything different.

stujones wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:

stujones wrote: Disagree, a prime Hopkins was a master tactition. I just think he would have found a way. All he needed to have done was land, say 5 punches more per round and he would have beaten Joe by a clear margin.

I can see the argument, Hopkins has gotten more precise as he's gotten older because he cannot sustain the work-rate he could, its easier to make the assumption he could ramp up the output and be more offensive and maintain the precision. Calzaghe has faster hands and would have benefitted from a more offensive Hopkins.

But on another day I could wilt to your argument.

The point I disagree with is the faster hands argument. Joe's fast, but I think the matched showed - Hopkins was quicker in the hands speed department. Always was a defensive master, I don't think Hopkins would have done the defensive errors that people, who have made the claim that a prime Hopkins would have suited more, think he would have. Hopkins just needed to sustain what he was doing down the stretch to win clear. I don't think it was Calzaghe who dramatically changed, more so than Hopkins seem to tire (possibly assuming its in the bag). Roach didn't seem to be telling hopkins to do anything different.

Hopkins had quick hands in the sense that he could throw a punch very quickly. Calzaghe was quick in the sense that he could throw a huge number of punches in a way Hopkins never could. Hopkins was always happy when he got to dictate his own pace, something he never would have against Calzaghe.
Hopkins "was a mile ahead and shut up shop"? He was a mile ahead after 5 rounds after which the only round I gave him was the round where he pretended to be injured, rolled around on the floor and shamed himself.
You can't do as little as he did for seven rounds and win. Ironically it is the same argument reversed for his fight with Pascal. Only Pascal put him down twice, I thought he just edged that. Of course, in Hopkins's head, he gets robbed every time he loses.

observer1 wrote:My 2 Cents / Pence:
It doesn't matter what Bernard Hopkins or Joe go on to do onwards.


It matters what happened then and before.

Once Joe left Fwnk Warrn, Warren pretty much expose Joe as reluctant to face the best, and content with defending the pretty much infamous WBO belt in the UK. Not to mention pulling out of a bout which posed a big threat i.e. Glen Johnson THREE times. This is not ME saying this, it's well documented what WRREN said about Joe.

This should have happened around 2001-2005.

However Calzaghe was unwilling to fight outside the UK. Again, Well Documented.

Hopkins, finally obtaining some mainstream attention after the Trinidad bout had opportunities to get his long awaited Pay-Days. Which would only be possible in places like Las Vegas. There was no way he was going to have a big fight outside here. Especially to face someone like Joe, having the Shabby WBO belt, in another country.

This was the case with Roy Jones too. He was the PPV draw, and was going to exploit that.

However, once Hopkins and RJJ were sidelined and were no longer the PPV draws due to their old age and visible diminished skills. They were practically shelved by HBO and co.

Suddenly Calzaghe's apparent "Fear of Flying" was overcome and felt the urge to face these two who were on the brink of retirement.

He could manage only a debatable SD against a 43 year old Hopkins.

As for the RJJ bout, Frnk Wrren pretty much exposed Joe before it anyway. RJJ could not get any decent bout, but managed a 50:50 split with Joe, which turned out to be a Flop
RJJ's career since 2005 has been a train wreck. I need not say anything else. The whole thing was a farce, which the immense PPV flop it was proves.

It's been proven throughout Boxing, Triangle theories don't work
Just because Hopkins RJJ performed well against X,Y,Z does not mean Joe would also too, because he didn't ever even face X, Y, Z.
Likewise, just because JOE performed well against X, Y, Z does not mean Hopkins or RJJ would too.

But to compare their Resume's, Calzaghe's is pretty much farcical.


Hatton may have got his face kicked in against the best, but at least he faced them.

Could not agree more with all of the above. Calzaghe was an elite fighter for about 20 minutes of his 20 year career.

stujones wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:Joe's victory looks better the longer Bernard goes on. Had he beat Pascal....a full...3 years after Joe beat him.

I think a younger Bernard may have been more offensive against Joe, would have suited Joe more. The Hop that waited, set traps and dropped him was arguably a tougher opponent for Joe.

One of the all-time greats is Hopkins and while Joe would have had his number I think - remember he hit harder when he was younger too - but he will always lack Hopkins resume.

Disagree, a prime Hopkins was a master tactition. I just think he would have found a way. All he needed to have done was land, say 5 punches more per round and he would have beaten Joe by a clear margin.

If my dick was 3 inches, women would be impressed when I got naked. The world is full of ifs.

FI though Hopkins won the first 5 rounds + a knoockdown in the first. Dont see how Calazghe won that fight to be honest (Didnt watch it from round 6 onwards, had choppy eye killing stream so ducked off to bed)

stujones wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:Joe's victory looks better the longer Bernard goes on. Had he beat Pascal....a full...3 years after Joe beat him.

I think a younger Bernard may have been more offensive against Joe, would have suited Joe more. The Hop that waited, set traps and dropped him was arguably a tougher opponent for Joe.

One of the all-time greats is Hopkins and while Joe would have had his number I think - remember he hit harder when he was younger too - but he will always lack Hopkins resume.

Disagree, a prime Hopkins was a master tactition. I just think he would have found a way. All he needed to have done was land, say 5 punches more per round and he would have beaten Joe by a clear margin.

nah disagree with you there mate. I think payne has called it right - if hopkins had come out to fight he would have lost clearly, and thats at any point in his career.

The other thing to remember is Calzaghe was a SMW not a LH and was far better SMW. The only person i think that would have ever stood a chance against a prime JC is RJJ.

And i've said it before i would have tipped JC to win at SMW and RJJ to win a LH. Many people disagree but i dont think there is any way to argue a clear victor.

lefthook82 wrote:FI though Hopkins won the first 5 rounds + a knoockdown in the first. Dont see how Calazghe won that fight to be honest (Didnt watch it from round 6 onwards, had choppy eye killing stream so ducked off to bed)

Hopkins basically didnt fight for the last 6 rounds - from what i remember i only had BH winning about 3 or 4 rounds. I wasnt suprised calzaghe won but i thought he might get stung by a home country decision.

You also have to take into consideration Joe Cortez's insane reffing, he may as well of carried B-Hops belt in the ring for him. Bhop should have been disallowed a point for throwing himself on the floor, and he shouldnt have been given time to rest from it. Or wrestle all night.

It was a clear low blow though - replays showed it... .the one in which Hopkins appears to be acting on - Cortez tells him to get up from.

Calzaghe was no angel that night either, as he admitted. Hit him low in the 2nd round as compensation cause Hopkins put him down.

I'll agree to disagree that Jones vs Joe prime for prime would have been particularly close.

stujones wrote:It was a clear low blow though - replays showed it... .the one in which Hopkins appears to be acting on - Cortez tells him to get up from.

Calzaghe was no angel that night either, as he admitted. Hit him low in the 2nd round as compensation cause Hopkins put him down.

I'll agree to disagree that Jones vs Joe prime for prime would have been particularly close.

He told him to get up but then let him have time to rest, he should have just waived the fight on. Calzaghe is and was no powder puff but hopkins was wrestling, headbutting and feining injury - he was outright cheating and spoiling.

At one point he headbutted calzaghe and Cortez warned calzaghe for the headbutt. Lets bear in mind Cortez deduted a point from Hatton for no reason and wouldnt let him fight on the inside, then suddenly had a complete change of mindset for the calzaghe fight.

kingfinn wrote:

stujones wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:Joe's victory looks better the longer Bernard goes on. Had he beat Pascal....a full...3 years after Joe beat him.

I think a younger Bernard may have been more offensive against Joe, would have suited Joe more. The Hop that waited, set traps and dropped him was arguably a tougher opponent for Joe.

One of the all-time greats is Hopkins and while Joe would have had his number I think - remember he hit harder when he was younger too - but he will always lack Hopkins resume.

Disagree, a prime Hopkins was a master tactition. I just think he would have found a way. All he needed to have done was land, say 5 punches more per round and he would have beaten Joe by a clear margin.

nah disagree with you there mate. I think payne has called it right - if hopkins had come out to fight he would have lost clearly, and thats at any point in his career.

The other thing to remember is Calzaghe was a SMW not a LH and was far better SMW. The only person i think that would have ever stood a chance against a prime JC is RJJ.

And i've said it before i would have tipped JC to win at SMW and RJJ to win a LH. Many people disagree but i dont think there is any way to argue a clear victor.

Dude... Joe was not even a natural SMW. He was only there due to the awful competition there.

As a matter of fact, he would starve himself before the weigh in, sometimes going 2 days straight without Food just to make the 168 Limit

He would have been far more comfortable at 175 than he was at 168.

Funny you should say the only person to stand a chance against a "Prime Calzaghe" at SMW would be RJJ. Tell me the, when was Joe at his Prime? When he faced Brewer? Or when he faced Pidwell? Or maybe when it was Bika?
Maybe the dude who was in that reality TV Show? What's his name? Manfrodo? The same dude who is now who earns a living as a cleaner?

Sorry, but the only people who give Joe any credibility are Brits

observer1 wrote:

kingfinn wrote:

stujones wrote: Disagree, a prime Hopkins was a master tactition. I just think he would have found a way. All he needed to have done was land, say 5 punches more per round and he would have beaten Joe by a clear margin.

nah disagree with you there mate. I think payne has called it right - if hopkins had come out to fight he would have lost clearly, and thats at any point in his career.

The other thing to remember is Calzaghe was a SMW not a LH and was far better SMW. The only person i think that would have ever stood a chance against a prime JC is RJJ.

And i've said it before i would have tipped JC to win at SMW and RJJ to win a LH. Many people disagree but i dont think there is any way to argue a clear victor.

Dude... Joe was not even a natural SMW. He was only there due to the awful competition there.

As a matter of fact, he would starve himself before the weigh in, sometimes going 2 days straight without Food just to make the 168 Limit

He would have been far more comfortable at 175 than he was at 168.

Funny you should say the only person to stand a chance against a "Prime Calzaghe" at SMW would be RJJ. Tell me the, when was Joe at his Prime? When he faced Brewer? Or when he faced Pidwell? Or maybe when it was Bika?
Maybe the dude who was in that reality TV Show? What's his name? Manfrodo? The same dude who is now who earns a living as a cleaner?

Sorry, but the only people who give Joe any credibility are Brits

You use the word dude alot. everything else you wrote either showed a distinct lack of knowledge or was tripe.