BoxRec

In response to Glen Johnson's taunts that he's a chicken, Calzaghe has told one of those Welsh sites that he'll offer Johnson a £200,000 side bet to have a fight.

Also, does Shaw know when he's whipped? Winky, if he wins, wants to challenge Calzaghe.

Terence wrote:He should offer him a £200,000 grand retainer in case the 75th scheduled fight between them falls through.

Heard Lacy had a £500,000 grand retainer incase he pulled out on that one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/5067220.stm

"If we do fight I'll put down a £200,000 side bet that I'll knock him out," Calzaghe said.

I say he should take it. Johnson's not going to get anymore big fights.

"Given Joe Calzaghe's tarnished reputation, the big-name US fighters, who could earn Joe a lot of money, like myself, (Antonio) Tarver and (Bernard) Hopkins don't take him seriously

Big names because they fought blown up Welterweights or washed up champions.

Hold on Max...it ain't as if Calzaghe has made a career out of fighting p4p guys is it?!?

B-Hop has fought a MUCH higher level of fighter than Calzaghe ever has or ever will.

yiddo14 wrote:Hold on Max...it ain't as if Calzaghe has made a career out of fighting p4p guys is it?!?

B-Hop has fought a MUCH higher level of fighter than Calzaghe ever has or ever will.

If you count Welterweights then yeah I agree.

Max Molyneux wrote:

yiddo14 wrote:Hold on Max...it ain't as if Calzaghe has made a career out of fighting p4p guys is it?!?

B-Hop has fought a MUCH higher level of fighter than Calzaghe ever has or ever will.

If you count Welterweights then yeah I agree.

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

Calzaghe has fought plenty of smaller men himself.

Max Molyneux wrote:

Terence wrote:He should offer him a £200,000 grand retainer in case the 75th scheduled fight between them falls through.

Heard Lacy had a £500,000 grand retainer incase he pulled out on that one.

awww thats why he didnt pull out

No disrespect Max but Hopkins told Larry Merchant he would come out of the grave for enough money, never mind retirement. Wonder if Calzaghi will try to get him or will he just say it like he did about jones? In that instance he wanted Jones to make all the concessions while he just sat over here slagging the guy off.

nickd wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:

yiddo14 wrote:Hold on Max...it ain't as if Calzaghe has made a career out of fighting p4p guys is it?!?

B-Hop has fought a MUCH higher level of fighter than Calzaghe ever has or ever will.

If you count Welterweights then yeah I agree.

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.

He didn't build his legacy off smaller men though Nick like Hop has.

No disrespect Max but Hopkins told Larry Merchant he would come out of the grave for enough money, never mind retirement. Wonder if Calzaghi will try to get him or will he just say it like he did about jones? In that instance he wanted Jones to make all the concessions while he just sat over here slagging the guy off.

Hahah, whos going to give Hop 20 million?

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

nickd wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote: If you count Welterweights then yeah I agree.

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.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

nickd wrote:[quote="Max
lost to an awful lot of foes.

Maybe I misread, are you saying hopkins lost to a lot of foes? He lost four fights, one of which being his pro debut so it wasn't really legitimate, one was to Roy Jones Junior, and two were disputed decisions to Taylor at age 40. He could have quit before Taylor and Tarver and still gone to the Hall Of Fame after 12 years of being undefeated with only one real loss to RJJ.

Ricebandito wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

nickd wrote:[quote="Max
lost to an awful lot of foes.

Maybe I misread, are you saying hopkins lost to a lot of foes? He lost four fights, one of which being his pro debut so it wasn't really legitimate, one was to Roy Jones Junior, and two were disputed decisions to Taylor at age 40. He could have quit before Taylor and Tarver and still gone to the Hall Of Fame after 12 years of being undefeated with only one real loss to RJJ.

I htink he is saying Johnson lost to a lot of foes.

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.

I would substitute Hakkar with Eastman, who has a cracking win over Robert McCracken despite his disappointments.


Hopkins has beaten good middles as you say, Mercado, Glen Johnson, Joppy, Holmes, Echols, Jackson. Who else could he have fought? Winky waited till Hopkins was thought to be near retirement to move up. Harry Simon hid behind a WBO title. Hopkins was leagues above everyone, and he made good fighters look so bad that nobody rates these guys. It's not like Hopkins could have fought a m/w peer, as Hopkins calibre middles come around once every 10-15 yrs if you're lucky. In all, Hopkins was avoided by a lot of guys and deserves mad credit for plugging away on small shows, for shit paydays until he was in a position to have things his way. His longevity has been amazing, and so has his conditioning, unlike the total embarrassment that has become James Toney (who gets well rated on these boards)

Also, the 'he only beats smaller men' argument has just been rendered silly, as he has dominated Tarver. And if Tarver is such a dreadful fighter, how did he beat Glen Johnson and Harding? Again, the great beats the good, and now all of a sudden the good fighter was always shit.

ppl keep on with this nonses about DLH being the "most accomplished fighter of his generation". it seems to have been forgotten that a 40 yo Hopkins, at 157-lbs, didn't have much strength. yet he outclassed DLH in a pure boxing match. and Tito was a middleweight puncher.

Max Molyneux wrote:He didn't build his legacy off smaller men though Nick like Hop has.

Hopkins had 20 title defences of genuine belts 7 of those for the undisputed title, Calzaghe's WBO reign has been largely a joke where he and Warren with the WBO's help have lined up some pretty average competition. He now has the IBF title of course but we're long into his championship reign here.

His best win is over Lacy, while I give him credit for that Hopkins has beaten better men than Lacy. As I have said elsewhere if Lacy is Calzaghe's defining fight then Hopkins has had 20+ defining fights.

I can't see how anyone can slag off Hopkins' career while trying to talk up Calzaghe's that is beyond ridiculous.

bugs wrote:

Ricebandito wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: Maybe I misread, are you saying hopkins lost to a lot of foes? He lost four fights, one of which being his pro debut so it wasn't really legitimate, one was to Roy Jones Junior, and two were disputed decisions to Taylor at age 40. He could have quit before Taylor and Tarver and still gone to the Hall Of Fame after 12 years of being undefeated with only one real loss to RJJ.

I htink he is saying Johnson lost to a lot of foes.

Ohh right, nevermind.

Max Molyneux wrote:

Terence wrote:He should offer him a £200,000 grand retainer in case the 75th scheduled fight between them falls through.

Heard Lacy had a £500,000 grand retainer incase he pulled out on that one.

50 Billion! Wow, that's a big retainer!

nickd wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:He didn't build his legacy off smaller men though Nick like Hop has.

Hopkins had 20 title defences of genuine belts 7 of those for the undisputed title, Calzaghe's WBO reign has been largely a joke where he and Warren with the WBO's help have lined up some pretty average competition. He now has the IBF title of course but we're long into his championship reign here.

His best win is over Lacy, while I give him credit for that Hopkins has beaten better men than Lacy. As I have said elsewhere if Lacy is Calzaghe's defining fight then Hopkins has had 20+ defining fights.

I can't see how anyone can slag off Hopkins' career while trying to talk up Calzaghe's that is beyond ridiculous.

WBC, WBA and IBF more genuine? Yeah the WBO I'm sure rob their belts back for Roy Jones or gets court by the FBI taking bribes.

And they fought in two different weight classes were the opp is sometimes weak in both.

I thought it wasn't the belt that mattered either so I'm going to get contridicting statements then.

Calzaghe has had more defining fights than just Lacy.

I'm hardly slagging off Hopkins just that his name before Trinidad wasn't much so former Welterweights like DLH and Trinidad did make his name. He was hardly a draw before that.

Calzaghe would whoop the guys Hopkins has fought. Even Mundine KO'ed Echols while Hop got a DQ.

Max Molyneux wrote:

nickd wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:He didn't build his legacy off smaller men though Nick like Hop has.

Hopkins had 20 title defences of genuine belts 7 of those for the undisputed title, Calzaghe's WBO reign has been largely a joke where he and Warren with the WBO's help have lined up some pretty average competition. He now has the IBF title of course but we're long into his championship reign here.

His best win is over Lacy, while I give him credit for that Hopkins has beaten better men than Lacy. As I have said elsewhere if Lacy is Calzaghe's defining fight then Hopkins has had 20+ defining fights.

I can't see how anyone can slag off Hopkins' career while trying to talk up Calzaghe's that is beyond ridiculous.

WBC, WBA and IBF more genuine? Yeah the WBO I'm sure rob their belts back for Roy Jones or gets court by the FBI taking bribes.

And they fought in two different weight classes were the opp is sometimes weak in both.

I thought it wasn't the belt that mattered either so I'm going to get contridicting statements then.

Calzaghe has had more defining fights than just Lacy.

I'm hardly slagging off Hopkins just that his name before Trinidad wasn't much so former Welterweights like DLH and Trinidad did make his name. He was hardly a draw before that.

Calzaghe would whoop the guys Hopkins has fought. Even Mundine KO'ed Echols while Hop got a DQ.

Of course Calzaghe would whoop the guys Hopkins has fought he is a SUPERMIDDLEWEIGHT. Likewise Hopkins would beat anyone on Calzaghe's record despite many of them being bigger men than him.

I realise you are a Calzaghe fan but your argument is futile. You are the only person on this board who seems to think Calzaghe's record is comparable to Hopkins. Unless anyone else thinks so please do raise your hands!!

While the WBO is considered on a level or thereabouts with the other belts it certainly wasn't back in 97 when Calzaghe won it. Can you remember that far back? ;)

Hopkins beat Vanderpool to a decision while Lacy Ko'ed him and you Calzaghe did to Lacy. Vanderpool has a win over Johnson too.

So yeah there is a case. It just seems to be different belts make some think there better opp.

Not because he's a supermiddle weight but because he's better than the guys Hopkins has fought and better than Hopkins himself.

While the WBO is considered on a level or thereabouts with the other belts it certainly wasn't back in 97 when Calzaghe won it. Can you remember that far back?

Yes I clearly have read that it wasn't around then but they have had good champions to give it credit from when people like Hearns, Benn and Eubank held.

Oh so you want to demean me eh with that last sentence? I wasn't even a boxing fan around then.

Max Molyneux wrote:Hopkins beat Vanderpool to a decision while Lacy Ko'ed him and you Calzaghe did to Lacy. Vanderpool has a win over Johnson too.

So yeah there is a case. It just seems to be different belts make some think there better opp.

Not because he's a supermiddle weight but because he's better than the guys Hopkins has fought and better than Hopkins himself.

While the WBO is considered on a level or thereabouts with the other belts it certainly wasn't back in 97 when Calzaghe won it. Can you remember that far back?

Yes I clearly have read that it wasn't around then but they have had good champions to give it credit from when people like Hearns, Benn and Eubank held.

Oh so you want to demean me eh with that last sentence? I wasn't even a boxing fan around then.

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.

Terence wrote:To be fair to Max the WBO belt is a strange one. When Bowe held it, plus Oscar, it was considered a good enough belt. Joe holding it was not considered a great thing. The difference though is that Bowe and Oscar brought, respectively, a big reputation and a willingness to take on decent guys. Calzaghe criticised Ottke for defending his belt ad nauseum yet Joe never made any attempt to legitimise his belt.

Of course the WBO has had its moments, but some of the fighters they have approved for Calzaghe defences or mandatories have been woeful.

Will McIntyre
Tocker Pudwill.....

Need I continue?

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.

nickd wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:Hopkins beat Vanderpool to a decision while Lacy Ko'ed him and you Calzaghe did to Lacy. Vanderpool has a win over Johnson too.

So yeah there is a case. It just seems to be different belts make some think there better opp.

Not because he's a supermiddle weight but because he's better than the guys Hopkins has fought and better than Hopkins himself.

While the WBO is considered on a level or thereabouts with the other belts it certainly wasn't back in 97 when Calzaghe won it. Can you remember that far back?

Yes I clearly have read that it wasn't around then but they have had good champions to give it credit from when people like Hearns, Benn and Eubank held.

Oh so you want to demean me eh with that last sentence? I wasn't even a boxing fan around then.

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.

Max Molyneux wrote:

nickd wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:Hopkins beat Vanderpool to a decision while Lacy Ko'ed him and you Calzaghe did to Lacy. Vanderpool has a win over Johnson too.

So yeah there is a case. It just seems to be different belts make some think there better opp.

Not because he's a supermiddle weight but because he's better than the guys Hopkins has fought and better than Hopkins himself.
Yes I clearly have read that it wasn't around then but they have had good champions to give it credit from when people like Hearns, Benn and Eubank held.

Oh so you want to demean me eh with that last sentence? I wasn't even a boxing fan around then.

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.