The confusion when comparing Hopkins, Jones and Calzaghe

Jones was the most gifted. Hopkins owns the best legacy. Calzaghe was never defeated. Jones was the biggest star and spent the most time on top. Calzaghe retired undefeated on top. Hopkins is still on top. Jones beat Hop. Hop beat Jones. Zags beat both Hop and Jones but some say that Hop beat Zags. Ultimately who does history give the nod to? Anyone who says Hopkins beat Calzaghe just doesn't know what he's looking at. Calzaghe made an utter fool of Hopkins and beat him easily. The only other farce was the "split" decision, which was too ridiculous to take seriously.

Two were American. One was European.

roy jones has the best legacy, and is the best fighter of the three

I've always felt Roy Jones was the best but I find myself leaning towards Hopkins these days and think he might even overtake Jones if he does well on Saturday. Joe Calzaghe was a good fighter but he doesnt really enter the equation with these two. I know he holds decisions over both but if they were in their prime they would have probably finised him in the 1st when they each had him down. So when Hopkins wins it's cause he's good, but when someone beats him it's cause he's no longer in his prime? But how does that work if he's still beating people AFTER JC beat him? Tell me, who are the amazing fighters from his OWN weight class that he beat when he was in his prime that makes you think he would beat JC so easily?

I've always felt Roy Jones was the best but I find myself leaning towards Hopkins these days and think he might even overtake Jones if he does well on Saturday. Joe Calzaghe was a good fighter but he doesnt really enter the equation with these two. I know he holds decisions over both but if they were in their prime they would have probably finised him in the 1st when they each had him down. So when Hopkins wins it's cause he's good, but when someone beats him it's cause he's no longer in his prime? But how does that work if he's still beating people AFTER JC beat him? Tell me, who are the amazing fighters from his OWN weight class that he beat when he was in his prime that makes you think he would beat JC so easily?

I've always felt Roy Jones was the best but I find myself leaning towards Hopkins these days and think he might even overtake Jones if he does well on Saturday. Joe Calzaghe was a good fighter but he doesnt really enter the equation with these two. I know he holds decisions over both but if they were in their prime they would have probably finised him in the 1st when they each had him down.

Jones was the most gifted. Hopkins owns the best legacy. Calzaghe was never defeated. Jones was the biggest star and spent the most time on top. Calzaghe retired undefeated on top. Hopkins is still on top. Jones beat Hop. Hop beat Jones. Zags beat both Hop and Jones but some say that Hop beat Zags. Ultimately who does history give the nod to? First problem is you are comparing Joey Zagz to either..He does not belong with either of umm..The nod will be giving to B-Hop when it's all said and done(imo)...

Roy was the best fighter and has the best resume/legacy. Calzaghe should never be mentioned in the same breath as either Roy or B-Hop

If it's so well documented you won't have a problem giving us a source then, would you? Don't expect me to do your homework for you.

Also, it's well documented that he tried to get fights against both Jones and Hop years earlier in the States but neither would fight him. If it's so well documented you won't have a problem giving us a source then, would you?

Not just that he was born Welsh, but that he fought there too much as well. Last time I checked, the U.S. isn't some small country for local fighters, it covers half the continent. You wanna be an All-Time Great, it's your duty to go after the Great fighters in the U.S., not the other way around. The B-Level Americans like Lacy and Manfredo sure went to Wales alright. They had no choice if they wanted a payday. But that doesn't mean that the A-Level American guys have to follow suit, for a homegrown, protected WBO Title Holder, who fought mismatched mandatory's that Frank Warren paid for, to prop him up. It was on him to come here and enhance his legacy. And then there is his Boxing style. Fighting like a queer punching his way out of spiderwebs. The Yanks don't like that, and will booo their own if they're not aesthetically pleasing to watch. At the end, he probably made the right choice, because had he comes sooner, and fought more than twice, he'd probably would've retired with a 44-4 type record. If that was the case the Hopkins wouldn't have any fans and would be booed every fight cause he has the least aesthetically pleasing style I've ever seen. Joe may not have had power but at least he threw punches. Hopkins not only doesn't have power, but barely throws, constantly clinches and fakes injury every chance he gets. Watch the RJJ 2 fight and tell me he's aesthetically pleasing to watch. They shouldn't play music and keep the lights on to torture pow's, they should make them watch Hopkins fights a la clockwork orange. They'd get all the info they need in 1 day. Also, it's well documented that he tried to get fights against both Jones and Hop years earlier in the States but neither would fight him. Not saying they were scared, maybe there wasn't enough money in it or maybe it wasn't worth the risk, the point is he tried to get the fights stateside twice, so stop spreading the myth that he hid in Wales avoiding American fighters. And Lacy was supposed to be the next big thing when Joe destroyed him and that has nothing to do with where the fight took place.

HOF is a status, not a statistical fact. Stallone got into the Hall of Fame recently. We don't know how many could've been great, had Hopkins not beaten them, and took them out of equation. The only time we had multiple great fighters, within one division was when the wealth was spread around, so to speak. When Morales-Barrera were having trilogies at Featherweight. That creates two Hall of Fame fighters within the same division. And a lot of it is based on Aesthetics. They had three exciting fights, and that made them even more HOF worthy to the Old-timers who lust for blood and are usually in charge of who gets into the HOF and who doesn't. the "natural" middleweight he had beaten, where are they? We do know that HOFers rises again after a loss and shine fighting other fighters; and became great even w/o avenging that loss. BHOP were surely greater than them but they could have made their own name post BHOP. sometimes, it is really tru that a rivalry will even make a boxer bigger.. it's not a knock on Bhop that he had no other rival though..

Jones was the most gifted. Hopkins owns the best legacy. Calzaghe was never defeated. Jones was the biggest star and spent the most time on top. Calzaghe retired undefeated on top. Hopkins is still on top. Jones beat Hop. Hop beat Jones. Zags beat both Hop and Jones but some say that Hop beat Zags. Ultimately who does history give the nod to? Hopkins Jones II was one of the most disgraceful things i'v ever seen in a boxing ring. It's also what Hopkins looks like without HGH and PEDs, Pascal with.

i think theyre all great in ther own way roy jones is roy jones and if you dont know how great he was you shouldnt be posting on this board as much as people hate it calzaghe was a great fighter also and hopkins just doesnt stop turning pages in history you could really argue that any one is greater than the other imo if jones retired after the ruiz fight this wouldnt even be a serious question but what hs been done has been done but if hopkins somehow wins this fight sat (i dont think he will) i would seriously have to give him the nod in this argument and might crack my top 10 ATG fighters The only top 10 bernard should be in is dirtiest fighter of all time. It amazes me what short memories people have. His fight with Joe was one of the most shameful performances I've ever seen by a boxer. I'm surprised Joe was able to keep his cool with all the unsuccessful dirty tactics hopkins used. Constant holding, leading with his head, faking low blows, faking punches to the back of the head, throwing his own low blows...these are hopkins' legacy and you can see them all the JC fight along with many other of his fights. Agree about Roy though, he's easily the greatest of the three, he just stuck around too long. JC's main problem was that he was born Welsh and not Yank, otherwise he'd get a lot more credit and would've gotten the big fights a lot sooner.

If he made 160 all those years, then that means he must've been a Natural Middleweight, and 175 was too much at that time. Why keep fighting at a weight that you probably walk around at? It was his debut fight, he probably wasn't even experienced in the whole Dieting/controlling your weight for the weigh-in scale thing. And after a year off, figured that he is feeling faster and lighter on his feet at 160. If he was a natural 175 pounder, he would've outgrown Middleweight long time ago and be a full-fledged Heavyweight like Thomas Adamek by now. Weak criticism on your part. Nothing is sad about his career, he has had a great run at Middleweight at the end of the day, no matter what Revisionist History some Forum member may come up with. And if that wasn't enough, he is piling on to his resume by still winning at age 46. what he has done surely was phenomenal at his age. he maybe on some kind of $hit they are accusing some fighters are having..:lol1: seriously, he had a great reign at the middleweight division, i just found it very sad that it was not a great decade of middleweight champions. all are good champions but nobody was HOF worthy..

But you're not calling it like it is, that's the problem. He beat plenty of Natural Middleweights who were pretty good. None of em' were great, because he was the Greatest of em' all and the one defending a World Title Belt for the longest. While other Title holders were losing their belts, he kept holding on to his, until finally a deal was struck, and a Middleweight Tournament was made, between all the Belt-Holders. Which he won. If we're gonna play the (he got famous by beating Welterweights shtick), then Hagler got famous by beating Duran, Hearns and losing to a Welterweight in Leonard. Of course I don't hold that against Hagler or Hopkins. hagler's competition is much stiffer than Bhop.. i think you would agree with that.. it's just sad when you fought on your division for a decade fighting so-so competition and was outshadowed by other division. as i have said, he started at 175.. then stay at 160 till jones were nowhere to be found..

Debatable compared to other times but beside the point. He must have close to a dozen light heavyweight fights 2x champ. the comment still makes no sense. first fight at light heavyweight then goes down to middleweight after the debut loss.. get famous for beating the best welterweight of his era at middleweight.. beat jones when he is already on the ground.. i admire hopkin's talent but i'm just calling it what it is..

Calzaghe beat a shot version of Roy Jones. And should have lost the fight against an old version of Bernard Hopkins.

what do you mean Hopkins lost to guys his own size? that makes no sense. yeah he lost some fights but that happens when u fight all the best fighters out there dude. it has nothing to do with size. not only that but against all the solid comp he fought he only lost 1 clearly. weak era of middleweights.. :dance:

nobody compares them Jones was untouchable at his best, seen as one of the best ever Hopkins is good and still going strong, but lost to guys his own size fuck Joe Calzaghe pretty much this right here.