Should Calzaghe really get so much credit if he wins?

after Joseph Calzaghe dominates Bernard Hopkins>commafull stop<

ooh ffs , another hypothetical throw away remark/ question ... get a grip I think its a valid question, especially given the fact that about half the threads at the moment revolve around who will win the fight. Nothing wrong with a bit of thought about what the outcome will mean for each fighter. ________ Hinduism Dicussion

Boxers have been ducking Calzaghe for years, and Hopkins is one of those duckers Hbo has already said that Hopkins wanted way too much to fight Calzaghe and they also said that about Roy Jones Jr. That was like 6 years ago when Calzaghe was calling them out, everyones afraid of Calzaghe. Look how fast he throws, look at his crazy stamina. Whats not to be afraid of? :boxing:

Just bumped this in the vain hope that somebody might read and respond to the lengthy post I spent tonight making... So shoot me. ________ Ass Milf

Great post there, abadger. As for some of you, you didn't quite get the point. What i'm saying is that trashing Hopkins is the same as trashing Calzaghe, because this is supposed to be the man's best win in his career(recognition/name-wise) and if you have already discredited everything Bhop stands for, you can't actually give Calzaghe any credit if he wins because you'll look like an ass then.

When we ask ourselves the question of how much 'credit' a fighter will earn from a particular victory, what we are really asking is what will that victory show us about the fighter that we didn't already know? How will it show us that he is a better fighter than we thought? We are also asking another question, that of how it is that defeating the opponent in question will help to show that, of where that particular opponent is at. Naturally the answers to these questions depend to a great deal on the perspective of the observer, with regards to this fight in particular, which fighter they like the best. In trying to answer these questions I will do my best to cut through the hyperbole and BS and arrive at something like an objective answer. So, what does Calzaghe still have to prove in his career? To many observers, myself included, the answer is very little. With an undefeated pro career and a record breaking reign as champ, a man who has defeated, usually decisively, every man he has ever faced, Joe has done everything you can ever do in boxing and then some. To fans who think like this he is a class act, end of story. However, not all boxing fans do see it like this, to them he as at worst a completely protected Euro bum without a single world class victory, and at best a talented fighter who has looked good at home, but has yet to face an opponent that really matters, in the place that really matters. So who is right? In truth, the answer is that Joe is somewhere inbetween. There should be no doubt from the serious boxing fan that Joe's record alone justifies his status as an elite fighter, you simply do not beat all the boxers he has without having something going for you, and Joe has rarely or never been the recipient of a legitimate hometown decision. On the other hand, there are other boxers in the world, particularly in the US who whilst not being undefeated, have records that compare as well and better with Joe's man for man. Bernard Hopkins is for me, the standout example of this. All argument aside, on paper Hopkins has a very similar resume to Joe, with a few standout names that make it a cut above. Some argue that Kessler is a better than victory than any of Bernard's wins, and based on skills, that may be right. However the truth remains that Kessler has not actually proved that he deserves this status, he may in future, but he hasn't yet. Expecting everyone, particularly Bernard fans who have seen ther man beat Tarver, Trinidad, De La Hoya and Winky, to make this leap of faith about Kessler is too much to ask, if we are being fair. On the available evidence Hopkins has proved that he can take on and beat better fighters than Joe has, and that for me, is what this fight is all about, it is time for Joe to step up and prove, quite simply, that he can hang with the big boys of US boxing. So then, the question now is whether beating Hopkins is the fight and result that will do this, and you will find plenty of opinions on both sides. Some say Hopkins is all washed up, others that he is P4P #1. As always, the truth is somewhere inbetween. For me Hopkins is demonstrably not the fighter he was a few years ago, at 43 how could he be? Likewise, for a man who was undefeated for 10 years, two losses to Taylor, whatever the circumstances, are pretty good evidence of at least a degree of decline. However, a degree of decline is not the same thing as being shot. With wins over newly crowned champ Tarver and Winky Wright in his last two fights, Hopkins is clearly a long way from being a Mike Tyson style has-been. He clearly remains a competitive, dangerous fighter at the very elite level of the sport, beatable but still a tremendous threat. Indeed thos same two wins, for me, mark him out as the outstanding fighter of the existing US 'names' in and around the SMW LHW mix. He may not be the fighter he used to be, but he is still very good. No-one else from among that band of fighters has as good names on their recent record, and that is why Hopkins and not someone else is the Ring LHW champ and widely agreed p4p top ten fighter. Simply put, Hopkins is the most credible fight that Joe could be facing right now, based on the evidence. So finally then let's answer the question of what credit Joe should get if he beats B-Hop. The simple answer is that he should get the credit anyone should get for beating the current best fighter (perhaps after themselves) in and around their weight class. If Joe gets nothing else, if he wins he should walk away with the crown of best SMW and LHW in the world. Realistically, after B-Hop there is no other genuinely credible fighter. That is the 'pure' boxing answer, but it is not as simple as that. Another thing that Joe should get is the answer to the question of whether he is truly a world class, future HOFer, deserving of mention in the same breath as Hopkins, Winky, Trinidad, De La Hoya et al. The answer should be yes. Joe has already beaten enough fighters to match up to the majority of the names on these guys records, and if Hopkins gets the credit for beating Tarver, Winky and De La Hoya, then so too should Joe get the credit for beating him. Right now, B-Hop is the best name he could beat, and to deny him recognition afterwards would not only be churlish, it would be wilfully ignorant. Of course, for Joe to get any kind of credit he first has to beat B-Hop, and let me ask you this: If Joe does win, even if you don't like him, even if you can't believe the Executioner lost, give Calzaghe his dues and give him the recognition and respect that he will have earned. Few other fighters achieve what either Calzaghe or B-Hop have and will, so while they're here, lets not run them down and discredit them, lets call them what they are: some of the best fighters the world will ever see. ________ GERALD C. MEYERS

I would give Cazaghe a lot of credit.

It's a pointless question, because Joe Calzaghe will never be given credit no matter who he defeats. His haters will never change. Pretty much, He could KO Wlad Klitschko and the haters would just say he was overrated.....

He'll get credit even though B-Hop is 43. How much depends on how convincingly he wins.