Better Legacy Hopkins or Calzaghe lets settle it for good

Hopkins clearly. Beat the better line of fighters, better pound for pound quality fighters and was ranked higher on the pound for pound at number 1 at one time. He also set the record for middleweight title defenses and unified middleweight while Calzaghe didn't unify until last year. A prime Bernard Hopkins was also the better fighter, just my opinion.

Hopkins but it's close. I'm increasingly struggling to take polls seriously when geographics play such an overwhemling role. But hey. Poss even if Calz beats Hops maybe just ahead. Def if Calz beats Pavlik. As for Nard, as we know, he'll make Pavlik look worse, as expected though. Hops may get stopped. He's gonna make Pavlik miss a lot but unless he can put him away, he's gonna gas quick because Pavlik won't stop coming. I commend you for the Hops pick. I was actually a Calzaghe fan until I started posting on these boards. I don't believe everyone I'm a fan of is the biggest thing since sliced bread. I was appalled at how he was rated here and how people vehemently defended their nonsense. Ah well. I rather enjoy the debates with the better posters.

On the verge of means nearly. Pavlik is there because he beat Taylor. Kessler has the skills and ability to be there but is not there because he does not hold that name win. I made that point a number of posts ago but you obviously didn't take it in. I never said Kessler is a P4P figher, I said he was on the boundaries of such status before the Calzaghe fight and will, in all likelihood, end up there when he gets that big name victory. The manner of Kessler's performances and victories leading up to the fight with Joe Calzaghe and indeed the closeness of that fight leads me to the opinion that he is an elite fighter. This is going round in circles now and I'm getting sick of repeating myself. If you haven't understood what is a very simple point by now then you're never going to and I'm not wasting any more time trying to explain it to you so on that bombshell it's adiós amigo! :wave: This is boxing. And boxers are measured by who they beat. Keep fighting chumps and you'll look like God. So why am I not surprised you thought Kessler was so great when they're putting him in against Librado Andrade. PLEASE. You don't have to explain anything. Just keep telling yourself "Beyer, Mundine" over and over and if you say it enough times, maybe they become ELITE! PEACE

Hopkins but it's close. I'm increasingly struggling to take polls seriously when geographics play such an overwhemling role. But hey. Poss even if Calz beats Hops maybe just ahead. Def if Calz beats Pavlik. As for Nard, as we know, he'll make Pavlik look worse, as expected though.

The only thing obvious here is your lame ass attempt to make Kessler into a a pound for pounder. So what do you do? Try and discount someone else's resume. Don't try to change the subject because you couldn't back up your points. Wasn't the original point of our debate about Kessler being a pound for pounder? Or on the verge (whatever the fukk that means)? Kelly Pavlik is up there because he stopped the undisputed middleweight champ - after beating the division's perceived #1 contender. Mikkel Kessler is NOT because he hasn't beaten any fighter considered elite, or even close to it. And that's that. On the verge of means nearly. Pavlik is there because he beat Taylor. Kessler has the skills and ability to be there but is not there because he does not hold that name win. I made that point a number of posts ago but you obviously didn't take it in. I never said Kessler is a P4P figher, I said he was on the boundaries of such status before the Calzaghe fight and will, in all likelihood, end up there when he gets that big name victory. The manner of Kessler's performances and victories leading up to the fight with Joe Calzaghe and indeed the closeness of that fight leads me to the opinion that he is an elite fighter. This is going round in circles now and I'm getting sick of repeating myself. If you haven't understood what is a very simple point by now then you're never going to and I'm not wasting any more time trying to explain it to you so on that bombshell it's adiós amigo! :wave:

I made the point very explicitly, the point is that one win does not make a fighter, likewise one defeat. It is obvious to me but you can't seem to grasp it. The only thing obvious here is your lame ass attempt to make Kessler into a a pound for pounder. So what do you do? Try and discount someone else's resume. Don't try to change the subject because you couldn't back up your points. Wasn't the original point of our debate about Kessler being a pound for pounder? Or on the verge (whatever the fukk that means)? Kelly Pavlik is up there because he stopped the undisputed middleweight champ - after beating the division's perceived #1 contender. Mikkel Kessler is NOT because he hasn't beaten any fighter considered elite, or even close to it. And that's that.

So in other words, they've each had one big fight. One lost, the other didn't. Thank you, Captain Obvious. We're back to square one, where you can try and tout the wins over Mundine and Beyer. Not quite Jermain Taylor, eh? I made the point very explicitly, the point is that one win does not make a fighter, likewise one defeat. It is obvious to me but you can't seem to grasp it.

kessler is a good fighter but he isnt an elite fighter.. and calzaghe sure as hell didnt dominate hopkins.. it was a split gift decision.. i thought calzaghe lost the fight to be honest.. he had a highwork rate and was forcing the fight but he didnt land to many clean shots.. bernard landed more clean shots and knocked the guy on his butt.. but i guess even with cal's win over a 43 year old hopkins that wasnt a dominate win Out of curiosity, how many rounds did you give Hopkins?

Okay let's look at it in the real world then. Kessler has had one big fight, Pavlik two against the same opponent. Pavlik won the first in a fight which could have been stopped when he went down in the second and he was losing on the cards when he came roaring back with a spectacular knockout. The rematch went the distance and was closely contested with Pavlik emerging the deserved victor. Kessler's big fight came against Joe Calzaghe, a better fighter than Taylor, in Wales and the Dane suffered a unanimous points defeat in a highly competitive match and one which was arguably Joe's best performance. Outside of the aforementioned fights both men have fought a mixed bag of opponents, Miranda is the best of the rest on Pavlik's while Mundine takes that crown on Kessler's The point is that neither have glittering resumes, mainly due to their age, but that does not detract from their skills or abilities. So in other words, they've each had one big fight. One lost, the other didn't. Thank you, Captain Obvious. We're back to square one, where you can try and tout the wins over Mundine and Beyer. Not quite Jermain Taylor, eh?

Kessler and Hopkins. kessler is a good fighter but he isnt an elite fighter.. and calzaghe sure as hell didnt dominate hopkins.. it was a split gift decision.. i thought calzaghe lost the fight to be honest.. he had a highwork rate and was forcing the fight but he didnt land to many clean shots.. bernard landed more clean shots and knocked the guy on his butt.. but i guess even with cal's win over a 43 year old hopkins that wasnt a dominate win

LOL @ you asking me to "pretend" Pavlik didn't beat Taylor so you can "prove a point." This site gets nuttier by the day. Whatever dude, stop dodging the question... Just pretend that Pavlik never won the title and lost to Jermain Taylor...NOW WHO HAS THE BETTER RESUME!! GOTCHA!

You want to prove a point? How about proving one in the real world, where Kelly Pavlik beat Jermain Taylor...twice? If you want to prove that point in your imaginary world, do it with imaginary people. Okay let's look at it in the real world then. Kessler has had one big fight, Pavlik two against the same opponent. Pavlik won the first in a fight which could have been stopped when he went down in the second and he was losing on the cards when he came roaring back with a spectacular knockout. The rematch went the distance and was closely contested with Pavlik emerging the deserved victor. Kessler's big fight came against Joe Calzaghe, a better fighter than Taylor, in Wales and the Dane suffered a unanimous points defeat in a highly competitive match and one which was arguably Joe's best performance. Outside of the aforementioned fights both men have fought a mixed bag of opponents, Miranda is the best of the rest on Pavlik's while Mundine takes that crown on Kessler's The point is that neither have glittering resumes, mainly due to their age, but that does not detract from their skills or abilities.

LOL @ you asking me to "pretend" Pavlik didn't beat Taylor so you can "prove a point." This site gets nuttier by the day.

Because I want to prove a point. Are you going to dodge this question as well or will I get an answer? You want to prove a point? How about proving one in the real world, where Kelly Pavlik beat Jermain Taylor...twice? If you want to prove that point in your imaginary world, do it with imaginary people.

LMAO. Why aren't we including Jermain Taylor? Who he wrested the UNDISPUTED crown from? How dumb is that? Now we pretend? Because I want to prove a point. Are you going to dodge this question as well or will I get an answer?

For the record, The Ring magazine and other boxing sources have said the same thing completely independently so you're talking mince. LOL - you asked for my p4p criteria, not the Ring. But thanks for the info - true or not.

Okay let's look at this another way. Not including Jermaine Taylor, who has Pavlik beat of note? LMAO. Why aren't we including Jermain Taylor? Who he wrested the UNDISPUTED crown from? How dumb is that? Now we pretend?

His skills are good but only a person desperately trying to defend Calzaghe's resume would suggest Kessler is pound for pound. LMAO. By beating Markus Beyer. Man, I've heard it all. For the record, The Ring magazine and other boxing sources have said the same thing completely independently so you're talking mince.

Sure it can. Who did he beat again? Mundine and Beyer? Don't make me laugh. Okay let's look at this another way. Not including Jermaine Taylor, who has Pavlik beat of note?

Not exactly a comprehensive list but I suppose it will suffice. Each of the areas you have mentioned, with the possible exception of quality of opposition, are subjective which means they are open to interpretation. Whatever. Kessler was the WBA champion for three years prior to his loss against Calzaghe and held the WBC title for just over a year. He has now regained the former of those two belts. Who did he beat for these titles? Kessler has defeated credible opponents along the way, names like Mundine and Beyer may not mean a lot to you because they are from outside the US but they were both at least top 5 in the division and Kessler beat them both comfortably. Nice try. These names are very familiar to me because I'm a BOXING fan, first and foremost. Mundine and Beyer are decent at best. Beyer was FINISHED actually but hey, why let facts get in the way of a good argument? His only defeat came in a highly competitive fight to the man universally regarded as the number two P4P fighter on the planet and even that was in said figter's hometown and while Kessler was nursing an injured hand. Yep. Frankly I don't think his consistency can be questioned, the guy has lost somewhere in the region of 15 rounds in a 216 round career. His KO ratio is good and his skills are and at 29 his best days are still ahead of him. Sure it can. Who did he beat again? Mundine and Beyer? Don't make me laugh. Kessler's skill levels are quite simply not up for debate. Any fair minded individual will tell you that Kessler is a top class operator and could easily be on the P4P list. His skills are good but only a person desperately trying to defend Calzaghe's resume would suggest Kessler is pound for pound. LMAO. By beating Markus Beyer. Man, I've heard it all.