Bhops losses to taylor...

Joe Calzaghe has 20+ defenses of his SMW crown and has never been beaten in 44 professional fights as a SMW. Losing to Hopkins won't diminish that. Do you agree?it will dimidnish his career some for sure. bhop is 43. if he was 36 or younger than it would not hurt so much if joe lost to him, but at this point, bhop(as great as he is) is past it. no matter tho because i don't see joe losing this.

ofcourse it wont diminish it..:cop: he just will not have accomplished what Bhop has, by moving up in weight and winning the light heavy weight crown. :puppy_dog But if he wins... My last post in this thread. The guy who said it had gone off topic was right. Sorry. Of course Taylor's wins hurt Hopkins. It was the end of his reign as SMW and the end of ten years undefeated. In boxing the goal is to win, and wins make reputations. Losses damage them. End of story. ________ Drug Tests

Had a feeling this would warp from a thread about the Taylor fights to a Joe fans v B-Hop fans battle thread. Either guy can lose and still be considered a great fighter. But legacy-wise, Joe needs to win more than Hopkins does. The losses to Taylor were big news at the time but by now nobody cares about that shit anymore since Hopkins has gone on to accomplish more. Except of course Bernard's haters who love to bring it up as a diss to him.

Hops is 43 yrs old. DAYUM. :nonono: HE had 20 title defenses of his middle weight crown and went on to win the undisputed light heavy crown at like 41 yrs of age. Losing to Jow wont dimish that. Joe Calzaghe has 20+ defenses of his SMW crown and has never been beaten in 44 professional fights as a SMW. Losing to Hopkins won't diminish that. Do you agree? ________ Rare disorders forums

I agree that Bernard has the marginally better resume, but that Calzaghe is the better fighter. No argument from me there. There's no 'marginally' about it, Hopkins has a better resume by a distance. You nearly pulled it off, still one of Joe's boys.

what do you mean by dimish? he has accomplshed what he has accomplished, nothing can change the history books, he has ALREADY accomplished what h eaccomplished.. diminish is an opinion. yes, 43 yr old Hopkins can beat Calzage,, Hopkins may have needed this move to 175, especially at his age.. To you Hopkins may have accomplished everything he needs to accomplish, but to get my everlasting respect he needs to beat Joe Calzaghe. It seems to me that you are trying to have your cake and eat it. You are basically saying that if Bernard loses it won't matter, he was old anyway, and he's still great, but if I were to say the same thing about Calzaghe you'd probably try and eat me alive. Surely, if you pick Hopkins to win, then he must not be the fighter you thought he was if he loses? If Calzaghe loses, I will be the first to say he wasn't the fighter I thought he was. ________ Universal health

Some of you Calzaghe fans need to get off your high horses! Joe is a great fighter but his resume is weak, don't give a monkeys what ya say! Maybe that's Frank Warren's fault but Joe should have jumped ship, you know am right? Hopkins isn't as good as fighter as Calzaghe but his resume is better, Yes or No? Can't wait tell this fight is over and done with. The build up to it has been tedious to say the least. I agree that Bernard has the marginally better resume, but that Calzaghe is the better fighter. No argument from me there. ________ ****STARS JOLIE

Losing to a "Euro-bum" or "the biggest conman in boxing" called Joe should do the trick, surely? You know FRKO, I really think that might do it. How on earth Hopkins could possibly lose to a fighter of such incredible ineptitude I really have no idea. I mean he'd have to be a complete fraud to be unable to defeat him, wouldn't he? Especially in his own backyard. :nono: ________ WILLIAM S. KNUDSEN

Some of you Calzaghe fans need to get off your high horses! Joe is a great fighter but his resume is weak, don't give a monkeys what ya say! Maybe that's Frank Warren's fault but Joe should have jumped ship, you know am right? Hopkins isn't as good as fighter as Calzaghe but his resume is better, Yes or No? Can't wait tell this fight is over and done with. The build up to it has been tedious to say the least.

What, out of interest, would diminish Hopkin's legacy in your eyes? Losing to a "Euro-bum" or "the biggest conman in boxing" called Joe should do the trick, surely?

You have to remember Hopkins was FORTY yrs old and he had to close fights with JT. Both . in the end of those fights he was kicking JT's ass, although I feel he still lost......It doesnt diminish his legacy. And yet you feel that a FORTY THREE year old Hopkins is going to beat Joe Calzaghe? What, out of interest, would diminish Hopkin's legacy in your eyes? ________ List Of Subaru Transmissions

The Taylor re-match was pretty big, his first pro fight was a big fight it is for anyone. As great as Hopkins is and he is i firmly believe everyone Hopkins beat in his career Calzaghe would have beat. We'll never know because calzaghe never fought them, he played it safe, IMO, Kessler was his biggest match b4 this. Dont get me wrong, I have a feeling Calzaghe is good enough to win, and I personally feel he might win, but all im saying is that he HAS to win, or else he's just another Hatton, or Woods. Hopkins is a legend either way. And his first fight was nowhere near his biggest fights IMO.

HELL NAH.........:cop: Hell yes, actually! It's my opinion that he won. Nothing anyone can say will change that, I have seen the fight many times and I will stick to what I said. 7-5 Taylor > Pavlik. Marquez also beat Pac, and Johnson beat Dawson.

So, in fact close defeats, even to inferior fighters, do not diminish a boxers legacy? I will remember that in the unlikely event that Hopkins wins on the 19th. Yeah but you cant compare calzaghes resume to bhops. This is Calzaghes biggest fight, first time not fighting at home, he needs to win. This is not Bhops biggest fight, Bhop won his biggest fights.

So, in fact close defeats, even to inferior fighters, do not diminish a boxers legacy? I will remember that in the unlikely event that Hopkins wins on the 19th. ................................:hail:

Hurt, but not much. Only hurt him cuz there's 2 marks in his L column that weren't there before Taylor. Don't diminish his legacy though cuz neither loss was decisive, most people thought he got ****ed both times, and what he did and Taylor didn't do after those fights made Bernard look that much better. So, in fact close defeats, even to inferior fighters, do not diminish a boxers legacy? I will remember that in the unlikely event that Hopkins wins on the 19th. ________ FORD SIERRA SPECIFICATIONS

Hurt, but not much. Only hurt him cuz there's 2 marks in his L column that weren't there before Taylor. Don't diminish his legacy though cuz neither loss was decisive, most people thought he got fucked both times, and what he did and Taylor didn't do after those fights made Bernard look that much better. ................................:hail:

Hurt, but not much. Only hurt him cuz there's 2 marks in his L column that weren't there before Taylor. Don't diminish his legacy though cuz neither loss was decisive, most people thought he got fucked both times, and what he did and Taylor didn't do after those fights made Bernard look that much better. I agree with this post. Good shit.

Hurt him slighty, the two L's and the fact he lost to a guy that got beat twice by the same person.

do you think they hurt him, helped him, or neither. I think those losses hurt him, and when Taylor lost to Pavlik, it hurt Hopkins even more. While I'm in this thread, I'll say I thought Jermain won both fights, and Jermain also won the Pavlik rematch by one or maybe two rounds. Shame other people don't score fights like I do, though, they tend to score for the guy throwing the most shots even if they're being blocked.