BoxRec

I seem to recall a lot of negative comments about Calzaghe's win over Hopkins, so considering Hopkins went onto having some good fights and wins after that defeat has anyone changed their mind about Calzaghe?

For the record I thought Calzaghe won a close fight.

For the title question, my answer is: Yes

Hopkins has proven that he was not past his peak when Calzaghe fought him by regaining the World Light Heavyweight Title and his victories over Kelly Pavlik and Jean Pascal have proved that.

Crease wrote:For the title question, my answer is: Yes

Hopkins has proven that he was not past his peak when Calzaghe fought him by regaining the World Light Heavyweight Title and his victories over Kelly Pavlik and Jean Pascal have proved that.

He was past his peak when Calzaghe fought him, for me his peak finished around the early 2000's. He was still a great fighter when Joe got the nod over him though, and I think it looks more impressive with time to.

It was always a good win for me, his best, but he was obviously past his peak. His peak was when he fought Tito for my money. That guy wasn't in the ring with Joe.

Irrespective of the official verdict, I thought Hopkins just won that fight, especially in view of the knockdown.

It wasn't a good fight either - both men are spoilers.

with time, yes. after the calz loss bernard has proven that he could still compete at a high level beating multiple champions. calz is really underrated on this board

Controversial wrote:I seem to recall a lot of negative comments about Calzaghe's win over Hopkins, so considering Hopkins went onto having some good fights and wins after that defeat has anyone changed their mind about Calzaghe?

For the record I thought Calzaghe won a close fight.

Yes, it does.

Absolutely, and Joe C was also past his best at the time.

It definitely looks better with all Hopkins has accomplished since. I thought the fight was close, but Calzaghe clearly deserved it.

Not really it was a stinker of a fight which made Joe look what he was - a notch below Hopkins peak for pean

The longer Hopkins goes on and Wins, yes, Calzaghe's victory will look better and better. However, I gave Hopkins the nod in their bout.

One thing is certain, Calzaghe KNEW he'd not Win a rematch, and that's why he turned down big paydays for a rematch.

Rocky Balboa wrote:The longer Hopkins goes on and Wins, yes, Calzaghe's victory will look better and better. However, I gave Hopkins the nod in their bout.

One thing is certain, Calzaghe KNEW he'd not Win a rematch, and that's why he turned down big paydays for a rematch.

Think so? I think he KNEW he would not likely be motivated again. That's why he retired. (maybe it's the same thing, Bernard seemed to love the game, so would have been motivated and so may have won another go-round.) I think Joe was/is just done. I do think Joe won that fight, the decision was the correct one, IMHO.

Hopkins was nowhere near his peak. I'd say his Peak was circa 2001 when he beat Tito.

Though Hopkins was passed it, Had Joe dominated Hopkins, then yes, his won no doubt look better.

But as it stands, It was an SD that could have gone either way.

Hopkins faced the best, even at 47.

Joe on the other hand never had a super-fight, a shame considering his talent. Had he left Warren sooner, and had the big fights circa 2003 - He'd have been bigger than Eubank, Benn and even Hatton imo. But he stands out as one of the talented British fighters not have a career defining super fight.

Hatton did, twice. He got sparked twice too, but atleast he tried.

yes, it looked great after pavlik let along pascal

Possibly if you think he won, which I don't.

mrbassie wrote:Possibly if you think he won, which I don't.

does that count though? i had it a draw but its down as a win and it cant be changed now

Adamj1987 wrote:

mrbassie wrote:Possibly if you think he won, which I don't.

does that count though? i had it a draw but its down as a win and it cant be changed now

You cant take credit for the wins by an opponent who you barely beat. Besides triangle theories don't work.

Does "3-k Battery" Singsurat deserve more credit for KO'ing Pac for his WBC belt back in 1999, because Pac has gone on to do incredible things ?

Hopkins won that fight for me. A disgraceful decision. One man knocks the other down in the first and totally shuts out the first 6. Making his foe look totally impotent on the inside, his bread and butter nullified.

Hopkins showed what a master he was, he exposed the fatal flaw in Calzaghe . When Joe is on the inside he needs both hands to do those pitty patty flurries (a style forced on him by the damage in his hands post 2002). Joe simply couldnt work off just the one hand inside, so Hopkins just tied up one hand and eureka!

Granted calzaghe came on hard the last 6 and made Hopkins look like a playactor on that phantom low blow. But I still scored it for Hopkins by a few points. No way he could have lost in my mind.

But yes the victory does look much better in retrospect. Hopkins looked sensational against Pavlik and although I felt he was faded once he came back against Ornelas he did go on to beat Jones jnr (even more short) and bested Pascal over two fights.

mugabi wrote:Hopkins won that fight for me. A disgraceful decision. One man knocks the other down in the first and totally shuts out the first 6. Making his foe look totally impotent on the inside, his bread and butter nullified.

Hopkins showed what a master he was, he exposed the fatal flaw in Calzaghe . When Joe is on the inside he needs both hands to do those pitty patty flurries (a style forced on him by the damage in his hands post 2002). Joe simply couldnt work off just the one hand inside, so Hopkins just tied up one hand and eureka!

Granted calzaghe came on hard the last 6 and made Hopkins look like a playactor on that phantom low blow. But I still scored it for Hopkins by a few points. No way he could have lost in my mind.

But yes the victory does look much better in retrospect. Hopkins looked sensational against Pavlik and although I felt he was faded once he came back against Ornelas he did go on to beat Jones jnr (even more short) and bested Pascal over two fights.

Disgraceful decision? LOL.

In all your gloating about Oxford, you never mentioned you also graduated from Elmo's Class of Ringside and Armchair Scorers.

Why did I guess Urineie would reply with an opinion contrary to mine, and mention my Oxford degree?!

Because he's urinie and all he does is sit at home thinking about my Oxbridge education! Get some treatment pal! Take the other 2 trolls with you, you may get a group discount!

mugabi wrote:Why did I guess Urineie would reply with an opinion contrary to mine, and mention my Oxford degree?!

Because he's urinie and all he does is sit at home thinking about my Oxbridge education! Get some treatment pal! Take the other 2 trolls with you, you may get a group discount!

1. You're never right.

2. We still laugh about it

I think Calzaghe won the fight. I think Calzaghe deserved the win as well. G.I. will tell you this means two different things to some of us.


However in this case, the champion did not deserve to keep his belt. With all those low blows, and that reluctance to engage. It was nearly as bad as sticking your head out of the ropes in a championship fight. None of these sorts of shameful antics should ever be rewarded by judges.


Those two judges done good by just saying "no" to nonsense.

I think Calzaghe won the fight. I think Calzaghe deserved the win as well. G.I. will tell you this means two different things to some of us.


However in this case, the champion did not deserve to keep his belt. With all those low blows, and that reluctance to engage. It was nearly as bad as sticking your head out of the ropes in a championship fight. None of these sorts of shameful antics should ever be rewarded by judges.


Those two judges done good by just saying "no" to nonsense.

BoxBuzz wrote:I think Calzaghe won the fight. I think Calzaghe deserved the win as well. G.I. will tell you this means two different things to some of us.


However in this case, the champion did not deserve to keep his belt. With all those low blows, and that reluctance to engage. It was nearly as bad as sticking your head out of the ropes in a championship fight. None of these sorts of shameful antics should ever be rewarded by judges.


Those two judges done good by just saying "no" to nonsense.

If only he'd adopted a more honourable tactic --- like pulling down his opponents neck hundreds of times, punching air while your rival beats you about the head to the point of a busted eardrum, or swapping out punching for dancing.

Judges love them some of that.

I've watched the bout a few times and still don't see any basis for a Hopkins' victory.