Hopkins calls out Calzaghe...

I hope this happens, but I cant see Calzaghe fighting at Yankee Stadium...

calzaghe dont want hopkins

"There's no comparison at all, Hopkins won every single round of that fight. Tito was never into the fight and never had a chance.I'd still give him partial credit b/c he is Tito Trinidad." And who had predicted that Hopkins was going to destroy Tito before there fight may i ask ?? Easy to come years after the fight and sound like an expert. The facts remains, Tito looked great moving up in middlewight. Or was you expecting him to smash Joppy inside 2 rounds perhaps ?? And Hopkins did that at age 36. Where was Marvin at 36 ?? 42 ??? Yeah Hopkins fights dirty sometimes and holds sometimes, but what else is new ?

I hope Hopkins really wants JC this time. He made half hearted talks of a fight with JC just to stop JC beating Hopkins defence record. But Hopkins win over Trinidad didnt do much for me. A not great british fighter dropped Trinidad. Cant remember the name of the Brit. He was from Beckenham. Yes Hopkins resume of late has improved. With Tarver, and Wright on it. But befor that i didnt think much of it. Even thought it is better than JC by a little i favour Joe to beat Hopkins. If JC beats Kessler that will close the distance a bit more.

What a bunch of bullshit i read here. People saing that Tito wasnt a challange for Bernard when they fought, because he wasnt fighting in his right weight division ???? Before Tito Fought Bernard, he smashed Joppy better then any fighter had done before or after and Tito was undefeated. He looked almost like a mini Tyson in that fight. If Hopkins doesnt get credit for that fight then Hagler shouldnt get any credit for beating Hearns, who didnt look as explosive at 160 compared to 147, before Hagler and after. Jesus the man is 42 what does people expect ?? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. How are you going to compare Hagler-Hopkins and Tito-Hearns? There's no comparison at all, Hopkins won every single round of that fight. Tito was never into the fight and never had a chance.I'd still give him partial credit b/c he is Tito Trinidad.

What a bunch of bullshit i read here. People saing that Tito wasnt a challange for Bernard when they fought, because he wasnt fighting in his right weight division ???? Before Tito Fought Bernard, he smashed Joppy better then any fighter had done before or after and Tito was undefeated. He looked almost like a mini Tyson in that fight. If Hopkins doesnt get credit for that fight then Hagler shouldnt get any credit for beating Hearns, who didnt look as explosive at 160 compared to 147, before Hagler and after. Jesus the man is 42 what does people expect ??

A resume is a fucking resume. They are all the same thing. There is not a separate dictionary entry for 'boxing resume' you know? Also, the irony to your unnecessary and unprovoked insult being that I am a well-paid college lecturer, whereas you have just finished a degree and are thus most likely unemployed. I called Calzaghe's B-List to be B-List, I'm talking about the notch down from his best wins, not his top victories. Not his two best wins. I have said time and time again that the names on B-Hop's resume (as far as his A-List are concerned) are better than the names on Calzaghe's A-list. Thus as names on your resume...they are slightly better for your legacy. However, in terms of difficulty of beating (thus the manner of victory) Calzaghe's top two are no worse than B-Hop's top two. What is it with people here and assumptions about me? lol. No, i am not unemployed, and i work for my own universitiy as a student advisor both with students and parents on and off, i finished uni, so i dunno if i will do that anymore, but yeah i have another job, although im looking for one which pays well, i got an okay degree so why not. You didnt go into that detail before, yeah whatever, you went to alot of trouble there, getting a bit messy, i shall let it pass for now, its 1.53am and i feel like talking about Audley Harisson's WBF title, lol

If you think a Boxing resume and an employment resume are the same thing, dont apply for jobs, stay on welfare. Edit, he answered above. A resume is a fucking resume. They are all the same thing. There is not a separate dictionary entry for 'boxing resume' you know? Also, the irony to your unnecessary and unprovoked insult being that I am a well-paid college lecturer, whereas you have just finished a degree and are thus most likely unemployed. You call the two best wins of Calzaghe's career 'B-List'? One more time. To be honest i still cant work out how you say Calzaghe's victories are equal to Hopkin's Victories. Yet you said Hopkins Beating a blown up DLH and Trinadad was better than Calzaghe's two best wins, Eubank and Lacy, How does that work? I called Calzaghe's B-List to be B-List, I'm talking about the notch down from his best wins, not his top victories. Not his two best wins. I have said time and time again that the names on B-Hop's resume (as far as his A-List are concerned) are better than the names on Calzaghe's A-list. Thus as names on your resume...they are slightly better for your legacy. However, in terms of difficulty of beating (thus the manner of victory) Calzaghe's top two are no worse than B-Hop's top two. I wish that you would not make me explain that same laborious information over and over again. I also wish that you'd drop the attitude once in a while and argue like a man, not an angry, petulant child.

You smoke crack, man. He already said he'd fight Hopkins in the U.S. He can say whatever the fuck he wants to. It's whether or not his bitch ass is gonna go through with it.

.....Fuck that!!! Why would Calzonie fight that dirty fucker who really doesn't wanna fight? Head butts, holding, clinching, hugging, and no real fighting. Fuck Hopkins. He's garbage. Calzonie is better than that.

Why do you think that I think that Calzaghe's overall victories are equal to Hopkins'? I've stated the opposite many times. I do however think that Calzaghe's B-list is better than Hopkins' B-list, which is why their overall resumes are fairly close to me. You call the two best wins of Calzaghe's career 'B-List'? One more time. To be honest i still cant work out how you say Calzaghe's victories are equal to Hopkin's Victories. Yet you said Hopkins Beating a blown up DLH and Trinadad was better than Calzaghe's two best wins, Eubank and Lacy, How does that work?

Seriously mate. If your resume is just a list of companies you've worked for with no supporting details, then you really are going to have to do something about that before you start applying for jobs. If you think a Boxing resume and an employment resume are the same thing, dont apply for jobs, stay on welfare. Edit, he answered above.

To be honest i still cant work out how you say Calzaghe's victories are equal to Hopkin's Victories. Yet you said Hopkins Beating a blown up DLH and Trinadad was better than Calzaghe's two best wins, Eubank and Lacy, How does that work? Why do you think that I think that Calzaghe's overall victories are equal to Hopkins'? I've stated the opposite many times. I do however think that Calzaghe's B-list is better than Hopkins' B-list, which is why their overall resumes are fairly close to me.

Seriously mate. If your resume is just a list of companies you've worked for with no supporting details, then you really are going to have to do something about that before you start applying for jobs.

Again, I completely disagree. In every walk of life your resume is backed up by the connotations behind the name and the circumstances of the job and the way it was performed. I dont understand how you can possibly say that your resume as a fighter is entirely free of anything other than names. I havent misunderstood anything whatsoever. It is quite obviously a clash of opinions, I just happen to think that mine is much more understandable than yours and I'd like to think that the majority of people would agree with me there. Well like i said, im open to a change of opinion on it. To be honest i still cant work out how you say Calzaghe's victories are equal to Hopkin's Victories. Yet you said Hopkins Beating a blown up DLH and Trinadad was better than Calzaghe's two best wins, Eubank and Lacy, How does that work?

Again, I completely disagree. In every walk of life your resume is backed up by the connotations behind the name and the circumstances of the job and the way it was performed. I dont understand how you can possibly say that your resume as a fighter is entirely free of anything other than names. I havent misunderstood anything whatsoever. It is quite obviously a clash of opinions, I just happen to think that mine is much more understandable than yours and I'd like to think that the majority of people would agree with me there.

I'm not comparing Calzaghe's second tier victories (or in the case of your very strange choice of Manfredo FOURTH tier) with Hopkin's first tier victories. Why would I? I'm comparing like for like. The stuff you said about resumes is just pure nonsense. I'm sorry mate, but it really is. On a boxing forum, nobody but idiots should believe that the name is the important thing and not the circumstance and the manner of victory. You've mis understood, Listen. Resume= Who you have fought, thats what it is, imo a resume is NOT the circumstances behind it, All you are saying is the circumstances behind the resume are more important than the resume itself, which is perfectly vaild.

So you think Beating Jeff Lacy and Chris Eubank is equal to beating a blown up de la hoya and Trinidad? No. Like I've said two or three times now. I consider it to be slightly in Hopkins' favour...but thats IT.

So you think Beating Jeff Lacy and Chris Eubank is equal to beating a blown up de la hoya and Trinidad?

I'm not comparing Calzaghe's second tier victories (or in the case of your very strange choice of Manfredo FOURTH tier) with Hopkin's first tier victories. Why would I? I'm comparing like for like. The stuff you said about resumes is just pure nonsense. I'm sorry mate, but it really is. On a boxing forum, nobody but idiots should believe that the name is the important thing and not the circumstance and the manner of victory.