If Calzaghe is such a GREAT fighter and........

Joe has a W against Hopkins on his resume and Hopkins has a L against Joe on his resume. When people look at their resumes in 50 years time thats what they will look at. Also Joe Fought outside his own Country, Hopkins never. Joe was unbeaten, Hopkins was not. Hopkins ducked Joe when in his prime by agreeing a fight and then asking for double the cash the next day. In 50 years time the prejudices of people around now will not matter when looking at someone achivements in black and white

Who said Hopkins was just a good fighter? That's first up. I don't recall many people saying that, and if they did their fools and as many say it of Calzaghe vice versa. So what was meant by that I'm not sure. Hopkins and Calzaghe are both great fighters. How about let's just leave it at that? I was thinking the exact same thing. If anything, I notice most of Joe's fans giving nothing but credit to Hopkins. Yet the Hopkins fans.......no I should say Joe Haters.........give credit to Hopkins but have to shit on Joe at the same time.

Who said Hopkins was just a good fighter? That's first up. I don't recall many people saying that, and if they did their fools and as many say it of Calzaghe vice versa. So what was meant by that I'm not sure. Hopkins and Calzaghe are both great fighters. How about let's just leave it at that?

If Calzaghe is such a GREAT fighter ........and Hopkins is just a good fighter that has beat up smaller men his entire career then how come Hopkins is considered the superior of the two based on achievements? this might be just my opinion, but is it just me that think Hopkins will be reveared in years time and Calzaghe wont be hopkins will bre revered and calz will be rightly scorned. hopkins fought almost everybody who was somebody from 154-175. calz fought bums, a shot rjj and a 43 yr old hopkins. calz might be great (debatable imho) but he is definitely and will never be greater than hopkins.

both awesome fighters

Another original and thought provoking thread. Bravo! They're both great fighters.

They are both brilliant fighters, but one is better than the other, that being.........Hopkins is the greater!

I think there would have been more pressure on him to step up the competition if he fought in the U.S. Hopkins was not recieving much credit at all when he was reigning as the MW champ it took the Trinidad fight for people to wake up and realise how good he was

Obviously not, but he'd get more credit than what he gets now. I think there would have been more pressure on him to step up the competition if he fought in the U.S.

If Joe fought in the states against the same fighters he has beaten his you think his achievements would be comparable to Hopkins achievements? Obviously not, but he'd get more credit than what he gets now.

So why do so many Brits think he is a better fighter than Hopkins if the same Brits conceed Calzaghe has an inferior record of achievements and a lesser place in history ? well i can't answer that categorically as i don't agree with it but to measure overall greatness both skills and record have to be considered, and maybe those people think Calzaghe's skills make up for his inferior record - or that his win in his head-to-head fight with Hopkins (the closest we can truly get to comparing their skills in the ring) means he's better or maybe they are uninformed of B-Hop's career and haven't seen him perform at his best and don't know what he's capable of

No Joe is the worst fighter ever to put on the surface on the earth. Every living person/animal can achieve beating a crippled, sick, old and shot Hopkins and a dead Roy Jones Jr, and have 46-0. Mikkel Kessler is just a bum, who can't fight, he would lose to a drunken pirate. There I said it, is that the truth you want to hear?

i've never heard anyone big up Calzaghe and bring down Hopkins in the same sentence and for the record i believe they're both great fighters, but Hopkins is easily the greater of the two... and if we're talking aout their records, Hopkins has an amazing resume while Calzaghe has a respectable resume So why do so many Brits think he is a better fighter than Hopkins if the same Brits conceed Calzaghe has an inferior record of achievements and a lesser place in history ?

i've never heard anyone big up Calzaghe and bring down Hopkins in the same sentence and for the record i believe they're both great fighters, but Hopkins is easily the greater of the two... and if we're talking aout their records, Hopkins has an amazing resume while Calzaghe has a respectable resume

Because Hopkins fought in America and Joe fought in Wales. If Joe fought in the states against the same fighters he has beaten his you think his achievements would be comparable to Hopkins achievements?

Aside from UK fans, who the hell labels Joe C as 'great' to Hopkins' 'good?'

Both are great fighters, whats your point? Sounds like your putting words in people mouths.

Because Hopkins fought in America and Joe fought in Wales.