Page 1 of 2
How damaging for Calzaghe's legacy... should he lose.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:25
by stujones
I really see this as a lose-lose fight for Calzaghe. I think had Joe fought Hopkins STRAIGHT after Bernard beat up Tarver... then you could argue that Hopkins is refreshed at the weight, and better than the guy who lost to Taylor.
However, since then for me, Hopkins looked a little more faded vs a Fat Winky, and significantly... Tarver has continued to look awful (has a bit of a chance for redemption tonight).
So what happens to Calzaghe's legacy should go lose? Surely there would be no debate as to who would win a Calzaghe vs a prime Roy Jones Jnr fight (there now is some debate on it), and Naturally Hopkins too....
How much could a defeat harm Joe's legacy... I think it could be a massive blow, far more than a win enhances it IMO.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:27
by thepocketrocket
If he wins he beat a man who was 43, a man who he should have travelled to fight 8 years ago, if he loses he loses to a guy who he should have travelled to fight 8 years ago
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:28
by stujones
thepocketrocket wrote:If he wins he beat a man who was 43, a man who he should have travelled to fight 8 years ago, if he loses he loses to a guy who he should have travelled to fight 8 years ago
If he loses... he loses to a guy who would have given him a PASTING 8 years ago. Cause Hopkins has regressed that much.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:35
by thepocketrocket
Agreed Stewie, and Hopkins aint even Irish!!!!
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:42
by Arbachakov
It would be extremely damaging.
Re: How damaging for Calzaghe's legacy... should he lose.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:44
by Controversial
stujones wrote:I really see this as a lose-lose fight for Calzaghe. I think had Joe fought Hopkins STRAIGHT after Bernard beat up Tarver... then you could argue that Hopkins is refreshed at the weight, and better than the guy who lost to Taylor.
However, since then for me, Hopkins looked a little more faded vs a Fat Winky, and significantly... Tarver has continued to look awful (has a bit of a chance for redemption tonight).
So what happens to Calzaghe's legacy should go lose? Surely there would be no debate as to who would win a Calzaghe vs a prime Roy Jones Jnr fight (there now is some debate on it), and Naturally Hopkins too....
How much could a defeat harm Joe's legacy... I think it could be a massive blow, far more than a win enhances it IMO.
I asked this question when this fight was first announched. I agree with you, Calzaghe can't win whatever the outcome IMO. If he losses people will argue Hopkins was past his best and if he wins people will argue the same point !!
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:44
by STP
It goes down the pan, simple as that.
He took this fight for no other reason than the money.
Mikkel Kessler will lose to Carl Froch and/or Jermain Taylor.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:45
by stujones
STP wrote:It goes down the pan, simple as that.
He took this fight for no other reason than the money.
Mikkel Kessler will lose to Carl Froch and/or Jermain Taylor.
I don't see Kessler losing to Froch or Taylor.
Don't see Kessler losing to Calzaghe should they fight again either though. I think he is the real deal.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:46
by STP
But he'll win. Because insiders are saying Hopkins is looking awful in the gym, compared to what he has been.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:47
by STP
stujones wrote:STP wrote:It goes down the pan, simple as that.
He took this fight for no other reason than the money.
Mikkel Kessler will lose to Carl Froch and/or Jermain Taylor.
I don't see Kessler losing to Froch or Taylor.
Don't see Kessler losing to Calzaghe should they fight again either though. I think he is the real deal.
He's really quite stiff and has little sense of timing.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:48
by WildWaylon
Joe is following an ambition. He couldnt get the fight 8 years ago but definately wanted it. OK a win wont mean so much now, but its still not an easy fight. If Joe wins he will get plenty of credit for doing so because Hopkins is no ordinary 43 year old fighter. If he loses people will say he was beaten by a 43 year old well past his prime. Yes, that will certainly damage his legacy and I dont think we will see him fight again.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:49
by stujones
STP wrote:But he'll win. Because insiders are saying Hopkins is looking awful in the gym, compared to what he has been.
Fightnews reported that he is looking sharp?
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:49
by STP
If he wanted it he'd have got it. He just couldn't be bothered to do anything for 10 years.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:49
by STP
stujones wrote:STP wrote:But he'll win. Because insiders are saying Hopkins is looking awful in the gym, compared to what he has been.
fightviews reported that he is looking sharp?
Compared to others maybe
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:52
by stujones
WildWaylon wrote:Joe is following an ambition. He couldnt get the fight 8 years ago but definately wanted it. OK a win wont mean so much now, but its still not an easy fight. If Joe wins he will get plenty of credit for doing so because Hopkins is no ordinary 43 year old fighter. If he loses people will say he was beaten by a 43 year old well past his prime. Yes, that will certainly damage his legacy and I dont think we will see him fight again.
Good point, but for me.... I would have favoured Hopkins of 2001 and before to beat Joe.... even the Hopkins of the Joppy fight... and if Calzaghe tanks him in a round next week - I don't think it would make me change my opinion.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:52
by Croydon1
it would be very very damaging but I just cannot see Joe losing.
I was getting to the point where as the fight got closer I thought Bernard had a better chance of winning but then I watched the Taylor and Wright fights (tarver fight was a snore- fest and tarver put no pressure on bernard- unlike joe would) and seriously Joe is going to embarrass Bernard.
A blown up Winky out landed Hopkins according to compubox, Taylor got the two victories fighting in spurts, i just cannot see Joe losing this with the amount of pressure he puts on and Bernard is not a big enough hittter to keep Joe off him. He is getting old and gasses now, paces himself but he can't pace himself against a non-stop fighter.
I am slightly surpised not a lot has been said about the fact that Joe has to go up in weight to fight for the first time but I suspect this is because Bernard went up even further from middleweight with not a whoel lot of problems.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:54
by STP
Even Shilstone was caught ducking the question nervously about whether Hopkins is looking as sharp as he'd need to be...
John Chavez: All right thanks Naazim. I had one real quick question for Mackie. You spoke, very recently about stating the truth and not having to hype up a fight. You worked with Bernard two years ago. Are you honestly stating that we will see a better physical specimen than the Antonio Tarver fight that you worked with him?
Mackie Shilstone: Well I really look at it this way. I don't like to compare one fight to another or one situation because they are totally different. The way I look at it is two men are going to get into a ring – which is a theater of operation very similar to combat – of course there are no heroes in boxing. And no one is defending their country for freedom. But it basically is war. And inside that 20 by 20 theater of operation two men are going to get together. And with all the benefits of Mr. Enzo Calzaghe who is a wonderful trainer and won Trainer of the Year and so forth and so on. And with the esteemed colleagues of mine – as I'm sure Brother Naazim will tell you. These two men are going to get in there and have to size each other up. And that's where it really starts. Bernard's going to go in there and do what he needs to do in a manner consistent that he surmises from seeing what the opponent is doing. And his body becomes relevant – if it becomes relevant – it is his mind, it is his inner drive, it is his instinct that will far out weigh anything to do with the body or what it looks like.
Sounds like a typical run-around type of answer where the question is never answered. Shilstone also says that Hopkins in the physical condition of a 27-28 year old but what does that mean? Pro athletes are physical freaks so if this simply means the average 27-28 year old, then that's not exactly good news for Hopkins fans. Is the same Bernard Hopkins of 27-28? I think it's pretty obvious he's not. I didn't think he looked quite as quick on his feet after Tarver but I was hoping that was from Shilstone not being with him. There is also no training footage from media day which also should make Hopkins fans nervous.
And the Calzaghe's are saying Joe's punching harder than he has for four, possibly seven, possibly even 10, years.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:58
by states
STP wrote:If he wanted it he'd have got it. He just couldn't be bothered to do anything for 10 years.
I can blame Calzaghe for many fights falling through. The Hopkins fight, as originally mooted, I can't. The fight was there for Bernard. HE turned it down.
As for next weeks fight, not much to gain for Calzaghe, in my opinion. Hopkins may well be The Ring's champ at 175, and he may well be riding high in various p4p lists, but I'm sure that, should Joe win, Hopkins' age will be brought up, and plenty of people will be quick out of the blocks to say that it doesn't really count. If he loses, well, he'll be dismissed as a homeboy who failed when he stepped out of his comfort zone.
About the only consolation for Calzaghe is the money he'll earn. Which I don't begrudge him. Personally, I hope he wipes the floor with Hopkins, and tells the inevitable critics to fornicate right off.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 17:59
by STP
states wrote:STP wrote:If he wanted it he'd have got it. He just couldn't be bothered to do anything for 10 years.
I can blame Calzaghe for many fights falling through. The Hopkins fight, as originally mooted, I can't. The fight was there for Bernard. HE turned it down.
Joe Calzaghe was a bum in America.
Oscar de la Hoya was a god in America.
Go figure.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 18:00
by states
Hopkins agreed to fight Calzaghe one day. He asked for more money the next day. Go figure.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 18:04
by lvlarc
A loss for Calzaghe will mean the critics will come out in droves, questioning both his legacy and his talent. However Calzaghe has looked incredibly sharp in those open workouts for the press, he should win comprehensively.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 18:05
by BAMBI
it will add a severe dent into his legacy.
If Hopkins stops him, uh ohh...
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 19:01
by banjo
It would be a disaster for Calzaghe if he loses and would seriously destroy his reputation IMO.
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 19:49
by observer1
thepocketrocket wrote:If he wins he beat a man who was 43, a man who he should have travelled to fight 8 years ago, if he loses he loses to a guy who he should have travelled to fight 8 years ago
There was a Nail and there was also a Hammer, and you hit that Nail on the Head with a Hammer
Posted: 12 Apr 2008, 19:57
by The_Don1
if Calz lost it wouldn't mean much, he's still got those 10 years as the prestigious WBO champion to look back upon